Passion of a Goddess

[Halcyon]

http://www.passionofagoddess.com/

Warning, link contains art depicting semi-nude female forms.

The above link is the website of an artist who depicts Christ on the cross as a woman.

If you click the link you can read the artists reasons for doing so, and as long as you stop scrolling down at the end of the main text, where it says New Production, you won't see any controversial images.

What do people think of this art?

Is it blasphemy, plain and simple?

Is it artistic expression?

Or is it a celebration of the feminine aspect of deity?

Are you offended by the depictions of Christ as a female? Do you find them spiritually reflective?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I think its an interesting idea to depict Christ as a woman for artistic expression, and I looked to the site to get a sense of the feminine aspect of divinity, you know, to be 'spiritually reflective'. Unfortunately these photographs are awful and look more like soft-porn. If this is art its so badly done it undermines the stated intention of the artist. It ends up being bad taste and for that it does seem to me blasphemous.

I've heard Christ as a woman brought up in a discussion amongst local Catholics before. The issue was whether Christ could appear to someone as a woman, because that was in fact one person's experience in the group. It boiled down to whether his being a man was somehow important to the embodiment of Christ as the Way and the Life. Most people in that discussion thought it wasn't, so Christ could appear in feminine form to some people. In the case of a figure like the virgin Mary her being a woman was essential though. Just thought people might find that interesting.

 

[Halcyon]

I think its an interesting idea to depict Christ as a woman for artistic expression, and I looked to the site to get a sense of the feminine aspect of divinity, you know, to be 'spiritually reflective'. Unfortunately these photographs are awful and look more like soft-porn. If this is art its so badly done it undermines the stated intention of the artist. It ends up being bad taste and for that it does seem to me blasphemous.

Possibly, but i'd rather discuss the concept than the talent of the artist. :slap:

I've heard Christ as a woman brought up in a discussion amongst local Catholics before. The issue was whether Christ could appear to someone as a woman, because that was in fact one person's experience in the group. It boiled down to whether his being a man was somehow important to the embodiment of Christ as the Way and the Life. Most people in that discussion thought it wasn't, so Christ could appear in feminine form to some people. In the case of a figure like the virgin Mary her being a woman was essential though. Just thought people might find that interesting.

Yes, i was researching Montanism and Prisca's vision of Christ as female, which led me to this site.

 

[michel]

http://www.passionofagoddess.com/

Warning, link contains art depicting semi-nude female forms.

The above link is the website of an artist who depicts Christ on the cross as a woman.

If you click the link you can read the artists reasons for doing so, and as long as you stop scrolling down at the end of the main text, where it says New Production, you won't see any controversial images.?

What do people think of this art?

Interesting, and thought provoking.

Is it blasphemy, plain and simple?

I don't see it as being Blasphemy.

Is it artistic expression?

Very much so; the artistic expression of the feminine part of jesu's character

Or is it a celebration of the feminine aspect of deity?

That's the way I see it

Are you offended by the depictions of Christ as a female? Do you find them spiritually reflective?

It is thought provoking...........however, I would question one point made by the author

Although, the question is raised why is always these artefacts male? In a few cases Jesus portraitures as a female this then raises negative consequences from the conservative parts of the church. The idea that God can only be a man is an idea created in a society with male dominance. The owner of this site would like to develop the idea that giving God a sex is not honest. These believer of the idea that God can only be represented as a man, disregard the female half of the worlds population. And also its in his belief that a woman has greater ability to give love than a man. Christ represents the great love.

The conclusion, to my mind, is flawed; not out of dishonesty, or blasphemy, but I do believe it is wrong.

First the Author makes a case for Jesus being female; Jesus was a human, just like any of us, and therefore had a body. All scriptures point to him being 'a man'.

The point about God's 'sexuality' is totally different. I agree, if fact, that the idea of giving God a 'gender' is a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

The other point I would like to make is that Jesus would not have had to be feminine to show 'Great Love'.

 

[fantome profane]

I don’t think the artist is trying to say that the historical Jesus was literally a woman. But perhaps to get us to ask certain “what if” questions.

How would we feel if this story was about a woman being killed in this way? Would it make any difference? Would you feel more compassion for her because she is female? Or would her sacrifice be somehow less meaningful? How would the Roman guards have treated her, differently than him?

Would a woman have been taken seriously back then? Would she be taken seriously now? Would you take her seriously?


I have always felt that the concept of the divine feminine is tragically missing in much of our culture, and in religion in general. But I do not believe that this can be solved by such a simplistic substitution. I think the divine feminine can present itself to us in other ways, better ways.

The story of “God’s” son who sacrifices himself for humanity is one that is well known and has been told countless times throughout human history. Perhaps the story of “God’s” daughter should be different. Perhaps we need to be told that “God’s” love need not be expressed only through pain and suffering, but also through joy and pleasure. And perhaps she can help tell that story if we just get her of that stupid cross.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

The website is down.

 

[Sunstone]

It's an interesting concept and one that I see as legitimate, given that the Christian deity is said to have no real gender.

 

[Random]

The website is down, but I have seen pictures of the Female Messiah before elsewhere.

It depends on whether you accept the involvement of the Goddess as a salvific figure or not. I do, but the male intellect scoffs at the idea.

I'm certainly not offended by the image of a crucified woman, but the original concept was always that man's Suffering was caused by his own inherent (sinful) nature, and that only a male could redeem him.

Which is rubbish, but facts are facts: women do not make for emotive Saviours because a saviour is usually the last, least thing a woman wants to be. Women are wordly creatures in general, their naked bodies are symbolic of primordial truth, yes, but they themselves are not interested in salvation for everyone in general, only at best themselves and their loved ones. Which leaves the rest of the human race in dire straits.

It is more honest to have a male up there on the cross: the sign-value of the Cross and its meanings are best attested to in terms of that gender which is most affected by the issues therein. That is, men, the male.

Women don't care so long as the life-now-lived is comfortable and pleasurable. But a man is often affected by more existential problems, and needs to tend to matters of the Soul more often.

I hope the link comes back up, though, interested to see the pics.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Which is rubbish, but facts are facts: women do not make for emotive Saviours because a saviour is usually the last, least thing a woman wants to be. Women are wordly creatures in general, their naked bodies are symbolic of primordial truth, yes, but they themselves are not interested in salvation for everyone in general, only at best themselves and their loved ones. Which leaves the rest of the human race in dire straits.

I found this odd. If we're talking masculine and feminine divine archetypes here then the feminine is usually associated with the collective, while the masculine the individual. To me it sounds like you switched things round. Also, rather than whether or not the masculine or feminine has a greater interest in salvation I'd say it was more a case of how this is sought rather than if it is sought.

Women don't care so long as the life-now-lived is comfortable and pleasurable. But a man is often affected by more existential problems, and needs to tend to matters of the Soul more often.

I think the impression you give diminishes the feminine terribly. While its true that men are more inclined towards abstract existential conflicts, women are more inclined towards tangible humanitarian conflicts. The Soul informs both aspects of the struggle for salvation, no?

 

[Booko]

Women don't care so long as the life-now-lived is comfortable and pleasurable. But a man is often affected by more existential problems, and needs to tend to matters of the Soul more often.

Yes, well, you have some very interesting ideas about women.

 

[Random]

Yes, well, you have some very interesting ideas about women.

I have nothing against women at all, but I do believe there are different degrees of contentedness between the sexes.

A woman would more likely settle for a mundane (but happy) earthly existence than an exciting (but risky) abstract one, that's all.

Men are driven to explore other realms of existence, women are more here-and-now kind of approach.

I find this is an easily observable fact just by watching/listening to them (women), noting their behaviours, their preferences (choices) etc.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Halcyon]

I have nothing against women at all, but I do believe there are different degrees of contentedness between the sexes.

A woman would more likely settle for a mundane (but happy) earthly existence than an exciting (but risky) abstract one, that's all.

Men are driven to explore other realms of existence, women are more here-and-now kind of approach.

I find this is an easily observable fact just by watching/listening to them (women), noting their behaviours, their preferences (choices) etc.

Wouldn't you agree?

I wouldn't. Men can be just as vain, materialistic and 'mundane' as women, its just that in our society, these attributes are projected onto women far more than they are onto men.

Maybe our culture is shaping our young women, making them more materialistic and less spiritual, but i don't think it is in woman's nature to be so.

 

[fantome profane]

I have nothing against women at all, but I do believe there are different degrees of contentedness between the sexes.

A woman would more likely settle for a mundane (but happy) earthly existence than an exciting (but risky) abstract one, that's all.

Men are driven to explore other realms of existence, women are more here-and-now kind of approach.

I find this is an easily observable fact just by watching/listening to them (women), noting their behaviours, their preferences (choices) etc.

Wouldn't you agree?

I wonder if it might just be that some men suffer from the delusion that “earthy existence” and “spiritual existence” are separate things.

 

[Random]

I wonder if it might just be that some men suffer from the delusion that “earthy existence” and “spiritual existence” are separate things.

I didn't seperate the two at all. Human beings are fundamentally spiritual beings, men and women alike. However, every major religious/philosophical figure since recorded history began has been male, and although there are many reasons for that (some of them unfair to women, denying their undoubted role in our spiritual development) it is foolish to imagine that females are in general interested in the kind of wild, speculative abstractions toward which men sometimes direct their intelligences in the search for truth.

I do not suffer any delusions. The thread is about the imagery of the female messiah, perhaps you would like to comment on that.

 

[ayani]

i rather like it. there's always been something kind of feminized about classic depictions of Christ on the cross- a narrow waste, a curve to the body, a person stripped of distinguishing garments.

after all, Christ talked freely with women of all stripes while on earth and preached to women along side of men. imagery that looks at Christ as a woman is, to me, part of a cultural narrative about those very radical things Christ did and preached- not blasphemy.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

The website is down, but I have seen pictures of the Female Messiah before elsewhere.

It depends on whether you accept the involvement of the Goddess as a salvific figure or not. I do, but the male intellect scoffs at the idea.

I'm certainly not offended by the image of a crucified woman, but the original concept was always that man's Suffering was caused by his own inherent (sinful) nature, and that only a male could redeem him.

Which is rubbish, but facts are facts: women do not make for emotive Saviours because a saviour is usually the last, least thing a woman wants to be. Women are wordly creatures in general, their naked bodies are symbolic of primordial truth, yes, but they themselves are not interested in salvation for everyone in general, only at best themselves and their loved ones. Which leaves the rest of the human race in dire straits.

It is more honest to have a male up there on the cross: the sign-value of the Cross and its meanings are best attested to in terms of that gender which is most affected by the issues therein. That is, men, the male.

Women don't care so long as the life-now-lived is comfortable and pleasurable. But a man is often affected by more existential problems, and needs to tend to matters of the Soul more often.

I hope the link comes back up, though, interested to see the pics.

My Goddess, I hope you don't really mean that.

 

[fantome profane]

I didn't seperate the two at all. Human beings are fundamentally spiritual beings, men and women alike. However, every major religious/philosophical figure since recorded history began has been male, and although there are many reasons for that (some of them unfair to women, denying their undoubted role in our spiritual development) it is foolish to imagine that females are in general interested in the kind of wild, speculative abstractions toward which men sometimes direct their intelligences in the search for truth.

I do not suffer any delusions. The thread is about the imagery of the female messiah, perhaps you would like to comment on that.

If my comment seemed to be going off on a tangent, it was your tangent. I was addressing the point you brought up. It was not an accusation against you. I was simply proposing a possible theory as to why some men sometimes direct their intelligences into wild speculative abstractions.

And I did comment on the imagery of the female messiah on the first page (post 13)

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

First of all, I think the art is beautiful and not the least bit blasphemous. But then again, I am by no means a fundamentalist Christian.

This all reminds me of discussions I have heard elsewhere that the concept of a malevolent God did not always exist, millennia ago when the divine took the onset of the feminine, and that it was a shift toward belief in a male God--particularly in the Abrahamic religions--that saw violence creep in. How true this is, I do not know, but the mere thought intrigues me.

 

[bigvindaloo]

http://www.passionofagoddess.com/

Warning, link contains art depicting semi-nude female forms.

The above link is the website of an artist who depicts Christ on the cross as a woman.

If you click the link you can read the artists reasons for doing so, and as long as you stop scrolling down at the end of the main text, where it says New Production, you won't see any controversial images.

What do people think of this art?

Is it blasphemy, plain and simple?

Is it artistic expression?

Or is it a celebration of the feminine aspect of deity?

Are you offended by the depictions of Christ as a female? Do you find them spiritually reflective?

I would say the artist's intention is to make others reflect on the feminine aspect of deity. I disagree that there is no difference between the male and female aspect however. To view Jesus in a gender neutral way is more weird than a female depiction of him/her. This corresponds to the fictional individual of liberal thought, which is a legal fiction at that. Interestingly we could depict Jesus as a corporation nailed to the cross under a neutral definition of deity. I view the entire Christian message as relational, with different male and female aspects that are not opposites yet differentiated by gender nonetheless.

 

[David40]

www dot passionofagoddess dot com

...

What do people think of this art?

If you actually subscribe to the site, you will find that it contains a number of videos. Some appear to be purely artistic in nature but at least one shows a young woman who has clearly been actually crucified--nailed to a cross through her hands and feet. It does not merely seem acted to me--as others have noted, this production does not seem high budget enough to fake anything. The woman is clearly in great agony--it is clear that the makers of the video put the actress through the actual agony of crucifixion in order to make it realistic. I have heard of this being done--people choosing to go through actual crucifixion--by people who want to experience some of what Christ experienced. However, I have never seen a video of it before. Her muscles are taut as she pushes up on her thighs and gasps for breath.

Is it blasphemy, plain and simple?

It is very hard to answer because this is by far the most realistic depiction of an actual crucifixion that I have ever seen in video whether with a male or female person being crucified. The Passion of the Christ, for example, appears to be extremely realistic in terms of the scourging but it is not especially realistic when Christ is on the Cross. Mostly it just shows Christ hanging there, as does the Last Temptation of Christ. This video, however, shows the young woman truly struggling for breath, and having to push down with her thighs on the nails, with all her strength and with all the agony it causes, simply in order to breathe. That is what I have previously read that crucifixion is actually like--you don't just hang there--but I have never seen it shown so realistically, so it is hard to compare or know how I'd react. I've never seen a male Christ being crucified in so realistic a fashion.

Is it artistic expression?

Yes, definitely. It is a very courageous work of art.

Or is it a celebration of the feminine aspect of deity?

Well, according to Christian theology (which I don't necessarily accept literally) Christ died for all our sins through suffering on the Cross. He died for everyone, male and female. He took our place, but it therefore seems to me that by physically re-enacting some of Christ's suffering we can (a little) better understand what Christ did. The woman is not pretending to be Christ but rather is going through some of Christ's suffering in an effort to better understand what Christ went through. If Christ suffered for everyone on the Cross, then substituting a woman for Christ becomes a depiction of what we would endure (but for all Eternity in our case) had Christ not made his sacrifice.

Again, I don't literally accept all of Christian theology so I don't necessarily personally believe what I wrote in the previous paragraph, but I think that is how this would be interpreted in a Christian sense.

Are you offended by the depictions of Christ as a female? Do you find them spiritually reflective?

I personally don't find it at all offensive but then again I don't accept Christian theology literally. I do believe that the crucifixion and resurrection happened but I think a great deal of theology has been developed around it which is the construction of humans, not Gods or Goddesses. I see nothing whatsoever about the act of the crucifixion and resurrection that particularly required a male body. Christ did happen to be male in human form, but God probably made that choice because it would be easier for a male to be accepted as a leader in that particular culture (and probably ours today as well if truth be told).

However I am quite confident that many will find these depictions quite offensive. There seems to be a certain branch of Christianity that has built up a certain image of Christ, partly from the Bible but also based largely on their own views. If you challenge that view, even if you don't challenge Scripture, they tend to take offense.

There is nothing particularly male or female about Christ's suffering on the Cross. The physical body was dying by that point so it doesn't seem all that important whether it was male or female. I do find this woman's willingness to go through the actual agony of crucifixion (not to the point of death, of course) on the video to show great courage and love. Given that I have never seen a male actor do that, I find it to be a demonstration of greater female love--but that is primarily a human observation. Christ's love is supposed to be greater than human love, male or female.