Was the real Jewish Garden of Eden located in Jerusalem?

[Ingledsva]

Don't assume that people do things for the worst possible reasons, because it turns your argument into sludge. Assuming people always act for the worst isn't evidence or even true skepticism. You don't know why the female goddesses were not included, full stop. You don't know why Eden is a myth, and you don't know why there is a story about Eden in the Bible.

But we do have a very good idea.

After patriarchy we have women become owned by men - little girls passed by the owner father - to the new owner husband - as brood-mares.

Women become treated like crap - and have all freedom curtailed - non-compliance met with new laws of the death sentence.

Anyone that tried to retain Goddess worship - was MURDERED.

*

 

[Brickjectivity]

But we do have a very good idea.
After patriarchy we have women become owned by men - little girls passed by the owner father - to the new owner husband - as brood-mares.
Women become treated like crap - and have all freedom curtailed - non-compliance met with new laws of the death sentence.
Anyone that tried to retain Goddess worship - was MURDERED.
*

I have never heard any hint of matriarchy in place in the Fertile Crescent. Most places in the world historically are patriarchies, mainly because men tend to default to misogyny when they have emotional problems, and men can desert a pregnant woman. So I tend to see civilization as something that easily goes into reverse, rather than something with a feminist default mode. Women died frequently in childbirth, and they were physically weak and needed for reproduction. They didn't live as long as men, usually. No doubt people questioned whether female education was as important as male education, because that seems to be what people do in backward societies including recently in western ones. Kings in Mesopatamia loved harems, and as indicated in the ancient laws we have found kings could demand sex with all of the virgins in their kingdoms. Some did, and marriage I think was an improvement over this, so rather than beginning as a step down from matriarchy, patriarchy seems like it was a step up from something worse. Doesn't it? I understand that in ancient times things were stacked against any sort of Matriarchy. No laws were required to dismantle matriarchy in the fertile crescent, because it just didn't exist in most places. Unless there is something I have missed.

So, the point is the garden of Eden was mythical.

 

[Ingledsva]

I have never heard any hint of matriarchy in place in the Fertile Crescent. Most places in the world historically are patriarchies, mainly because men tend to default to misogyny when they have emotional problems, and men can desert a pregnant woman. So I tend to see civilization as something that easily goes into reverse, rather than something with a feminist default mode. Women died frequently in childbirth, and they were physically weak and needed for reproduction. They didn't live as long as men, usually. No doubt people questioned whether female education was as important as male education, because that seems to be what people do in backward societies including recently in western ones. Kings in Mesopatamia loved harems, and as indicated in the ancient laws we have found kings could demand sex with all of the virgins in their kingdoms. Some did, and marriage I think was an improvement over this, so rather than beginning as a step down from matriarchy, patriarchy seems like it was a step up from something worse. Doesn't it? I understand that in ancient times things were stacked against any sort of Matriarchy. No laws were required to dismantle matriarchy in the fertile crescent, because it just didn't exist in most places. Unless there is something I have missed.

So, the point is the garden of Eden was mythical.

Of course the Garden of Eden is mythical.

Kings demanding deflowering rights is not matriarchy, - but patriarchy, as is sex slavery, such as harems, and sex concubines.

You forget that almost all of the early archaeology of Israel and the Middle East was done by MALES in the religions of Abraham - with preconceived ideas about Goddesses - which is why we have cases of anomalous material from digs they conducted, rotting, hidden in the basements of museums. If a Goddess figurine did not fit their Abrahamic ideas - they were left out, or if lucky, noted in a notebook before being discarded to the basement.

The Bible itself - tells us the Hebrew originally had Goddess worship. It also tells us the rest of their known world worshiped the Goddess.

We also now have thousands of Goddess figurines dug up in Israel.

So, very obviously they did have Goddesses, and matrifocal societies.

*

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, very obviously they did have Goddesses, and matrifocal societies.

How does matrifocal society follow from having goddess worship? But if it does, clearly the Sumerians were not matrifocal, nor the Egyptians. They had goddesses. The Babylonians had goddesses. The Greek had goddesses, and the Romans had goddesses. These all had goddesses but weren't matrifocal; so in what universe could the Hebrews have started out matrifocal?

 

[Ingledsva]

How does matrifocal society follow from having goddess worship? But if it does, clearly the Sumerians were not matrifocal, nor the Egyptians. They had goddesses. The Babylonians had goddesses. The Greek had goddesses, and the Romans had goddesses. These all had goddesses but weren't matrifocal; so in what universe could the Hebrews have started out matrifocal?

Ours!

We will never know, unless we find new sites, - as the patriarchal texts themselves tell us they destroyed temples, texts, statues, etc., of any Gods/Goddesses other then their own.

And the ancient archaeological sites have been disturbed, and raided by patriarchal religious men.

PS. The patriarchal Bible does not say the whole world worshiped Gods, though obviously we have later God and Goddess. It says the WHOLE WORLD worshiped the GODDESS.

*

 

[Brickjectivity]

We will never know, unless we find new sites, - as the patriarchal texts themselves tell us they destroyed temples, texts, statues, etc., of any Gods/Goddesses other then their own.

Ok, so maybe there was one or not.

And the ancient archaeological sites have been disturbed, and raided by patriarchal religious men.

I don't doubt it.

PS. The patriarchal Bible does not say the whole world worshiped Gods, though obviously we have later God and Goddess. It says the WHOLE WORLD worshiped the GODDESS.

True, but we now know what the whole world actually worshiped, and it wasn't just a goddess. We know what many kinds of cultures had, and we know of many completely independent patriarchal cultures. We know matrifocal cultures are rare. We also know feminism isn't automatic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Anyone that tried to retain Goddess worship - was MURDERED.

Wow. All caps! Must be a really important rant.

 

[Ingledsva]

Wow. All caps! Must be a really important rant.

Yep!

*

 

[Greatest I am]

Where did this tirade come from where you tell me what Jesus I follow?
You do not know what I believe. You do know know who I understand Jesus to be.
'My' Jesus is very different from the one taught by most denominations.
Nor do you have an accurate understanding what I feel and believe about personal responsibility.

This is a set of assumptions and generalizations that I am frankly too tired at the moment to even bother to finish reading.

If my assumption is wrong and you do not follow Jesus in the usual way, then good for you to have rejected the immoral vicarious redemption that the church has him doing.

Man never needed a savior in the first place.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I have never heard any hint of matriarchy in place in the Fertile Crescent. Most places in the world historically are patriarchies, mainly because men tend to default to misogyny when they have emotional problems, and men can desert a pregnant woman. So I tend to see civilization as something that easily goes into reverse, rather than something with a feminist default mode. Women died frequently in childbirth, and they were physically weak and needed for reproduction. They didn't live as long as men, usually. No doubt people questioned whether female education was as important as male education, because that seems to be what people do in backward societies including recently in western ones. Kings in Mesopatamia loved harems, and as indicated in the ancient laws we have found kings could demand sex with all of the virgins in their kingdoms. Some did, and marriage I think was an improvement over this, so rather than beginning as a step down from matriarchy, patriarchy seems like it was a step up from something worse. Doesn't it? I understand that in ancient times things were stacked against any sort of Matriarchy. No laws were required to dismantle matriarchy in the fertile crescent, because it just didn't exist in most places. Unless there is something I have missed.

So, the point is the garden of Eden was mythical.

Matriarchal Societies

Further. For 20,000 years before the male war Gods were created by man, the goddesses ruled.

The Bronze age gave men the power to kill each other en masse and only then did they start fortifying their city states.

If men wanted peace in our times, they would defer to women.

We men have proven that we are too stupid to find peace and should let women show us how it is done.

I think it is time we got rid of our War Gods and returned to Goddess worship.

Mind you, secular law is quickly killing off all the Gods as they are showing a much better set of laws and moral tenets than the vile homophobic and misogynous Gods that the mainstream religions have on offer .

Regards
DL

 

[Brickjectivity]

That seems to be an extremely positive spin on the paleolithic figurines found out there from 30,000 years ago, almost completely denying the nature and reality of misogyny. Maybe misogyny is simply to painful a truth to consider the possibility that these statues are not statues of a universal goddess but evidence of misogynistic tendencies. I urge you, as in golf, to play the ball where it lies. If you would build a fair and understanding (feminist) culture you cannot build it upon a misunderstanding of the nature of the people in it. You should stop presuming that all of the faults you see extend from mere misunderstandings about gods and goddesses. The figurines found in ruins are not a testament to anything but that males existed. That some of them had goddesses is clear but to presume all men are natural feminists is plainly ridiculous.

A book titled On the Sacred by Gordan Lynch says "The discovery of stylized female figurines, produced twenty thousand to thirty thousand years ago has been variously seen, for example, as evidence of a widespread goddess cult, an attempt at figurative art, an artifact used in ritual exchange, or Stone Age pornography." (not sure on what page)

Frank Herbert in his fictional work Dune seems to have alluded to the evil tendency in men (males) when he gave his savior figure the ability to go into 'The place where no woman can go.' This is a terrific little compressed gem. There are many ways to see this. Some people see it in the vicious warlike aspect and combustible tendencies of males, but it also has to do with how we see the world. If you would see things as a man, take every thing you know and every conversation you've ever had and take all of jazz and classical music, and convert it to honkey-tonk. Now ask yourself again what naked stone statues of women (not men) were really about 30,000 years ago.

 

[Greatest I am]

That seems to be an extremely positive spin on the paleolithic figurines found out there from 30,000 years ago, almost completely denying the nature and reality of misogyny. Maybe misogyny is simply to painful a truth to consider the possibility that these statues are not statues of a universal goddess but evidence of misogynistic tendencies. I urge you, as in golf, to play the ball where it lies. If you would build a fair and understanding (feminist) culture you cannot build it upon a misunderstanding of the nature of the people in it. You should stop presuming that all of the faults you see extend from mere misunderstandings about gods and goddesses. The figurines found in ruins are not a testament to anything but that males existed. That some of them had goddesses is clear but to presume all men are natural feminists is plainly ridiculous.

A book titled On the Sacred by Gordan Lynch says "The discovery of stylized female figurines, produced twenty thousand to thirty thousand years ago has been variously seen, for example, as evidence of a widespread goddess cult, an attempt at figurative art, an artifact used in ritual exchange, or Stone Age pornography." (not sure on what page)

Frank Herbert in his fictional work Dune seems to have alluded to the evil tendency in men (males) when he gave his savior figure the ability to go into 'The place where no woman can go.' This is a terrific little compressed gem. There are many ways to see this. Some people see it in the vicious warlike aspect and combustible tendencies of males, but it also has to do with how we see the world. If you would see things as a man, take every thing you know and every conversation you've ever had and take all of jazz and classical music, and convert it to honkey-tonk. Now ask yourself again what naked stone statues of women (not men) were really about 30,000 years ago.

If a male venerates himself, will he fight and perhaps die for his female?

If a male venerates his female, will he fight and perhaps die for her?

Answering those two questions will show you if we should be venerating a male or a female deity.

Regards
DL

 

[Brickjectivity]

If a male venerates himself, will he fight and perhaps die for his female?

If a male venerates his female, will he fight and perhaps die for her?

Answering those two questions will show you if we should be venerating a male or a female deity.

Sorry, but that seems like a whole new thread. If I were to create a deity it would not be very genuine. If I were to discover that there were a deity I might possibly ask for what reason thousands of generations of women were made to suffer and die for the sake of mere reproduction, and I'd have to wonder what sort of deity would do that to them and to wonder why it was done to them. I certainly wouldn't presume that women had been singled out for favoritism.

 

[Greatest I am]

Sorry, but that seems like a whole new thread. If I were to create a deity it would not be very genuine. If I were to discover that there were a deity I might possibly ask for what reason thousands of generations of women were made to suffer and die for the sake of mere reproduction, and I'd have to wonder what sort of deity would do that to them and to wonder why it was done to them. I certainly wouldn't presume that women had been singled out for favoritism.

The questions are quite simple and straight forward I think and do not need a special thread. Unless you want to start one.

Deity aside. Those question and how you answer them say more about you than anything else.

Do you at least support the law of the sea that says women and children to the lifeboats first?

Regards
DL

 

[Brickjectivity]

The questions are quite simple and straight forward I think and do not need a special thread. Unless you want to start one.

Deity aside. Those question and how you answer them say more about you than anything else.

Do you at least support the law of the sea that says women and children to the lifeboats first?

Regards
DL

Lets get back on topic. I feel like I should not become the topic and also that we should be moving back towards rather than away from the subject.

 

[Greatest I am]

Lets get back on topic. I feel like I should not become the topic and also that we should be moving back towards rather than away from the subject.

I was not going to push for an answer.
I know how hard it is to look within ones self for those harder answers and these days, both men and women are unsure of just what their roles are or should be.

Regards
DL

 

[Ingledsva]

That seems to be an extremely positive spin on the paleolithic figurines found out there from 30,000 years ago, almost completely denying the nature and reality of misogyny. Maybe misogyny is simply to painful a truth to consider the possibility that these statues are not statues of a universal goddess but evidence of misogynistic tendencies. I urge you, as in golf, to play the ball where it lies. If you would build a fair and understanding (feminist) culture you cannot build it upon a misunderstanding of the nature of the people in it. You should stop presuming that all of the faults you see extend from mere misunderstandings about gods and goddesses. The figurines found in ruins are not a testament to anything but that males existed. That some of them had goddesses is clear but to presume all men are natural feminists is plainly ridiculous.

A book titled On the Sacred by Gordan Lynch says "The discovery of stylized female figurines, produced twenty thousand to thirty thousand years ago has been variously seen, for example, as evidence of a widespread goddess cult, an attempt at figurative art, an artifact used in ritual exchange, or Stone Age pornography." (not sure on what page)

Frank Herbert in his fictional work Dune seems to have alluded to the evil tendency in men (males) when he gave his savior figure the ability to go into 'The place where no woman can go.' This is a terrific little compressed gem. There are many ways to see this. Some people see it in the vicious warlike aspect and combustible tendencies of males, but it also has to do with how we see the world. If you would see things as a man, take every thing you know and every conversation you've ever had and take all of jazz and classical music, and convert it to honkey-tonk. Now ask yourself again what naked stone statues of women (not men) were really about 30,000 years ago.

Isn't it interesting that men always say these things about female statues - must be ornamental, or sexual, - maybe a fertility goddess - secondary to male Gods.

Fact of the matter is that we have more then 100,000 Goddess figurines in Israel alone.

And when you go world wide - we have few male figurines - which are almost always called GODS - and all the vast rest are FEMALE.

You seriously think people took the time to turn hard rock into "just" female art figurines, with no ancient male figurines? - and these aren't Goddesses?

How do we know the Israel "figurines" are actually Goddesses? They all have the same style, hair, arms, etc., and many have been found still in their TEMPLES.

*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Isn't it interesting that men always say these things about female statues ...

Isn't it interesting how you peddle pathetic over-generalizations?

 

[Ingledsva]

Isn't it interesting how you peddle pathetic over-generalizations?

Isn't it interesting that your own Tanakh says the Hebrew originally worshiped a Goddess, and were better off under her?

Isn't it interesting that the ONE God Hebrew - murdered all whom wished to worship their original Goddess?

Isn't it interesting that your Tanakh - written by a Patriarchal religion - didn't say - the whole world worshipped a God - but instead states that, - THE WHOLE WORLD WORSHIPS THE GODDESS?

Isn't that interesting?

*

 

[Brickjectivity]

Isn't it interesting that men always say these things about female statues - must be ornamental, or sexual, - maybe a fertility goddess - secondary to male Gods.

Fact of the matter is that we have more then 100,000 Goddess figurines in Israel alone.

And when you go world wide - we have few male figurines - which are almost always called GODS - and all the vast rest are FEMALE.

You seriously think people took the time to turn hard rock into "just" female art figurines, with no ancient male figurines? - and these aren't Goddesses?

How do we know the Israel "figurines" are actually Goddesses? They all have the same style, hair, arms, etc., and many have been found still in their TEMPLES.

*

They have dug up 100,000 naked female figures carved from rock in an age when photography had not yet been invented. Who could possibly need so many statues of naked women? It is a conundrum. They may indeed be representations of goddesses, but it doesn't sound conclusive. It also doesn't satisfactorily prove the existence of a matriarchy.