"Cut it off, and SERVE ME!"

When God was a woman much was different, and some of it I find hard to understand. For instance, why would many female supreme gods - and many of them are even being called "Fertility goddesses" by modern scholars - want to be served by eunuchs??? Being supreme deities, whom everybody are supposed to bow down to, wouldn't they want to live "fast lives" with a lot of handsome and potent lovers??? Or put another way: Why don't they have male harems??? As far as I know only one (human) Chinese empress, namely WuZetian, did have a male harem, and although she may have been seen as divine, she doesn't come out as an early female goddess, like e.g. Tiamat, Cybele, Asherah, etc.. 

 

There are many of these goddesses, and to guarantee interest in modern times may be difficult. However, being worshipped in non-literary times they rely on good scholarship by modern scholars. In some ways the ancient female gods seem quite mysterious to me, first and foremost because these modern scholars often present them as luscious fertility goddesses. It's as if they can't fathom these age old divinities, except in their role as mothers.

 

The modern scholars keep talking about "sexual orgies", which doesn't fit another aspect of the goddesses: Many of the most important men in their lives are eunuchs, and their castration seems to be part of their allure for the goddesses. They may be in love with a handsome youth, but they are not lusting for every man in the vicinity, like e.g. the male god Zeus is out to seduce every woman who catches his eye. Also, the castrated youths are often their sons as well as their lovers which makes it even more confusing. 

 

 

Cybele's lover and consort, Attis, is often depicted as a young, handsome shepherd, but some see him as both her son and lover. He is supposed to have castrated himself so he was a eunuch who loved and served the supreme god, Cybele. 

 

 

It strikes me as very strange indeed that the consort or lover of the female god doesn't have what is needed to procreate. As I see religions as mirrors of (historically well-known) social settlements, I find it difficult to wrap my brain around something like that. 

 

 

https://www.popsci.com/science/lucy-ancient-human-walking-bipedal

 

https://www.greekmyths-greekmythology.com/myth-aphrodite-adonis/ 

 

https://www.the-tls.com/regular-features/mary-beard-a-dons-life/roman-roosters-and-religious-eunuchs-blog-post-mary-beard 

 

Wikipedia

 

Britannica

Unwanted Female

Catherine Parr (1512-1548) became Henry VIII's 6th and last wife. He was her 3rd husband, and although a faithful and in every aspect a good wife to him, she married him out of duty: The king bid, and she did. Actually, that seems to have been the case with all of her previous husbands, so who is to blame her, when she chose the fourth one out of love? She was infatuated with the brother of the king's third wife, Jane Seymour, the mother of King Edward VI, namely Thomas Seymour. Maybe only because she was the richest widow in England at that time, he also "was very much besotted by her". Anyway, they got married.

 

Thomas Seymour

He always struck me as a typical social climber who got his chance when his sister married the king and gave birth to his sole male heir, the new king. Marrying the king Henry's widow was a step upwards on the steep social ladder, but he can't have respected her very highly, as he started a more or less dangerous flirtation - or maybe more? - with the future Queen Elizabeth I when she moved in to live with them, 14 years old.

A very young Princess Elizabeth

What did Seymour feel for his wife, Catherine, was it love, was it some kind of veneration? To me it doesn't look like that which may be the cause of his not caring for the daughter, they had, and who cost her her life because of childbed fever: Mary Seymour, born August 30, 1548. As it is none of the parents seemed to care for this hapless infant who was to become a burden on those who did. Unfortunately - and strangely - her mother didn't leave her only child anything, only her husband who thus became very affluent. As to the child's father, the by now rich widower, then he was executed for treason and maybe even piracy. His large fortune was forfeited when he was convicted for treason, and he didn't seem to care for his daughter and thus didn't secure her social position before he was executed. Neither her maternal nor paternal uncles wanted to commit themselves to her upbringing, now that her father had left her penniless.

 

 MAYBE Mary Seymour, IF she reached adulthood 

The infant was reluctantly accepted as a foster child by the closest friend of her mother, Catherine Brandon, the widow of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. She may have felt it was her duty, but she didn't like it, and it was costly: Being the daughter of a former queen, little Mary had her own household staff, and was to be clothed according to her station, all of it very costly. Had she had some dynastic value it might have been all right, but no, she didn't as she didn't have any dowry. The poor girl was without purpose in a world that had put down marriage as the only female career possibility.

Presumably Mary Seymour as a child 

 

Mary's foster Mom, Catherine Brandon, was complaining about the situation all the time, as she was to pay for Mary, her food, toys, clothes, and her servants. When she took on the obligation of raising the girl she was promised a pension for her, but somehow that was "forgotten". Around 1550 the child even seems to "disappear" from history, but some think she did attain adulthood and even had children of her own. Unfortunately there are no proofs, so those who think she died an infant, aproximately two years old, are very likely right. As to her grave nobody knows where it might be: This child that cost her mother her life "went up into thin air". That's what happens to many or even most of us who are forgotten a generation or two after we die, but somehow it seems so sad that it happened to an orphaned child who was not appreciated by those who ought to have loved and cared for her.

 

 

https://www.hrp.org.uk/hampton-court-palace/history-and-stories/katherine-parr/ 

 

 

Britannica

 

 

Wikipedia

The Invention of "Paradise"

In Abrahamic Religions, the so-called Garden of Eden, The Garden of God or The Terrestrial Paradise is, for instance, described in Genesis 2-3 and Ezekiel 28 + 31 of The Bible. Also it's mentioned in Joel and Zechariah. This very beautiful and peaceful place, brimming with plants and animals, is ruled by a sort of "king", the so-called god, who is known by the name of Yahweh. The garden is guarded by one of the beings he is supposed to have made, namely the human Adam. 

The consort of this Adam is his wife, Eve, and her role in the Paradise-drama is to be the scapegoat of the expulsion of the couple from this wonderful place. Her subordinate position vis-a-vis Adam is not indicated by her name which literally means "living one", "source of life", "breath" and "mother of all living" which mirrors the power of the old female gods who were not only "consorts", but the supreme gods themselves. I take it that The Biblical Genesis-myths tell a sort of flip-flop-story of how the male sex gained power by demeaning the female and simply steal her power. The more powerful she was, the more she has to be demeaned - and demeaned she is for many hundred years. What was a myth is turned into a historical event, and Eve is the culprit who made Adam do what he was not allowed to do: Eat of the "forbidden fruit".

For those who see the Biblical myths and legends as history there is one question: Where is this Paradise situated geographically? In John Steinbeck's famous novel "East of Eden" it's primary position is supposed to be the very fertile Salinas of California, which has been dubbed "The Salad Bowl of the Nation". That's because he only makes use of  the myths of Paradise as a prop for his novel: The Bible knew nothing of the USA which wasn't its birthplace. No, as we know, with The Bible we are in The Middle East which is something quite different. 

It may be understandable that a place that is described in the so-called "holy book", The Bible, shouldn't be considered a mere figment of the imagination by the old folks, the early Church Fathers, etc., but we, modern people, have to accept it. Genesis said:

"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is it which goeth toward the east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates."

That might be from a map of some genuine, geographically situated place, but it's not. Much has happened since the early days, but not that much that it has eradicated The Garden of God from the planet.

Not only was Adam expelled from Eden, but he, and everybody after him, were tormented with the alluring visions of this wonderful garden without being able to find it. Had he and the coming generations followed the directions of the Genesis, they would have to find the exact place of the four ancient rivers Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon and Gihon, which I'm sure many have tried, but in vain. Still, even people of today talk of Paradise as a reality where "they shall meet their dear ones after death". 

Well, it's understandable, and if it's a consolation to them, then I suppose it's OK, except for one particular issue that makes it hard for me to accept religious ideologies: The Abrahamic religions are and have always been used for the subjection of women. When the Biblical myths are turned into "the truth" or "history" women would fare much better if they not only left these fairy tales, but those who gained power by presenting them as "the truth".

"Pedophilia": Poem by Else Cederborg

 

 

What ideas, what knowledge
and then so young, not even four
she is a genius, knows who loves her
understands that some don't
and then she knows how to win them over

See how they succumb to her charm
also see them get quite bewildered
after all, she is a mini-woman
full of tricks she steps into focus
watch them see her as they see women

Being cute, loving attention, she is victimized
how could she know to shun Uncle Dave?
That this one, adoring her, wasn't on her side
she was a flirt, loving the world in innocence
but the little fairy changed into an untrusting furie 

 

ALL rights reserved©Else Cederborg

"Bonded" By A Camera

(Dreamstime-picture)

Several years ago someone told me a gruesome, but not all that uncommon tale, of a young woman who let herself get involved in a cyber affair with a bad man on the Net. I suppose they sort of seduced each other, and for a while they were very close indeed. However, over time he somehow got the upper hand over her because nobody had told her of the dangers of webcams. 

 

Her net-lover, being no better than he was, threatened to post his takes of her on YouTube when she decided to leave him for a more substantial lover in her neighborhood. Suddenly, what had been some kind of love and a lot of fun games turned bad, and she grew more and more afraid that he would revenge himself on her for leaving him and thus stop their cozy times. This revenge was nothing but what might be called "shame terrorism", which is something that has kept women in line for a very long time. In this case there was no money, but still she was made to feel like a prostitute, who "sold her body". 

It goes without saying that no matter how these proofs, whether on video or in writing, of "shameful activities" have come about, they are not for public use unless that has been agreed upon from the start. As we know, some people like this kind of publicity and seek it, even invites strangers to follow their activities on more or less public sites, but that wasn't the case with these two. Well, sadly enough, the woman let herself get blackmailed and hooked up with her former lover from fear of exposure. That's too bad, I really find that stupid, but I guess she sort of talked herself into the belief that although he had treated her so badly, she still loved him. Something I doubt very much, as it's very, very strange to one of my way of thinking. As it is, I can't judge her, only pity her as she seems caught in real life because she was caught on tape ....

"Keep those clothes on, you indecent creature!!!"

A more than brave man who is going to experience the reality of some fears being valid warnings: Don't do what you're afraid of ....

 

To be seen as one is, shouldn't be a big deal, but nudity holds a special problem. It's quite amazing that we body parts we share with others of our gender are considered more "us" than e.g. our face. In other cultures both face and body are kept hidden within layers of clothes, not only for the sake of the one they belong to, but for the presumed honor of the family. We shouldn't let us be deceived by the social rules about nudity or baring some parts of our body: They are not "natural", but man made, and may shift in time.

 

 

I find many/most of these regulatives annoying and even weird. They may be called "good manners" and be used against those who don't follow them. However, although most of them look silly, they are useful for those in power. Actually, i suspect that these rules are remnants of the old relationship between master and slave/servant. Weird that they are still around.

 

From hiding to exhibit, what was hidden within the clothes, but only this action may land one in jail. 

 

Well, to receive unwanted "dick pics" isn't my favorite surprise, so to say, but it's not the end of the world, although there seem to be some men who think they may terrorize a chosen woman this way. In a way men are not allowed the same kind of nudity as women, who (in Western societies) may strut along almost nude, e.g. in mini-bikinis. As it is, men may be scantily dressed, but somehow, that isn't seen as "revealing" or non-homoerotic sexy, only weird or as part of some body builder-stuff. This guy would fit into a gay magazine or a body builder newsletter, and I don't think anybody would see it as indecent, although I bet some would find it very inviting. 

 

 

Martinus, A Danish Prophet

Martinus Thomsen was born on the 11th of August 1890 as the natural son of a woman who never disclosed the name of his father. He grew up with his foster parents on a small farm, and never had any education except for elementary school.

As he did not have the financial funds to become a school teacher, which was his wish as a young man, he became a farm hand, a dairy worker, a steward, an office clerk, a postman, etc., etc. as chance would have it. He himself felt that all of these rather different kinds of jobs gave him insight into various areas of life - and that that was what life was about to him.

In 1921, when he was 31 years old, he had a vision, or an enlightening experience on an undisclosed day in the month of March. Some would call it a dream and others may see it as a hallucination, but to him, it was his cosmic baptism. The event was as follows: He was sitting alone, focusing on God, when all of a sudden he had what he himself called "a divine calling". Somehow special information was disclosed to him from somewhere: He was told to use his intuition to explain the cosmic truth which not even Jesus had been able to disclose to his fellow men, namely for the lack of scientific knowledge of his times.

Everything which Martinus said or wrote - and that was a lot - he considered a follow-up to the Bible. However, his sayings or writings differed so much from the Christian scripts that in reality he has written something which may be called "a new Bible". As to his earth shaking experience in 1921 he always claimed that it had the bearings of a cosmic vision: "The vision of Christ that I experienced was not a dream or a hallucination, but a fully awake, day-conscious cosmic experience, and it contained a distinct declaration of a mission that I was to carry out." From that moment he really was on a mission, never to return to the path of the ordinary church teachings. To him, his mission was the obligation to show people God and to teach them about the divine mission of Jesus as he saw it.

He had - and still has - many followers, and today they connect in the Martinus Institute where they discuss his many works and his "Cosmology" which reads that the Universe is an all-embracing and living organism. We are here on this planet solely for the experience of life itself, which is supposed to develop and refine us over time when we have been born and reincarnated many, many times. In the end we shall have refined all senses and also have developed new instincts and new abilities. However, Martinus is not widely known outside of Scandinavia, even though he has published many books like e.g. his main work "The Book of Life" which is also called "The Third Testament".  

 

When he died he was put to rest in a rich mausoleum and this kind of burial outraged some people who thought that he had grown haughty and tried to put himself out to be more exalted than everyone else. Those people can't have been very familiar with his teachings, as his reason for this luxurious burial place was his belief that humans hold an obligation toward all the small animal organisms that live in our bodies and which should have time to find other lodgings, so to speak. To him, we are all part of the Cosmos as such, but we also constitute a Cosmos to other living creatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinus_Thomsen