What Became of God The Mother?
Conflicting Images of God in Early ChristianityElaine H.Pagels.
"Christianity, of course, added the trinitarian terms to the Jewish description of God. And yet of the three divine Persons, two-the Father and Son-are described in masculine terms, and the third-the Spirit-suggests the sexlessness of the Greek neuter term pneuma. This is not merely a subjective impression. Whoever investigates the early development of Christianity-the field called patristics, that is, study of the fathers of the church-may not be surprised by the passage that concludes the recently discovered, secret Gospel of Thomas: Simon Peter said to them [the disciples], `Let Mary be excluded from among us, for she is a woman, and not worthy of Life.' Jesus said, `Behold I will take Mary, and make her a male, so that she may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For I tell you truly, that every female who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.'(3) Strange as it sounds, this only states explicitly what religious rhetoric often assumes: that the men form the legitimate body of the community, while women will be allowed to participate only insofar as their own identity is denied and assimilated to that of the men.
Further exploration of the texts which include this Gospel-written on papyrus, hidden in large clay jars nearly 1,600 years ago-has identified them as Jewish and Christian gnostic works which were attacked and condemned as heretical as early as A.D. 100-150. What distinguishes these heterodox texts from those that are called orthodox is at least partially clear: they abound in feminine symbolism that is applied, in particular, to God. Although one might expect, then, that they would recall the archaic pagan traditions of The Mother Goddess, their language is to the contrary specifically Christian, unmistakably related to a Jewish heritage. Thus we can see that certain gnostic Christians diverged even more radically from the Jewish tradition than the early Christians who described God as the three Persons or the Trinity. For, instead of a monistic and masculine God, certain of these texts describe God as a dyadic being, who consists of both masculine and feminine elements. One such group of texts, for example, claims to have received a secret tradition from Jesus through James, and significantly, through Mary Magdalene.(4) Members of this group offer prayer to both the divine Father and Mother: From Thee, Father, and through Thee, Mother, the two immortal names, Parents of the divine being, and thou, dweller in heaven, mankind of the mighty name.(5) Other texts indicate that their authors had pondered the nature of the beings to whom a single, masculine God proposed, Let us make mankind in our image, after our likeness (Gen. 1:26). Since the Genesis account goes on to say that mankind was created male and female (1:27), some concluded, apparently, that the God in whose image we are created likewise must be both masculine and feminine-both Father and Mother.
The characterization of the divine Mother in these sources is not simple since the texts themselves are extraordinarily diverse. Nevertheless, three primary characterizations merge. First, a certain poet and teacher, Valentinus, begins with the premise that God is essentially indescribable. And yet he suggests that the divine can be imagined as a Dyad consisting of two elements: one he calls the Ineffable, the Source, the Primal Father; the other, the Silence, the Mother of all things.(6) Although we might question Valentinus's reasoning that Silence is the appropriate complement of what is Ineffable, his equation of the former with the feminine and the latter with the masculine may be traced to the grammatical gender of the Greek words. Followers of Valentinus invoke this feminine power, whom they also call Grace (in Greek, the feminine term charis), in their own private celebration of the Christian eucharist: they call her divine, eternal Grace, She who is before all things.(7) At other times they pray to her for protection as The Mother, Thou enthroned with God, eternal, mystical Silence.(8) Marcus, a disciple of Valentinus, contends that when Moses began his account of creation, he mentioned The Mother of all things at the very beginning, when he said, `In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,' (9) for the word beginning (in Greek, the feminine arche) refers to the divine Mother, the source of the cosmic elements. When they describe God in this way, different gnostic writers have different interpretations. Some maintain that the divine is to be considered masculo-feminine-the great male-female power. Others insist that the terms are meant only as metaphors-for, in reality, the divine is neither masculine nor feminine. A third group suggests that one can describe the Source of all things in either masculine or feminine terms, depending on which aspect one intends to stress.(10) Proponents of these diverse views agree, however, that the divine is to be understood as consisting of a harmonious, dynamic relationship of opposites-a concept that may be akin to the eastern view of yin and yang but remains antithetical to orthodox Judaism and Christianity.
A second characterization of the divine Mother describes her as Holy Spirit. One source, the Secret Book of John, for example, relates how John, the brother of James, went out after the crucifixion with great grief, and had a mystical vision of the Trinity: As I was grieving . . . the heavens were opened, and the whole creation shone with an unearthly light, and the universe was shaken. I was afraid . . . and behold . . . a unity in three forms appeared to me, and I marvelled: how can a unity have three forms? To John's question, the vision answers: It said to me, `John, John, why do you doubt, or why do you fear? . . . I am the One who is with you always: I am the Father; I am The Mother; I am the Son.'(11) John's interpretation of the Trinity-as Father, Mother, and Son-may not at first seem shocking but is perhaps the more natural and spontaneous interpretation. Where the Greek terminology for the Trinity, which includes the neuter term for the spirit (pneuma), virtually requires that the third Person of the Trinity be asexual, the author of the Secret Book looks to the Hebrew term for spirit, ruah-a feminine word. He thus concludes, logically enough, that the feminine Person conjoined with Father and Son must be The Mother! Indeed, the text goes on to describe the Spirit as Mother: the image of the invisible virginal perfect spirit.... She became The Mother of the all, for she existed before them all, The Mother-father [matropater].(12) This same author, therefore, alters Genesis 1:2 (the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep) to say, The Mother then was moved.(13) The secret Gospel to the Hebrews likewise has Jesus speak of my Mother, the Spirit.(14) And in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus contrasts his earthly parents, Mary and Joseph, with his divine Father-the Father of Truth-and his divine Mother, the Holy Spirit. The author interprets a puzzling saying of Jesus in the New Testament (whoever does not hate his father and mother is not worthy of me) by adding: Whoever does not love his father and his mother in my way cannot be my disciple; for my [earthly] mother gave me death but my true Mother gave me the Life.(15) Another secret gnostic gospel, the Gospel of Phillip, declares that whoever becomes a Christian gains both a father and a mother.(16) The author refers explicitly to the feminine Hebrew term to describe the Spirit as Mother of many.(17)
If these sources suggest that the Spirit constitutes the maternal element of the Trinity, the Gospel of Phillip makes an equally radical suggestion concerning the doctrine that later developed as the virgin birth. Here again the Spirit is praised as both Mother and Virgin, the counterpart-and consort-of the Heavenly Father: If I may utter a mystery, the Father of the all united with the Virgin who came down (18)-that is, with the Holy Spirit. Yet because this process is to be understood symbolically, and not literally, the Spirit remains a virgin! The author explains that for this reason, Christ was `born of a virgin'-that is, of the Spirit, his divine Mother. But the author ridicules those literal-minded Christians who mistakenly refer the virgin birth to Mary, Jesus' earthly mother, as if she conceived apart from Joseph: Such persons do not know what they are saying; for when did a female ever impregnate a female?(19) Instead, he argues, virgin birth refers to the mysterious union of the two divine powers, the Father of the All with the Holy Spirit.
Besides the eternal, mystical Silence, and besides the Holy Spirit, certain gnostics suggest a third characterization of the divine Mother as Wisdom. Here again the Greek feminine term for wisdom, sophia, like the term for spirit, ruah, translates a Hebrew feminine term, hokhmah. Early interpreters had pondered the meaning of certain biblical passages, for example, Proverbs: God made the world in Wisdom. And they wondered if Wisdom could be the feminine power in which God's creation is conceived? In such passages, at any rate, Wisdom bears two connotations: first, she bestows the Spirit that makes mankind wise; second, she is a creative power. One gnostic source calls her the first universal creator;(20) another says that God the Father was speaking to her when he proposed to make mankind in our image.(21) The Great Announcement, a mystical writing, explains the Genesis account in the following terms: One Power that is above and below, self-generating, self-discovering, its own mother; its own father; its own sister; its own son: Father, Mother, unity, Root of all things.(22) The same author explains the mystical meaning of the Garden of Eden as a symbol of the womb: Scripture teaches us that this is what is meant when Isaiah says, `I am he that formed thee in thy mother's womb' [Isaiah 44:2]. The Garden of Eden, then, is Moses' symbolic term for the womb, and Eden the placenta, and the river which comes out of Eden the navel, which nourishes the fetus.(23) This teacher claims that the Exodus, consequently, symbolizes the exodus from the womb, and the crossing of the Red Sea, they say, refers to the blood. Evidence for this view, he adds, comes directly from the cry of the newborn, a spontaneous cry of praise for the glory of the primal being, in which all the powers above are in harmonious embrace.(24)
The introduction of such symbolism in gnostic texts clearly bears implications for the understanding of human nature. The Great Announcement, for example, having described the Source as a masculo- feminine being, a bisexual Power, goes on to say that what came into being from that Power, that is, humanity, being one, is found to be two: a male-female being that bears the female within it.(25) This refers to the story of Eve's birth out of Adam's side (so that Adam, being one, is discovered to be two, an androgyne who bears the female within him). Yet this reference to the creation story of Genesis 2-an account which inverts the biological birth process, and so effectively denies the creative function of the female-proves to be unusual in gnostic sources. More often, such sources refer instead to the first creation account in Genesis 1:26-27. (And God said, let us make mankind in Our image, after Our image and likeness . . . in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them). Rabbis in Talmudic times knew a Greek version of the passage, one that suggested to Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman that when the Holy One . . . first created mankind, he created him with two faces, two sets of genitals, four arms, and legs, back to back: Then he split Adam in two, and made two backs, one on each side.(26) Some Jewish teachers (perhaps influenced by the story in Plato's Symposium) had suggested that Genesis 1:26-27 narrates an androgynous creation-an idea that gnostics adopted and developed. Marcus (whose prayer to the Mother is given above) not only concludes from this account that God is dyadic (Let us make mankind) but also that mankind, which was formed according to the image and likeness of God [Father and Mother] was masculo-feminine.(27) And his contemporary, Theodotus, explains: the saying that Adam was created `male and female' means that the male and female elements together constitute the finest production of The Mother, Wisdom.(28) We can see, then, that the gnostic sources which describe God in both masculine and feminine terms often give a similar description of human nature as a dyadic entity, consisting of two equal male and female components.
All the texts cited above-secret gospels, revelations, mystical teachings-are among those rejected from the select list of twenty-six that comprise the New Testament collection As these and other writings were sorted and judged by various Christian communities, every one of these texts which gnostic groups revered and shared was rejected from the canonical collection as heterodox by those who called themselves orthodox (literally, straight-thinking) Christians. By the time this process was concluded, probably as late as the year A.D. 200, virtually all the feminine imagery for God (along with any suggestion of an androgynous human creation) had disappeared from orthodox Christian tradition.
What is the reason for this wholesale rejection ? The gnostics themselves asked this question of their orthodox attackers and pondered it among themselves. Some concluded that the God of Israel himself initiated the polemics against gnostic teaching which his followers carried out in his name. They argued that he was a derivative, merely instrumental power, whom the divine Mother had created to administer the universe, but who remained ignorant of the power of Wisdom, his own Mother: They say that the creator believed that he created everything by himself, but that, in reality, he had made them because his Mother, Wisdom, infused him with energy, and had given him her ideas. But he was unaware that the ideas he used came from her: he was even ignorant of his own Mother.(29) Followers of Valentinus suggested that The Mother herself encouraged the God of Israel to think that he was acting autonomously in creating the world; but, as one teacher adds, It was because he was foolish and ignorant of his Mother that he said, `I am God; there is none beside me.' (30) Others attribute to him the more sinister motive of jealousy, among them the Secret Book of John: He said, `I am a jealous God, and you shall have no other God before me,' already indicating that another god does exist. For if there were no other god, of whom would he be jealous? Then The Mother began to be distressed.(31) A third gnostic teacher describes the Lord's shock, terror, and anxiety when he discovered that he was not the God of the universe. Gradually his shock and fear gave way to wonder, and finally he came to welcome the teaching of Wisdom. The gnostic teacher concluded: This is the meaning of the saying, `The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.' (32)
All of these are, of course, mythical explanations. To look for the actual, historical reasons why these gnostic writings were suppressed is an extremely difficult proposition, for it raises the much larger question of how (i.e., by what means and what criteria) certain ideas, including those expressed in the texts cited above, came to be classified as heretical and others as orthodox by the beginning of the third century. Although the research is still in its early stages, and this question is far from being solved, we may find one clue if we ask whether these secret groups derived any practical, social consequences from their conception of God-and of mankind-that included the feminine element? Here again the answer is yes and can be found in the orthodox texts themselves. Irenaeus, an orthodox bishop, for example, notes with dismay that women in particular are attracted to heretical groups-especially to Marcus's circle, in which prayers are offered to The Mother in her aspects as Silence, Grace, and Wisdom; women priests serve the eucharist together with men; and women also speak as prophets, uttering to the whole community what the Spirit reveals to them.(33) Professing himself to be at a loss to understand the attraction that Marcus's group holds, he offers only one explanation: that Marcus himself is a diabolically successful seducer, a magician who compounds special aphrodisiacs to deceive, victimize, and defile these many foolish women! Whether his accusation has any factual basis is difficult, probably impossible, to ascertain. Nevertheless, the historian notes that accusations of sexual license are a stock-in-trade of polemical arguments.(34) The bishop refuses to admit the possibility that the group might attract Christians-especially women-for sound and comprehensible reasons. While expressing his own moral outrage, Tertullian, another father of the church, reveals his fundamental desire to keep women out of religion: These heretical women-how audacious they are! They have no modesty: they are bold enough to teach, to engage in argument, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures, and, it may be, even to baptize!(35) Tertullian directs yet another attack against that viper-a woman teacher who led a congregation in North Africa.(36) Marcion had, in fact, scandalized his orthodox contemporaries by appointing women on an equal basis with men as priests and bishops among his congregations.(37) The teacher Marcillina also traveled to Rome to represent the Carpocratian group, an esoteric circle that claimed to have received secret teaching from Mary, Salome, and Martha.(38) And among the Montanists, a radical prophetic circle, the prophet Philumene was reputed to have hired a male secretary to transcribe her inspired oracles.(39)
Other secret texts, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Wisdom of Faith, suggest that the activity of such women leaders challenged and therefore was challenged by the orthodox communities who regarded Peter as their spokesman. The Gospel of Mary relates that Mary tried to encourage the disciples after the crucifixion and to tell them what the Lord had told her privately. Peter, furious at the suggestion, asks, Did he then talk secretly with a woman, instead of to us? Are we to go and learn from her now? Did he love her more than us? Distressed at his rage, Mary then asks Peter: What do you think? Do you think I made this up in my heart? Do you think I am lying about the Lord? Levi breaks in at this point to mediate the dispute: Peter, you are always irascible. You object to the woman as our enemies do. Surely the Lord knew her very well, and indeed, he loved her more than us. Then he and the others invite Mary to teach them what she knows.(40) Another argument between Peter and Mary occurs in Wisdom of Faith. Peter complains that Mary is dominating the conversation, even to the point of displacing the rightful priority of Peter himself and his brethren; he urges Jesus to silence her-and is quickly rebuked. Later, however, Mary admits to Jesus that she hardly dares to speak freely with him, because Peter makes me hesitate: I am afraid of him, because he hates the female race. Jesus replies that whoever receives inspiration from the Spirit is divinely ordained to speak, whether man or woman.(41)
As these texts suggest, then, women were considered equal to men, they were revered as prophets, and they acted as teachers, traveling evangelists, healers, priests, and even bishops. In some of these groups, they played leading roles and were excluded from them in the orthodox churches, at least by A.D. 150-200. Is it possible, then, that the recognition of the feminine element in God and the recognition of mankind as a male and female entity bore within it the explosive social possibility of women acting on an equal basis with men in positions of authority and leadership? If this were true, it might lead to the conclusion that these gnostic groups, together with their conception of God and human nature, were suppressed only because of their positive attitude toward women. But such a conclusion would be a mistake-a hasty and simplistic reading of the evidence. In the first place, orthodox Christian doctrine is far from wholly negative in its attitude toward women. Second, many other elements of the gnostic sources diverge in fundamental ways from what came to be accepted as orthodox Christian teaching. To examine this process in detail would require a much more extensive discussion than is possible here. Nevertheless, the evidence does indicate that two very different patterns of sexual attitudes emerged in orthodox and gnostic circles. In simplest form, gnostic theologians correlate their description of God in both masculine and feminine terms with a complementary description of human nature. Most often they refer to the creation account of Genesis 1, which suggests an equal (or even androgynous) creation of mankind. This conception carries the principle of equality between men and women into the practical social and political structures of gnostic communities. The orthodox pattern is strikingly different: it describes God in exclusively masculine terms and often uses Genesis 2 to describe how Eve was created from Adam and for his fulfillment. Like the gnostic view, the orthodox also translates into sociological practice: by the late second century, orthodox Christians came to accept the domination of men over women as the proper, God-given order-not only for the human race, but also for the Christian churches. This correlation between theology, anthropology, and sociology is not lost on the apostle Paul. In his letter to the disorderly Corinthian community, he reminds them of a divinely ordained chain of authority: As God has authority over Christ, so the man has authority over the woman, argues Paul, citing Genesis 2: The man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man; and besides, the man was not created for the woman's sake, but the woman for the sake of the man.(42) Here the three elements of the orthodox pattern are welded into one simple argument: the description of God corresponds to a description of human nature which authorizes the social pattern of male domination.
A striking exception to this orthodox pattern occurs in the writings of one revered father of the church, Clement of Alexandria. Clement identifies himself as orthodox, although he knows members of gnostic groups and their writings well; some scholars suggest that he was himself a gnostic initiate. Yet his own works demonstrate how all three elements of what we have called the gnostic pattern could be worked into fully orthodox teaching. First, Clement characterizes God not only in masculine but also in feminine terms: The Word is everything to the child, both father and mother, teacher and nurse.... The nutriment is the milk of the father. . . and the Word alone supplies us children with the milk of love, and only those who suck at this breast are truly happy.... For this reason seeking is called sucking; to those infants who seek the Word, the Father's loving breasts supply milk.(43) Second, in describing human nature, he insists that men and women share equally in perfection, and are to receive the same instruction and discipline. For the name `humanity' is common to both men and women; and for us `in Christ there is neither male nor female.'(44) Even in considering the active participation of women with men in the Christian community Clement offers a list-unique in orthodox tradition-of women whose achievements he admires. They range from ancient examples, like Judith, the assassin who destroyed Israel's enemy, to Queen Esther, who rescued her people from genocide, as well as others who took radical political stands. He speaks of Arignole the historian, of Themisto the Epicurean philosopher, and of many other women philosophers, including two who studied with Plato and one trained by Socrates. Indeed, he cannot contain his praise: What shall I say? Did not Theano the Pythagoran make such progress in philosophy that when a man, staring at her, said, `Your arm is beautiful,' she replied, `Yes, but it is not on public display.'(45) Clement concludes his list with famous women poets and painters.
If the work of Clement, who taught in Egypt before the lines of orthodoxy and heresy were rigidly drawn (ca. A.D. 160-80) demonstrates how gnostic principles could be incorporated even into orthodox Christian teaching, the majority of communities in the western empire headed by Rome did not follow his example. By the year A.D. 200, Roman Christians endorsed as canonical the pseudo-Pauline letter to Timothy, which interpreted Paul's views: Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not allow any woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain silent, for [note Gen. 2!] Adam was formed first, then Eve and furthermore, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was utterly seduced and came into sin.(45) How are we to account for this irreversible development? The question deserves investigation which this discussion can only initiate. For example, one would need to examine how (and for what reasons) the zealously patriarchal traditions of Israel were adopted by the Roman (and other) Christian communities. Further research might disclose how social and cultural forces converged to suppress feminine symbolism-and women's participation- from western Christian tradition. Given such research, the history of Christianity never could be told in the same way again.”
What Became of God The Mother?
Elaine H.Pagels.
Taken from Womanspirit Rising pp. 107-119. Ed. Carol P.Christ and Judith Plaskow. Harper & Row, 1979.
Elaine H. Pagels received her Ph. D. from Harvard University and now teaches at Barnard College, Columbia University. She is author of The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis and The Gnostic Paul. Her articles have appeared in Harvard Theological Review, Journal for Biblical Literature, and Journal of the American Academy of Religion. This essay originally appeared in Signs (Vol. 2, no. 2), c 1976 by The University of Chicago, and is reprinted by permission of The University of Chicago Press.
Notes
1. Where the God of Israel is characterized as husband and lover in the Old Testament (OT), his spouse is described as the community of Israel (i.e., Isa. 50:1, 54:1-8; Jer. 2:2-3, 20-25, 3:1-20; Hos. 1-4, 14) or as the land of Israel (cf. Isa. 62:1-5).
2. One may note several exceptions to this rule: Deut. 32:11; Hos. 11:1; Isa. 66:12 ff; Num. 11:12.
3. The Gospel according to Thomas (hereafter cited as ET), ed. A. Guillaumount, H. Ch. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till, Yassah `Abd-al-Masih (London: Collins, 1959), logion 113-114.
4. Hippolytus, Refutationis Omnium Haeresium (hereafter cited as Ref), ed. L. Dunker, F. Schneidewin (Göttingen, 1859), 5.7.
5. Ref, 5.6.
6. Irenaeus, Aduersus Haereses (hereafter cited as AH), ed. W. W. Harvey (Cambridge, 1857), 1.11.1.
7. Ibid., 1.13.2.
8. Ibid., 1.13.6.
9. Ibid., 1.18.2.
10. Ibid., 1.11.5-21.1, 3; Ref, 6.29.
11. Apocryphon Johannis (hereafter cited as AJ), ed. S. Giversen (Copenhagen: Prostant Apud Munksgaard, 1963), 47.20-48.14.
12. AJ, 52.34-53.6.
13. Ibid., 61.13-14.
14. Origen, Commentary on John, 2.12; Hom. On Jeremiah, 15.4.
15. ET, 101. The text of this passage is badly damaged; I follow here the reconstruction of G. MacRae of the Harvard Divinity School.
16. L'Evangile selon Phillipe (hereafter cited as EP), ed. J. E. Menard (Leiden: Brill, 1967), logion 6.
17. EP, logion 36.
18. Ibid., logion 82.
19. Ibid., logion 17.
20. Extraits de Theodote (hereafter cited as Exc), ed. F. Sagnard, Sources chretiennes 23 (Paris: Sources chretiennes, 1948).
21. AH, 1.30.6.
22. Ref, 6.17.
23. Ibid., 6.14.
24. AH, 1.14.7-8.
25. Ref, 6.18.
26. Genesis Rabba 8.1, also 17.6; cf. Levitius Rabba 14. For an excellent discussion of androgyny, see W. Meeks, "The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity," History of Religions 13 (1974): 165-208.
27. AH, 1.18.2.
28. Exc, 21.1.
29. Ref, 6.33.
30. AH, 1.5.4; Ref, 6.33.
31. AJ, 61.8-14.
32. Ref, 7.26
33. AH, 1.13.7.
34. Ibid., 1.13.2-5.
35. Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum (hereafter cited as DP), ed. E. Oethler (Lipsius, 1853-54), p. 41.
36. De Baptismo 1. I am grateful to Cyril Richardson for calling my attention to this passage and to the three subsequent ones.
37. Epiphanes, De Baptismo, 42.5.
38. AH, 1.25.6.
39. DP, 6.30.
40. The Gospel according to Mary, Codex Berolinensis, BG, 8502,1.7.1- 1.19.5, ea., intro., and trans. G. MacRae, unpublished manuscript.
41. Pistis Sophia, ed. Carl Schmidt (Berlin: Academie-Verlag, 1925), 36 (57), 71 (161).
42. 1 Cor. 11 :7-9. For discussion, see R. Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 40 (1972): 283-303; R. Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman: Revisited," Journal of the Amencan Academy of Religion 42 (1974): 532- 37; and E. Pagels, "Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion," Journal of the Amencan Academy of Religion 42 (1972): 538-49.
43. Clement Alexandrinus, Paidegogos, ed. O. Stählin (Leipzig, 1905), 1.6.
44. Ibid., 1.4.
45. Ibid., 1.19.
46. 2 Tim. 2:11-14.
October 20, 2017
Yahoo forum post # 18798
Two posts on "Evil" got 'deleted' and disappeared... Then the word "Evil" must be applied to those who did!
Note: I recently wrote this in a post:
[i have always suspected this for years but dared not talk about it as it seemed preposterous, till today, as the DEVI has openly declared that SHE is everything, including evil.
"I am Manifest Divinity, Unmanifest Divinity, and Transcendent Divinity. I am Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, as well as Saraswati, Lakshmi and Parvati. I am the Sun and I am the Stars, and I am also the Moon. I am all animals and birds, and I am the outcaste as well, and the thief. I am the low person of dreadful deeds, and the great person of excellent deeds. I am Female, I am Male, and I am Neuter.” The Divine Mother, Devi-Bhagavata Purana]
i then tried to explain in a second post that concept of 'evil' as it could confuse. But both posts got 'deleted' and have disappeared from the forum.
i now realize that I was wrong and that the sentences "I am the outcaste as well, and the thief. I am the low person of dreadful deeds, and the great person of excellent deeds" CANNOT be in any way applied or interpreted to mean "evil", and applied to the DIVINE MOTHER.
So if "Evil is necessary to expose the evil!", then it has to be interpreted differently ......................... even though the DIVINE MOTHER exists within the worst of human beings - murderers, rapists, suicide bombers and the like.
Today suicide bombers attacked two Afghan mosques, at least 72 are dead. What is the Evil driving these suicide bombers to kill in the name of 'god' and what is being exposed?
i do not have the answer. The only thing I can say with absolute surety is that those suicide bombers are not disciples of the DIVINE MOTHER .............................. but SHE exists within them.
"I am the outcaste as well, and the thief. I am the low person of dreadful deeds, and the great person of excellent deeds"
i just have to understand that those who know HER cannot become evil. However, "Evil is necessary to expose the evil" that exists in the religions that drive men to kill, murder and maim in the name of their gods.
But I believe to have just understood what is Evil and it can be found in this question: "Did the DIVINE MOTHER ever ask any of HER followers to kill?” Then the word "Evil" must be applied to those who did!
regards,
jagbir
Suicide bombers attack two Afghan mosques, at least 72 dead
OCTOBER 20, 2017 / 10:05 AM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO
Hamid Shalizi
KABUL (Reuters) - Suicide bombers attacked two mosques in Afghanistan on Friday, killing at least 72 people including children, officials and witnesses said.
One bomber walked into a Shi‘ite Muslim mosque in the capital Kabul as people were praying on Friday night and detonated an explosive, one of the worshippers there, Mahmood Shah Husaini, said.
At least 39 people died in the blast at the Imam Zaman mosque in the city's western Dasht-e-Barchi district, interior ministry spokesman Najib Danish said.
No group claimed responsibility. But Shi‘ite Muslims have suffered a series of attacks in Afghanistan in recent months, many of them claimed by the Sunni Muslim militants of Islamic State.
Separately, a suicide bombing killed at least 33 people at a mosque in central Ghor province, a police spokesman said.
The attack appeared to target a local leader from the Jamiat political party, according to a statement from Balkh provincial governor Atta Mohammad Noor, a leading figure in Jamiat.
Again, no one immediately claimed responsibility.
Additional reporting by Jalil Ahmad Rezaee in Herat; Writing by Josh Smith; Editing by Catherine Evans and Andrew Heavens
NEWS/SOMALIA
Mogadishu bombing death toll rises to 358
The number of people killed in last week's devastating bombing in the Somali capital Mogadishu has risen to 358, according to the government.
As well as the confirmed death toll, 228 people were injured in what was the deadliest attack in the country's history, Somalia's news agency quoted the information and internal security ministers as saying late on Friday
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/mogadishu-bombing-death-toll-rises-358-171020223155870.html
Each one of them hides from the ultimate test of its validity and truth
"And, above all, all three persevere in making a claim which cannot possibly be valid and true: that they are, each single one, the true religion.
Each one of them, however, hides from the ultimate test of its validity and truth behind a wall of unknowing and expectation. All three chorus that only on the 'Last Day,' when the 'End' comes, when 'God' decides, will it be clear that the 'other two' and all others besides were false, and it (the claimant) was all along the true community of the one 'God.' "- Malachi Martin
“For almost two thousand years, three major religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, have enjoyed a popularity and exercised a profound influence on millions of human beings. Each, from the very beginning of its existence, claimed to have the ultimate answers to the supreme questions that confront man in every age. Each claimed, on the basis of absolute exclusivity, to be a chosen people. Each claimed to be able to provide its adherents with the truth about man, his origin and his destiny, and further to provide him with a world outlook according to which he could explain everything in human life.
As Dr. Martin shows in The Encounter, each of the three religions at one early moment in its history made a choice according to which all its later history was determined. Christianity restricted itself essentially to the West; it attempted, with minimal success, to convert the peoples of Africa and Asia; it set up from its beginnings an official opposition and hate for Judaism; at one time it dreamed of supervising and controlling the secular and political life of man. Judaism set itself in opposition to Christianity; it became, for almost 1,800 years, the professional underdog of the West; in modern times, it has been polarized beyond repair. Islam tied its fortunes to certain geographical areas, to one concept of civil government, to a way of life totally incompatible with that of mankind generally today, and to an irredentism unacceptable to modern man.
Each of these religions had a limited success over a certain period of human history. That period is now over. It is Dr. Martin's thesis that, as a result, all religions are in a state of crisis. They are not able to provide modern man with answers to his ethical problems. They cannot unite man today. Their very formulations of doctrine and solutions to human problems are unintelligible today. In short, they have failed modern man.” (summary on jacket cover)
"The Jews says:
I believe that there is but one God, YHWH, Eternal, Immutable, All-Perfect, who dwells in Paradise; that He created the skies, the earth, and all things visible and invisible; that He created the angels and spirits, among which is Satan, the Evil One, who was originally an angel, but who fell from favour by disobedience;
● that He created Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, each with a body and immortal soul; that they sinned against Him, and were expelled from Paradise; that He later revealed the true religion to Abraham who thus is the father of all true believers;
● that after Abraham's death Moses was the chief of these and that he led the Israelites out of Egypt at the Exodus to the Land of Promise; that he founded the law by which the true Community of Believers might be saved and so be YHWH's Chosen People living according to His Spirit and awaiting His Messiah; that the Christians corrupted the original teachings of Moses by following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth; that the Muslims corrupted the true belief of Abraham and Moses further by following the teachings of Mohammad;
● that Jerusalem is the holy center of the world; that YHWH's revelation is only contained in the Jewish Bible; that henceforth men are divided into the Chosen People and the Gentiles; that YHWH's salvation is only with the Jewish People;
● that there will be a Last Day in the history of the world; that all men of the past will rise from the dead for a Last Judgment by God; that only the Jews can receive the final reward of Paradise; that on that day YHWH will admit the Chosen People to eternals in Paradise, and severely judge the others; that the sinful and the unbelieving will be punished forever in Hell.
The Christians says:
I believe
● that there is but one God, Eternal, Immutable, All-Perfect, who dwells in Paradise; that He created the skies, the earth, and all things visible and invisible; that He created the angels and spirits, among which is Devil, the Evil One, who was originally an angel, but who fell from favour by disobedience;
● that He created Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, each with a body and immortal soul; that they sinned against Him, and were expelled from Paradise; that He later revealed the true religion to Abraham who thus is the father of all true believers; that after Abraham's death, He sent a number of prophets to revive the true religion of Abraham;
● that Moses was the chief of these, and that he founded the law by which the true community of Believers might be saved; that the Jews corrupted the Law; that finally God sent Jesus of Nazareth, His Son, to be the Messiah; that Jesus taught men the true doctrine and founded the Church to perpetuate these beliefs so that all Christians could live according to His Spirit; that Jesus saved all men from sin by His death on the Cross and resurrection; that Mohammad and the Muslims corrupted both Jewish and the Faith of Jesus;
● that Jerusalem used to be the holy center of the world, then alter it was Rome, then still later various places in the world; that God's revelation is only contained in the Christian Bible; that henceforth men are divided into the Church of believers and the non-believers; that God's salvation is only to be found in the Church;
● that there will be a Last Day in the history of the world; that all men of the past will rise from the dead for a Last Judgment by God; that only the Christians can receive the final reward of Paradise; that on that day God will admit Christians to eternal in Paradise, and severely judge the others; that the sinful and the unbelieving will be punished forever in Hell.
The Muslims says:
I believe
● that there is but one God, Allah, Eternal, Immutable, All-Perfect, who dwells in Paradise; that He created the skies, the earth, and all things visible and invisible; that He created the angels and spirits, among which is Iblis, the Evil One, who was originally an angel, but who fell from favour by disobedience;
● that He created Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, each with a body and immortal soul; that they sinned against Him, and were expelled from Paradise; that He later revealed the true religion to Abraham who thus is the father of all true believers;
● that after Abraham's death, He sent a number of prophets to revive the true religion of Abraham;
● that Moses was the chief of these and that he founded the law by which the true community of believers might be saved; that the Christians corrupted his Gospel; that Allah finally sent Mohammad who left all he possessed at the Hegira in order to establish successfully the true Community of Muslims who could live according to His Spirit;
● that Mecca is the holy center of the world; that Allah's revelation is contained only in the Koran; that henceforth men are divided into Muslims and unbelievers; that Allah's salvation is only with the Muslims;
● that there will be a Last Day in the history of the world; that all men of the past will rise from the dead for a Last Judgment by Allah; that only Muslims can receive the final reward of Paradise; that on that day Allah will admit the Muslims to eternal rewards in Paradise, and severely judge the others; that the sinful and the unbelieving will be punished forever in Gehenna.”
Malachi Martin, The Encounter,
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1970, p. 182-85.
"It is certain that exclusivity is an essential note of these religions. If tomorrow, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam conceded that any one of the others was as good as or better than itself, they would fall apart as we know them. Their entire history would be negated.”
"Is the dominance-trait an essential characteristic or basic element of these religions? If they lacked or got rid of it, would they be identically the same in their essence as they are now? Are they viable as religions without the dominance trait? Is the dominance-trait non-essential, a historical accretion due to mere historical development or, at least, is it an element due to human limitations and not issuing necessarily from the religions themselves? After all, these religions claim to be divine in origin, to be messages of salvation received by fallible men from a god who is deemed to be illimitable, eternal, faultless, perfection itself. Perhaps the message itself is free from the dominance-trait; only the recipients suffer from this limitation? Perhaps all three religions adopted physical modes at the priceless moments of their history, and these modes imply a purely human dominance-trait?
This question has a burning importance today when a deep crisis appears to be shaking these religions at their very foundations: one of the aspects of all three religions that seems incompatible with the mind of modern man is this dominance-trait of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Certainly the prejudice, bigotry, cruelty, the massacres and progroms and persecutions, the suffering and the oppression to which this dominance-trait has given rise, have shaken modern man's belief in the authenticity of their absolutist claims.
It is certain that exclusivity is an essential note of these religions. If tomorrow, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam conceded that any one of the others was as good as or better than itself, they would fall apart as we know them. Their entire history would be negated. The Jews would cease to be the Chosen People. Jesus would cease to be God and Savior. Mohammad and his Koran could be pushed aside as historical accidents. Each of the three must singly and for itself claim to have exclusive possession of the one and absolute truth, to exclude the other two and all others besides. The most any one of them could concede is that the others have a fragment or a portion of the truth, that in virtue of good faith and good works, Yahweh (or God or Allah) will have mercy on them.
The pathos of their locked position is sharply focused by their professed belief in one god. There can only be one god, all three maintain obstinately. And this one god can have only one truth. Embedded in each religion, however, are mutually exclusive proportions about that one god: Jews and Muslims reject the divinity of Jesus; Christians and Jews reject the supremacy and final authority of the Koran as the last words of this one god to men; Christians and Muslims reject the Jewish Torah as the ultimate word of this one god; Christians and Muslims believe in the virginity of Mary which the Jews reject; Jews and Muslims reject the idea that the blood of Jesus wiped out all men's sins. The list is endless.” (pp. 217-8)
Christianity within its own borders has specialized in self-crucifixion, at first to quite a minor degree during the first 1500 years of its life, when heretics and dissidents and accused witches and sorcerers were put to death, as Jesus was. Then, with the breakup of its unity in the 16th century, Christians devised for each other one Hell more horrendous and tortuous than another, indulging in a 300-year round of mutual recrimination, accusation, denigration, and relegation by bell, book, and candle, to the filthiest categories of human life. No branch of Christianity can be excused from this, because all Christians have indulged in it.
No body of Christians ever answered the insults of other Christians with Christ's answer: 'Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do?' They all developed special vocabularies replete with violent words such as 'heresy,' 'heretic,' 'extirpation,' 'condemnation,' 'excommunication,' 'outcasts,' 'unclean believers,' 'vice-mongers.' Each one devised its special defenses against the other: social ostracism, civil war, discrimination, calumny, legal non-existence. Rome was the Red Lady of the South. Luther was the Pig of Germany. Protestants were the sons of vipers. Jews were the 'race of the devil.' Muslims were 'benighted and error-ridden barbarians.' No body of Christians ever tried to conquer the world with humility and patience and love, and no body of believers ever tried to fan the flames of faith, in the heart of man by being authentically believers.
The Jews, in retaliation for their pain and their sustained exile, contributed to the sea of hate, distrust and, in some cases, deformation of truth. They invented multiform expressions of contempt, condemnation, loathing, and utter rejection of Christians. They even modified some of their traditional beliefs because the Christians had borrowed them in their original form and, in their repugnance from all things Christian, they wanted no resemblance to subsist between their faith and that of the Christians. They returned hate with hate. They, also, cannot be excused and considered totally guiltless. They preached truth and justice, yet they violated both in order to maintain their religion and their Jewishness. Christians preached love but practised officially sanctioned hate, intermingling their loveliest psalms of compassion for their dying Savior with the expressions of extreme disgust for the Jews...
Muslims preached mercy and compassion, but they practised none or very little, assigning both Christians and Jews to the lowest rung in Allah's consideration, and historically meting out to both a treatment which rivals any cruelties of man in known history. Down through the ages, this procession of the crucified one has come: formed, maintained, and augmented by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Each one has prayed with its armies to its god that the armies of the opponents be destroyed. There is no palliating or explaining away the sin of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
The three religions failed in another significant way. None of them attacked slavery or race prejudice or other flagrant inhumanities of man to man from the very beginning of their existence. The Arabs of today sanction slavery as spontaneously as the Popes of the 19th century sanctioned the creation of castrati choirs for Papal masses, as readily and blindly as the Protestant ethic of the white American sanctioned the serfdom and degradation of the Negro race until the second half of the 20th century. Each religion has practiced the art of climbing on the bandwagon: only when lay and secular reformers, sometimes lacking any formal religion whatever, raised such a hue and cry that men's consciences were stirred, did the religions begin to turn their huge resources toward reform. The Catholic Church in Germany and Italy acquiesced in Nazism and Fascism at least in the earlier stages of the ideologies. Russian Orthodoxy acquiesced in the despotism and sadism of Czarist times. Greek Orthodoxy sanctioned the corruption of the Byzantine court and is today bitterly nationalist in Greece's disputes with Turkey. No Protestant Church and no Jewish Synagogue ever officially condemned and attacked the Ku Klux Klan before 1945 in America, though individuals did. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have practiced the double standard in this matter...
Thus the three religions have not been witnesses to the truth. All, it is true, have developed an exalted vocabulary, and a very impressive manner of announcing their own grandiose claims. All three have excelled and excel in words, as distinct from actions. All three have an impressive ritual and have refined psychological approaches to man. Yet the witness of words, mere words, has never changed men's minds, nor has mere theological subtlety helped men to be better men. The witness of the three religions have been faulty, at times perniciously false and erroneous. The three of them have witnessed to the uses of hate for the love of a god. And all three have disposed of the lives and happiness of millions of human beings without any real feeling for human suffering or any genuine concern for the concrete realities of life.
It is clear, first of all, that today all three religions lack any authoritative note for man. They have, as yet, each one of them, sufficient number of adherents to give the impression of continuing strength, and this glosses over for them and for the outside world at times their terrible weakness. For each of them, when scrutinized closely, is blackened with sufficient failures to prevent any thinking man from believing in them. And, above all, all three persevere in making a claim which cannot possibly be valid and true: that they are, each single one, the true religion.
Each one of them, however, hides from the ultimate test of its validity and truth behind a wall of unknowing and expectation. All three chorus that only on the 'Last Day,' when the 'End' comes, when 'God' decides, will it be clear that the 'other two' and all others besides were false, and it (the claimant) was all along the true community of the one 'God.' "
Malachi Martin, The Encounter,
Farrar, Straus and Giroux (1970) pp. 329-32.
“A Thought Experiment
Imagine this scenario: You have a serious conversation with a deeply Christian friend. Your friend is intelligent, well educated and knowledgeable. You agree to record the session. The topic is Islam. During the session, you discuss that Mohammed was a self-appointed prophet and that he claimed he talked to Allah and angels. He wrote a book that he claimed is infallible, and he flew from Jerusalem to heaven on a horse.
During the conversation, you agree that Mohammed was probably delusional to think he could talk to god. You agree that the Koran was clearly written by Mohammed and not by Allah. It is ludicrous for him to claim that he is the last prophet and that all others are false. Neither you nor your friend can believe that he flew to heaven, let alone on a horse. It all sounds too crazy, and you both agree it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you say that Muslims did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both Christianity and Islam would see that Christianity is the true religion.
Over the next few days, you transcribe the recording onto paper. Then you change all references to Mohammed and make them Jesus. Now the document reads something like this:
During the conversation, you both agree that Jesus was probably delusional to think he could talk to Jehovah. The Bible was clearly written by men and not by Jehovah. You both agree it is ludicrous for Jesus to claim that he is the last prophet and that all later ones are false. Neither of you can believe that he rose from the dead, nor flew to heaven. It all sounds too crazy, and it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you both agree that Christians did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both Christianity and Islam would see that Islam is the true religion.
Now, tell your friend, 'I made a transcript of our conversation about Islam and would like to go over it with you.' As you read it, watch her reaction. How does she respond to each statement?
How soon does she get defensive? How quickly does she start making elaborate arguments that have no more factual basis than the first conversation? If you persist in this line of parallel reasoning, how long before she gets angry or breaks off the conversation? Could this conversation damage your friendship?
You can do the same experiment with other prophetic religions. For example, substitute Joseph Smith for Mormonism or Moses for Judaism. This experiment illustrates the god virus at work. It infects the brain and alters critical thinking skills. It leaves the skill intact for other religions but disables critical thinking about one's own religion. Keep this thought experiment in mind as we explore the virus-like behavior of religion in individuals and in society.”
Darrel Ray, The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture
IPC Press; First edition (December 5, 2009) pp. 17-18
The Book That Changed Reza Aslan's Mind About Jesus
The religious scholar from the viral Fox News interview explains how Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov taught him the difference between faith and religion.
JOE FASSLERAUG 6 2013, 2:08 PM ET
Reza Aslan: When I was 16 years old, I read the book that has probably had the greatest influence on me—The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. This book was pivotal in making me realize what I wanted to do with my life: that I wanted to write for a living, that I wanted to write about religious topics, that I wanted to help others explore the same issues I could feel Dostoevsky making me grapple with, even that young age. Really, truly, this book is the impetus for who I am.
The passage I want to discuss is one a lot of people know. it's from the section in the book that's sometimes referred to as 'The Grand Inquisitor.' Ivan, the atheist brother, tells Alyosha, the believer, a story about Jesus coming back to earth during the time of the Inquisition. Jesus begins performing miracles, and people recognize him for who he is—and he's arrested, of course, by the Inquisitors, who sentence him to be burned to death.
The night before his sentence, the Grand Inquisitor visits Jesus in his cell. Jesus doesn't speak, but the Grand Inquisitor speaks to him at length about how the church doesn't really need Jesus anymore. And that, frankly, his return at this point is just disruptive to the overall meaning of the church. In other words, the Grand Inquisitor says that the church's mission in preaching Jesus has become more important than Jesus himself. And the great line, the quote that I really gravitated towards is this one here:
'Anyone who can appease a man's conscience can take his freedom away from him.'
What I love about the story is that it's become a kind of atheist manifesto, if you will. Many non-believers cite this passage as the reason why they do not believe—forgetting, by the way, that Dostoevsky himself was quite a fervent believer. But they also forget the end of the story: what happens after the Grand Inquisitor makes this huge statement, and lambastes Jesus for not speaking up for himself. Jesus simply stands up, walks up to the Grand Inquisitor, and gives him a kiss.
I think Dostoevsky is saying that we must never confuse faith with religion. We must never confuse the institutions that have arisen, these man-made institutions—and I mean that quite literally, because they're all run by men—who have created languages to help people understand faith, with faith itself. I, as a person of faith, read the same story and did not see it as a repudiation of faith the way a lot of atheists do. I saw it as a challenge to always remember that those who claim to speak for Jesus are precisely the kind of people that Jesus fought against. What I love about the Grand Inquisitor parable—and a parable is truly what it is—is this notion that if Jesus showed up, all of a sudden, today, he would not only bear very little resemblance to who the Church says he is, his primary focus would be on challenging the very religious institutions who claim to speak for him.
I first read this book when I was a Christian: a firm, devout follower of Jesus. Someone whose impression of Jesus was wholly a result of what the church told me he was. When I read The Brothers Karamazov, and particularly this section, my eyes were opened to the notion that the Church's conception of Jesus is inextricable from the Church's political, religious, and economic interests—that their Jesus may not be who Jesus actually was. This rocked my world, even back then. I could sense that I was never going to be the same.
This realization instilled in me, first and foremost, a deep sense of anti-institutionalism. I have always been distrustful of institutions—particularly religious institutions, but also political institutions. Essentially, anyone who presents themselves as a gatekeeper to truth, or a gatekeeper to salvation, I am distrustful of by definition—regardless of anything that they are saying or doing. In a sense, that's the impression I have of the historical Jesus as well—I see him as a man who challenged political authorities for no other reason except that they had set themselves up as authorities, over and above anything good or bad that they were doing. Just the notion that they were in this position of power was enough for them to be challenged, to be questioned.
This is one reason why I am not interested in any church, mosque, synagogue—any kind of organization. Because I have no interest in subsuming my beliefs and practices into what a group of men somewhere have decided I'm supposed to believe. The great Christian mystic Meister Eckhart once said 'if you focus too narrowly on a single path to God, all you will ever find is the path.' I take that to heart.
I also feel that the mistakes of institutions have no bearing on the value of the faith. To me, the most unsophisticated attack on religious faith is to say that religion has been responsible for great evil in the world. Well, of course it has. it's a man-made thing, and human beings are prone to evil acts. But to blame religion for bad things done in the name of religion is akin to blaming nationalism for fascism. Any ideology is prone to be used for good and bad, and rather than focusing on judging the actions of those performing these deeds in the name of the ideology—we, in a knee-jerk way, focus on the ideology itself.
But for me, it's not even about the beliefs versus the institutions. it's about the metaphors offered by a faith—the symbols with which religions speak about God. You know, you're either a person of faith, or you're not. You either believe that there's something beyond the material world that you can commune with, or you don't. If you do believe it, then it helps to have a language to help you express that ineffable experience—to yourself, and to other people. And that is all that religion is—that language.
I'm a Muslim not because I believe Islam is more correct than other religions, or that it's more 'true.' On the contrary! I'm a Muslim because the symbols and metaphors that Islam uses to talk about God and humanity, the relationship between creator and creation, are the symbols and metaphors that work best for me. That makes sense to me. They are not more valid, or more true, than the symbols of Judaism, or Christianity, say, but they just make more sense to me.
For example: There are important differences between Islam and Christianity in the metaphor for God. In Christianity, it's the trinity. God in three forms: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The metaphor for God in Islam is tawhid, which means divine unity. The notion is that God is fundamentally indivisible. That God is, by definition, oneness. Form and substance: oneness. And as a result of that, God must be understood as inseparable from his creation. Meaning that there is no difference, there is no distance. In a sense, everything that exists only exists because it shares in the existence of God. That makes more sense to me than the metaphor of the triune God.
One of the things that's fascinating about Jesus is that he refused to recognize the power of the Jewish authorities to define the Jewish religion for him. In this time, the priests had a monopoly on the Jewish cult. They decided who can enter the presence of God, and who could not. Which means of course that the lame, the sick, the marginalized, the outcasts, the 'sinners,' were divorced from communing with God. And Jesus' ministry was founded upon not just rejecting that idea, but claiming the absolute reverse: That the kingdom of god that he envisions is one in which the priests, the aristocracy, the wealthy, the powerful, would be removed. And in their place would be the weak, the powerless, the marginalized, and the dispossessed. This was a reversal of the social order. In other words, it's not just about the meek inheriting the earth. it's about the powerful disinheriting the earth.
I think that, obviously, is an enormous threat to the power-holders whose authority came from—precisely as Dostoevsky says—from their ability to appease a man's conscience. Pay us your dues, your tithes, bring us your sacrifices, submit to our authority, and in return, we will give you salvation. And Jesus' challenge to that idea was based on the notion that the power for salvation does not rest in any outsider's hand: that it rests within the individual. I think that's an idea that a lot of Christians need to remember. Those who state that salvation comes solely through the Church or belief in a set of doctrines that a bunch of men wrote many years ago are forgetting what Jesus himself said: that salvation is purely an internal matter. That you are the only one qualified to define what God is for you. No one else is qualified to make that decision for you.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/
Web (October 18, 2013)
.jpg)
The Spirit-Paraclete “Now fanaticism itself is absolutely against religion, against your innate religion within yourself because it creates poison. it's a venomous thing. It makes you hate others. When you start hating others, then it reacts in you as horrible poison which eats up all that is beautiful with in you. Hating any one is the worst thing that human beings can do, but they can do it. They can do whatever they like. Animals do not hate any one. Can you imagine? They do not know how to hate, they bite some one because that is their nature, they cut some one because that's their nature. They never hate some one. They may not like some one but this hatred, which is a poison, is a speciality of human conception and human absorption. Only human beings can hate; and this horrible thing hatred was settled between even the Muslims.”
The Paraclete Shri Mataji
Shri Fatima Puja, St Georges, Switzerland—14 August 1988
Shri Mataji “I met a Russian who asked Me why the U.N. was helping the Muslims in Bosnia.... I was shocked at his perception of Muslims. I have such respect for so many of them. I wish they could accept that this is not Jihad time anymore but Qiyamah Time, the Resurrection Time, the Blossom Time. Are they going to miss it?
Both things are wrong; one has to understand that all these religions were born on the same tree of spirituality and that people have plucked the flowers and are fighting with these dead flowers. Of course there are some absurd things which grew with misinterpretation and interference from unholy people, which are common in these religions. For example, Jews, Christian and Muslims believe that when they die their bodies will come out of their graves and they will all be resurrected at the Time of Resurrection, at the Time of Last Judgment, at the Time of Qiyamah. It is illogical to think what will remain inside those graves after five hundred years. Nobody wants to think and understand that it is not the body but the soul that will come out of these bodies, be born again as human beings, and be saved through Qiyamah and Resurrection. Who will tell them? No one can talk to them. As soon as one wants to talk one can be killed. This is the only way they know — how to kill....
The greatest problem with the fundamentalists is that they have no compassion because they do not love Mohammed Sahib, who He was and why He came on this Earth. They do not know the Reality. They just think that they are right type of people and that they can kill as many human beings as they want, and they can create as many problems as they like, and they can destroy the rest of the people who do not follow their fundamentalism.”
Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi
"The worst part is the practice of conversion. People are being converted from one religion to another not for faith but for non-religious reasons such as matrimony or monetary gain. Bitter fights are going on in different parts of the world between followers of different religions, all in the name of God Almighty! This cruel phenomenon is not understood by any saintly person. Groups of people claiming to profess the Islamic religion are in the forefront of these fights.
The Sufis amongst the Islamic people tried to tell them that this is not the way to behave if you are a follower of Mohammed Sahib, because this brings a bad name to Mohammed Sahib and to Islam.
There are some people who believe that Islam should be spread by Jihad. This was never the idea of Mohammed Sahib. At the time when He was here on this Earth, the people we facing a very difficult situation because there were lots of tribes, and these tribes were fighting and killing all the people who were taking to Islam. That was the time when it was alright to talk about Jihad, but today there is no such problem. Moreover by talking incessantly of Jihad, they are becoming very unpopular. Not only that, actually, they have achieved nothing.
By doing all this have they achieved their Self-Realization? Have they attained their Qiyamah and have they found the Truth? Nothing of the kind has happened to them. They are diverting the attention of people to wrong things and are trying to do something which is absolutely no good for the peace of the world. It is because of them that there are little wars going on in so many places....
These religions inject fixed ideas into the brains of people. These fixed ideas start developing in a collective way and this can produce a very big, collective monster which can believe only in killing others and pushing its own ideas.”
Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi
December 10, 2006
Yahoo forum post # 7045
Dear All,
Shri Mataji is probably the first guru who has challenged the Muslims about their comprehension of the Quran. Few, if any, will take on this dangerous task that can bring serious repercussions, even fatal consequences. But that has not deterred Her from speaking out boldly against their blind faith and ignorance, as She has done to Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and others as well.
Till the advent of Shri Mataji no one could explain the parables of the Holy Scriptures and enlighten humans with priceless knowledge. It is not possible to list them here as there are just too many. So I will just briefly discuss Her quote above that, in a nutshell, turns Islam on its dead. I was stunned the first time I realized that the Qur'n, without question, backed Her......... stunned because my eyes could hardly believe the verses irrefutably confirming that She was telling the Truth.
Of all the chapters in the Qur'n, surah 75 Al-Qiyamah (The Resurrection) must have clearly confronted them with so frightening a prophecy and promise of Divine intervention to collect, promulgate, recite and explain in detail the only Surah entirely devoted to Al-Qiyamah, that it could only be explained away by vagueness, briefness, distortion, misinformation, untruth and outright deceit. But Allah (SWT) warned humans not to move"thy tongue concerning the (Resurrection), to make haste therewith "since" it is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it.”Then, after having announced it they were to follow "its recital". And last, but not the least, the Resurrection is "for Us to explain"- leaving absolutely no ambiguity as to Allah's (SWT) Intention. This is referred as the Great News or Great Event in the Qur'n and was to coincide with specific Sure Signs absolutely beyond human manipulation or duplication Thus it is obvious that the announcement and detailed narration of the Resurrection to the entire human race was Allah's (SWT) sole and explicit prerogative.
But mere mortals with puny minds and huge egos have blabbed their tongues about this Surah for the last 1400 years. They collectively erased the mercy of the blessed Resurrection (Al Qadr or the Night of Power) for all humankind, substituting it with the nightmare of a Doomsday End (Al Qariah or the Day of Noise and Clamor)!
Now the question of making such serious allegations against so established a faith arises. How is it possible that so obvious and fundamental Truths be hidden from so many by so few for so long? Perhaps it must be asked: How was the Ummah deceived into speculating about Al-Qiyamah, despite Allah's (SWT) explicit, simple and clear Warning not to do so? This Al-Qiyamah website exposes the depth of deception that the Ummah has been indoctrinated over the centuries by their ulama, imams, ayatollahs, amirs, caliphs, mu'ttilah, aalims, mujtahids, mullahs and muftis on this central theme of the Holy Qur'n.
Till date no Muslim has been able to refute Shri Mataji's declaration of the Resurrection at www.al-qiyamah.org where 300 pages of devastating evidence and punishing questions rip to pieces 14 centuries of Islamic understanding of Qiyamah, exposing a collective falsehood that turns Islam on its head. The only official Islamic defense has been collective censure. But for how long in this age of instant information can they effectively suppress it?
regards to all,
jagbir
Note: It is indeed sad that "Muslims do not want to talk about Resurrection at all.” Shri Mataji wished they did. I just want to say that "The SYs, leaders and WCASY also do not want to talk about Resurrection at all.” This is tantamount to a collective conspiracy against Shri Mataji and Her Divine Message. ...... Yet against all the odds and obstacles She has triumphed. Jai Shri Mataji!!!
Articles based on Shri Mataji quotes:
“A day will dawn when whole world would bow to this country India"
“A great war is taking place between satanic forces and Divine Forces"
“About Sahasrara nowhere in the scriptures something was described"
“Achieve your Self, become your Self"
“After all we are all human beings created by one God"
“All the people laugh at us, nobody believes us.”
“All these rituals have entered into Sahaja Yoga.”
“Among Muslims there are Sufis... who are realized souls"
“And now the time has come for it to be blasted.
“Announce it to all the seekers of truth, to all the nations.”
“Anyone can commit any sins in the name of religion.”
“But if you put one little fish and two eggs for ten people"
“But the Muslims do not want to talk about Resurrection at all"
“But this Judgment is so beautiful ... you enjoy the bliss of your Spirit"
“But you know that you have eternal life. You can never die.”
“Death does not exist for you — It is finished... your spirit is free.”
“Do not destroy your spirit by going to such people.”
“Every religion has said you have to have Self-realization"
“For all people whom I gave Self Realization yesterday"
“He (Jesus) was the Holiest of the Holy. You accept that position.”
“I don't care for your protocols and rituals. It is nonsense for me.”
“I have to warn all the SYs ... Sahaja Yoga is the Last Judgment"
“I must say they are committing the greatest sin ...”
“I was with Him (Guru Nanak Ji), in fact with all of Them.”- 1
“I was with Him (Guru Nanak Ji), in fact with all of Them.”- 2
.”... if you see around the world is in chaos"
“Indians have no goal as far as spiritual life is concerned"
“It is the greatest event of all spiritual happenings of the Universe.”
“It means the Last Judgment has begun with full force"
“It will be slowly revealed by Me because ...”
“Like all the thieves of the world ... have taken over.”
“Meditation is not to sit before the photograph"
“My actual sign name is Lalita ... the name of the Primordial Mother"
“Nobody has to change dresses or anything - it's nothing outside.”
“Now watch. I will change the direction of the waves.”
“No reality in those religions...no Divine Force working"
“Pure knowledge is not of chakras, vibrations, kundalini but of God"
“Self-Realization will progressively lead to the creation of a new race"
“Some are money-oriented ... some are violent"
“Tell Jagbir now to leave it to Her.”
“That's not the way it (Al-Qiyamah) is going to work out.'"
“The expression of the Adi Shakti within you is the Kundalini.”
“Christianity has nothing to do with Christ.”
“The time has come for you to get all that is promised"
“The ultimate act against Spirit is to worship that which has no Spirit"
“The whole Cosmos is waiting for their arrival.”
“They are stagnated at the point of dharma, so they start telling ...”
“There is so much blind faith, there is so much of wrong ideas"
“They came to Sahaja but they said"We cannot worship Goddess.”
“They made Christ look like a TB patient"
“You have to enter into the Kingdom of God"
“Your job is, in a way, greater than the saints and sages.”
Disclaimer: Our material may be copied, printed and distributed by referring to this site. This site also contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the education and research provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance freedom of inquiry for a better understanding of religious, spiritual and inter-faith issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
