Dragon Ball & Mythology: What exactly is the worldview based on?

[Gxg (G²)]

Wow, I had no idea Dragon Ball Z was so complex. Never watched the show growing up, mainly because it was banned in my household.

Interesting thread thus far.

Cool to know

 

[Zoness]

Makes sense. I can definitely understand how a lack of history

I've shared before on my mother growing up Catholic in Latin America (Panama) and how she went to Catholic schools just as I did - and our experiences were radically different than many Catholics I ran into who simply were taught doctrine instead of vibrancy in their relationship with Christ, although she and I were different in the fact that she experienced the Charismatic movement while in Catholicism and my Catholic school (called St. Gabriel) was in a lower-income community. Got reminded recently of the elementary school I grew up in called "St. Gabriel's Catholic School" with those radical nuns in impoverished neighborhoods when my mom was still single/going to medical school and placing me in Catholic School like she grew up in when she lived in Panama - even while we were going to a Charismatic/Word of Faith Church ( Welcome to Greenville Community Christian Church | Greenville, NC ). For me, in Catholic Schools or with my aunts/uncles who were Catholic, we didn't focus on Catholic Doctrine as an end in/of itself. We focused on relationships with others and knowing how to be a neighbor to others - the most intellectual thing we could do being love for others.

Catholicism was very much ALIVE for me as a kid and growing older and the testament of radical nuns was not a rare thing.​

That's pretty interesting, thanks for sharing. I think in this case there are many factors that play into the differences of our upbringing re: Catholicism and too many to enumerate right now. I do find the whole approach to be interesting to read, though: I think in my life Catholicism was just something I did because it was part of my cultural and class fabric. I was raised in a mostly white medium-sized Midwestern farming town where, to the average resident, income disparity was pretty much unnoticed unless you lived on the far south side of town which was visibly poorer. In terms of my upbringing it was just another box to check on the process of growing up. As a quick aside: My mom descends from an Irish Catholic family who emigrated from Ireland at the height of the potato famine in 1845. My Dad descends from a predominantly Swedish and Norwegian family who statistically were nominally Lutheran. Though when my grandma was pregnant with my Dad's oldest brother, she was expelled from the Lutheran church and never went back. That informed a generation of irreligiousness on my Dad's side of the family for a whole generation until he converted to Christianity over ten years ago.

Anyways, at the time my parents were still married my dad didn't care and my mom saw it as an obligation. She is a more serious Catholic now but in the past her priorities were different. I simply didn't give it a second thought until I had to attend classes about it where not even the history interested me, it just seemed like long lists of rules because that's basically what was needed to know to pass the classes for confirmation. From a young age, I viewed Christianity as a long list of rules to adhere to or God will be unhappy. Even almost 15 years later, the ghosts of that perception are a hard thing to shake. Even after a stint in a more radical Protestant church.

I tend to say, despite any negative sentiments I have to places in my past, that it doesn't matter what others are doing in the negative when you're trying to find the positive or correct application of something and live that out. People go for the fake when they don't know what the real is all about. With the current political world and seeing what many (Specifically on the Religious Right) gave a pass to while other Evangelicals and others in Christendom consistently kept calling out and saying "Quit excusing the same kind of behaviors you condemned in other leaders when they weren't with your party" or they noted how trying to give a pass toward racism/bigotry in those openly speaking out while saying they are "Christians" (false) ....I have been at war many times with others. Telling my friends who are not Christians that I am sorry for the poor representation of others in the name of Christ/God and telling those doing the negative actions that they don't represent Christ in trying to push an agenda of white nationalism. But that's another discussion.

Lacking a historical approach does lead to a lot of issues - and of course, I'd encourage you to look into the history of the Early Church....as much as you can.

Yeah this is a hard one. On it's face, I utterly understand that the opinions of some aren't the opinions of all but in America that "some" is more like a "many", maybe even a "most". At any rate, it should be detached from Christianity as a religion but there's where the bounds of religion and culture become so sticky and hard to separate. Over the years its been presented that if I were still a Christian, it would only be right that I am a registered Republican who votes for conservative causes and listens to the talking heads because hey "that's what real Christians do". Even if that isn't literally true, the perception in the demographic I am exposed to and the demographic I was raised in reflects that quite a bit.

I'm curious if you have any recommendations for the an overview of the Early Church? I love history and would enjoy such a read. It would give me a different perspective.

That said, I'd also say that anti-intellectualism can also be seen when people claim to have intellectual discussion on Christ or the Supernatural and yet they ignore the fact that the supernatural is also an issue of factual conversation. Many worldviews of materialism and naturalism can slip into conversation in the name of being 'historical' when the reality is that limiting things to what we can explain practically is also limiting. It's one of the reasons I really enjoyed films like Dr. Strange....

• The Theology of Dr. Strange - BioLogos

And I am glad for others like Dr. Heisner speaking on that issue in-depth:

​

I liked that Biologos article. I had a quick thumb through of that site and found it pretty interesting, I didn't know it existed. It was refreshing.​

That said, I know that there were and have been many things which friends have gone into when seeking the Occult and then they realized later on there was no need to because they had a BIBLICAL exposure to real Christianity (which addresses the supernatural and empowers other). Going to the Occult is something that also did a lot of damage when seeing what one opens themselves up to spiritually and I've seen it for myself. One of my good friends used to be involved in the Occult/Satanism (as a priest) and coming out of it when he saw the reality of Christ was very significant...because he was not going to be a part of something that truly was not authentic or real for Him. His investigation into who Christ was made a world of difference - especially seeing the actual life of Christ and the miracles he did and the Supernatural world that early believers lived in, including addressing the power of the Occult.

I believe I've mentioned this before when it comes to Christians who did not take the supernatural lightly - St. Patrick being one of them. If you recall, some of this was brought up before in discussion between us when it came to how Christianity developed:

​

As many of my friends formerly involved in the Occult note, we don't disbelieve magic and forms of mysticism to control are real. We just don't see the need to be involved in it when we have the power of the person/reality of Christ It makes things like magic very redundant and it's a lot less risky when seeing how many times other things have opened up which can do a lot of damage.

If I had to bring a movie analogy for it, I am reminded of Pirates of the Caribbean. Seeing others come out of things like Voodoo in the West Indies, there are some things I simply will not play with even when I note that they are real and there are forms of power in it.

But within the Pirates series, I especially enjoyed the new character known as The Spaniard ---the agent sent by Spain to destory the fountain of youth since they felt only God should have the power to give eternal life (and only He can do it flawlessly). This dude was the best sailor/privateer in the entire "Pirates of the Caribbean" series. Because the man made plain people look to myths (even if they have power) for what God can bring/do for certain.

​

I understand where you are coming from, though typically here is where the bone-picking begins with pagans. If I may offer my perspective, Neopaganism in the United States (and by extension, Europe) was not born in a vacuum but in a way was a response to Christianity. Taking social mores and religious tendencies into consideration, many Occultists (often but not always pagans) don't see themselves as consorting with the devil (if they believe he exists) but rather accessing forces that they feel Christianity has denied them. Pagans and Occultists see this as a power play: as only priests or bishops or pastors can have "access" to the esoteric forces and magic of God. Sure the parish member may be able to pray to God but their prayers are one of many, many others presumably regarded with equal priority. It's seen as being relegated to the most limited way of communicating with god; through spoken word (most often, pre-scripted by approved authorities) and thus as a way to prevent people from accessing more mystical aspects of the divine. Being accused of being "devil worshipers" (something I am still called to my face in this day and age, though only on rare occasion) simply legitimizes this feeling that there is intentional isolation going on.

Female pagans may take this a step further as the overwhelming majority of religious official positions in Christianity can be (or are) only held by men; it is seen as yet another attempt to isolate those unworthy of God's power from him. As I understand it (feel free to correct), I think this stems from the idea that Eve was the first sinner and thus women are more prone to sin and thus have lower spiritual acumen. I think many people in that religious community would sort of scoff at the idea of the Spaniard as an embodiment of the authorities telling people to "know their place" with regard to religion and magic. Does this make sense?

​

That said, some things like hierarchy of angels were already present in historical Christianity (i.e. Raphael, Gabriel, Michael, etc.) - for anyone familiar with the study of angelolgy. The same goes for what has happened with practices used to drive out demons and sacred items (or Holy /Consecrated Items). There were other innovations that got brought up, one of them being Solomon's Ring - more shared in-depth in places like What do Orthodox say about Solomon's Ring? - What you said reminded me of something I remember discussing with my friend once before when he said he was investigating the world of the Occult (although we both grew up as Christians in the Evangelical Church we were a part of) - based on things he had read on what Solomon was doing - and he made reference to the Testament of Solomon as basis for his actions and I ended up having to share with him that just because Solomon did certain things doesn't mean it was appropriate or the best to do at all. Of course, knowing what was discussed before is also a big deal when seeing how the issue of the occult was not a matter that the Early Church was unaware of.

For reference, I'd suggest the following:

• Magic in Slavia Orthodoxa - Dumbarton Oaks
• King Solomon’s medals - Archaeology, Culture, and other Religions
• Understanding the Differences between the Star of David and the Seal of Solomon
• The Social Side of Aitia: Demons, Seals, and Recipes in the Testament of Solomon and Late Antique Apotropaic Practices

These have been bookmarked for more meticulous study as I am very interested in them. Thanks for sharing.

With my friend when I was discussing with him why he was so interested in the occult/SOLOMOM, I noted how it's possible that one can be a prophet of God and yet be corrupt at the same time.

...AND Solomon wasn't the first.

Balaam was a prophet who the Lord spoke to ..and as a prophet, he often would be able to do things others would not even though not fully approved of by the Lord.

2 Peter 2:15

They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness.

Jude 1:11
Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.


​

More specifically, the Way of Balaam is one of someone who wants to get paid at any costs even when the Lord says no.....as he cursed the Israelites/was denied in doing so at the Word of the Lord (as he was a rouge prophet)---and when Baalam couldn't curse them via God, he taught King Balak (who offered A LOT of money) to seduce the Israelites through sexual immorality so that they'd open themselves up to being cursed. As suggested elsewhere, there's an excellent sermon on the issue (if choosing to right click here ) on Jude that really helps to explain things

On corruption with prophet ability, one can Consider Numbers 15:31:

Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him.
​

Here despising the word of Yahweh is equivalent to breaking the commandment that was given to the people of Israel. Again, we read in Numbers 24:12-14:

12And Balaam said to Balak, "Did I not tell your messengers whom you sent to me, 13 'If Balak should give me his house full of silver and gold, I would not be able to go beyond the word of the LORD, to do either good or bad of my own will. What the LORD speaks, that will I speak'?"
​

Balaam himself was able to make legitimate prophetic declarations that would greatly impact people, yet in many ways he was a renegade and one who pimped his gift/sold himself out for profit ($$$$$)....and although gifted by the Lord, his abilities became tainted. Balaam appears elsewhere in the Bible, painted in the darkest colors. He was killed later ( Numbers 31:7-9 )...and just after Balaam’s story in Numbers comes that of the Midianite women who seduced the men of Israel to idolatry. Jewish tradition saw the shadowy hand of Balaam behind this (as Numbers 31:15-17/Numbers 31 /Revelation 2:13-15 note how he wanted to get paid and found a "wrap around" plan to seduce the Israelites/open them up to being cursed where he couldn't pronounce a curse on them).

Balaam found ways to do supernatural actions and yet it was essentially a part of the "Black Market" when it comes to the supernatural world - and with magic/witchcraft, you don't know WHO you're running into or what demons you'll encounter that are teaching illegitimate ways of experiecing what can be found in God alone.

It's the same with King Solomon, as just because Solomon did certain things doesn't mean it was appropriate or the best to do. Solomon himself did the same in I Kings 11 when he brought in extensive amounts of gods/goddesses and their arts into the heart of Israel, setting the stage for an extensive apostasy and allowing himself to turn away from the Lord....something that angered the Lord even though Solomon was good with it in his quest for knowledge ( Ecclessiastes 2). As I said elsewhere on the issue before

What Solomon did is something that was present even in the Jewish culture...and many other similar examples. Another example would be Acts 19:11-16, for with those casting out in the name of Christ, the Jewish exorcists later got beat up when the demons played the game they were trying back at them. Of course, that doesn't mean that it was fake when they exorcists cast out demons. Josephus speaks of King Solomon's having learned to do so. As he said:

that skill which expels demons...And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons so that they never return, and this method of cure is of great force unto this day. Indeed, I have see a certain man of my own country, whose name was El'azar, realizing people who were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, his sons, his captains and the whole multitude of soldiers. The manner of cure was this: he put a ring that had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nosstrils....."

--Antiquities of the Jews 8:2:5
​

One can read the Testament of Solomon for more information, which describes many of Solomon's explorations into magic----much of it, again, due to what happened in I Kings 11 /Nehemiah 13:25-27 when he began to become more and more idolatrous due to his many wives/their gods whom he followed. Exorcism of demons is a theme in the Talmud. In medieval Jewish literature, the term "dibbuk" becomes commoner. There are descriptions of Jewish exorcisms dating from the present century.

This frames more of the Christian perspective for me. Thanks for sharing.

Given that demons are regarded as real and not imaginary phenomena (Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 9:34, Matthew 11:20-21, Mark 5:11-17, etc), it is at times surprising that it is sometimes possible to use magical means, that is, demonic means, to expel them. Many young adults getting involved in Paganism/Occult and for them they said they realized how there's a system in which one can learn to manipulate other spiritual entities in the spiritual realm...even when those entities are not concerned with our welfare. ...and doing Youth Ministry for nearly a decade, this is something I've seen often. Biblically, we already know there is some degree of order even in the demonic hierarchy (Ephesians 6:1-10, Daniel 9-10, etc)---and some demonic powers can expel other demonic powers.....with the rules of the system allowing for others to do certain things outside of God's rule.

But outside of God's rule/permission, it can never be appropriate. It's again a matter of Black Market mysticism which is not sanctioned by God and dangerous - Hope that makes sense, as I wanted to be clear on where I stood on the matter - and why I feel that going for the Occult when you can find things in Christ/God (if really encountering him) which are far more powerful. I always seem surprised when people promote the Occult as if it alone was where Mysticism and yet they either ignore or outright don't know of what's discussed elsewhere (With things like the dynamic of Temple and Righteousness in Qumran and Early Christianity - Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism among other things)...the reality of Cosmology within Christendom is very strong and vibrant and one doesn't have to go far.

Native American Theologians like Dr. Richard Twiss do an excellent job of mapping out expressions that are not necessarily within the Early Church vernacular when speaking as a Christian within the Indigenous world and being much more open to not needing all things defined - and I appreciate that since I grew up with that as well. The reality of what happens in Aministic cultures makes a huge difference when knowing that the existence of spirits and many other beings does NOT mean that one ignores Christ - or think that one has to go to the Occult in order to interact with the world. It means we go to Christ who has Dominion over it - and knowing that the world we have is very interactive

I think a large part of the problem here is knowledge and awareness and the tendency for denominations to downplay or downright suppress this subject matter. The mystical aspects of Christianity (and Judaism moreso) have never EVER been covered my religious upbringing as a Catholic and as a Protestant even mentioning it was seen as somewhat suspicious as anything that wasn't part of the church order of "being slain in the spirit" was categorically seen as something dangerous and occult. I think that what this does is lead people to stop asking about mystical interaction with God since they are afraid that it will paint a target on their backs. In terms of being a teenager, its not something I would have brought up to a youth leader that is for sure. My interest in the Occult actually began when another member of my church had a similar discussion with me: "why are only the church leadership allowed to contact God in the most complete way?" <- this point mostly came from the fact that never of us ever had a true "slaying in the spirit" moment where we spoke in tongues or convulsed on the floor.

As speaking in tongues is regarded as a gift from god (citations can be found throughout the New Testament); we both took this as we had been rejected by the divine which began years of spiraling doubt of our religion and investigation into alternate spirituality.

These resources you have provided have been useful for me taking a second look at some of it, though, because its all basically "new" to me that one could be allowed to have a personal mysticism pointed towards God in Christianity. It seems to have been at odds with everything I have thus been taught in my life.​

Trust me when I say I get what you're saying - and of course, I have told others before that trying to always verify something as either true or false empiracally can be misleading at times (simply because the metaphysical world is already something which naturalists cannot really disappove - and Native Americans have often pointed this out with the Western world when it comes to the Enlightmnent era/Age of Reason and Materialism/REASON being promoted excessively - it's not consider logical for Native Spirituality in saying only what can be explained in science or explained in natural terms is real and this has been noted when it comes to pointing out how methods of research often differ with regards to a Native perspective as opposed to a Western one).

Some things come back to knowing the reason for your acceptance and rejection - for someone believe in the supernatural world, I don't say Greek gods/goddesses weren't real. I note they were corruptions of what God intended and beings posing as figures like that in order to steal worship away from God - even as true life lessons were still being taught. Even Paul noted this when it comes to Acts 17 and acknowledging people as already seeking what was true and yet being incomplete - and thus, he began with their knowledge of the unknown God. Now, for someone beginning a conversation on the Supernatural and other beings, if they don't even believe God is real, then others believing in the Supernatural will see that they lack reason and vice-versa.

And of course, as much as I value ideas expressed in media such as DBZ or The Last Airbender and just as I VALUE ancient mythical stories in some cases, I don't automatically say it is not factually possible simply because of modern sensibilities where science/reason are essentially the religion others go to. The way we explained the world is a big deal and I hope that makes sense in what I've conveyed.

Yeah I hear you. I regularly get myself into all kinds of trouble here with my Atheist friends as they assume an endorsement of spiritual matters is a rejection of logic and reason. It might be of naturalism, but that doesn't mean I reject logic and reason: my belief system absolutely incorporates modern scientific theory and finds science to be a wonderful tool for advancing the human condition and knowledge of the universe. It's a pain point though because my community has lots of bad stereotypes of being as anti-Science as any other religion.

Your understanding of lesser gods being "corruptions" of one greater God makes sense to me. It is also interesting to see people who probably would qualify as naturalists assume some supernatural beliefs casually; such as maybe belief in ghosts. I do think that part of this is mislabeling people as "Atheists" which, while maybe accurate, sort of implies a certain philosophical framework at play that isn't truly at play for most people. Maybe irreligious is a better term for those "not particularly religious people who might hold a spiritual belief or two". Just a little side thought I had.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I remember being a big part of it and blending a lot of DBZ ideas with things from other animes and cartoons that I was exposed to at the time, though DBZ really was a centerpiece of the cosmological fixture.

Thinking it'd be excellent if the Bible was displayed in such terms when it comes to animated Bibles. I am a fan of Manga Bibles and I thought it would've been interesting to have something like DBZ style bringing scripture to life.

 

[Aryeh]

Thinking it'd be excellent if the Bible was displayed in such terms when it comes to animated Bibles. I am a fan of Manga Bibles and I thought it would've been interesting to have something like DBZ style bringing scripture to life.

WOW THIS IS REALLY COOL!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

WOW THIS IS REALLY COOL!

It is, isn't it?

 

[Zoness]

As I understand it, there is some Manga/graphic novels out there that depicts Christian scenes from the New Testament. I haven't read it but I know it exists.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

As I understand it, there is some Manga/graphic novels out there that depicts Christian scenes from the New Testament. I haven't read it but I know it exists.

The Manga Bible is one of them and I own one - and love it

​

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That's pretty interesting, thanks for sharing. I think in this case there are many factors that play into the differences of our upbringing re: Catholicism and too many to enumerate right now. I do find the whole approach to be interesting to read, though: I think in my life Catholicism was just something I did because it was part of my cultural and class fabric. I was raised in a mostly white medium-sized Midwestern farming town where, to the average resident, income disparity was pretty much unnoticed unless you lived on the far south side of town which was visibly poorer. In terms of my upbringing it was just another box to check on the process of growing up. As a quick aside: My mom descends from an Irish Catholic family who emigrated from Ireland at the height of the potato famine in 1845. My Dad descends from a predominantly Swedish and Norwegian family who statistically were nominally Lutheran. Though when my grandma was pregnant with my Dad's oldest brother, she was expelled from the Lutheran church and never went back. That informed a generation of irreligiousness on my Dad's side of the family for a whole generation until he converted to Christianity over ten years ago.

Anyways, at the time my parents were still married my dad didn't care and my mom saw it as an obligation. She is a more serious Catholic now but in the past her priorities were different. I simply didn't give it a second thought until I had to attend classes about it where not even the history interested me, it just seemed like long lists of rules because that's basically what was needed to know to pass the classes for confirmation. From a young age, I viewed Christianity as a long list of rules to adhere to or God will be unhappy. Even almost 15 years later, the ghosts of that perception are a hard thing to shake. Even after a stint in a more radical Protestant church.

Fascinating historical review with regards to where you come from and I appreciate you sharing. Surprised about your grandma being expelled and yet that makes sense with the irreligiousness that developed later on. And what you noted with income disparity is definitely noteworthy when it comes to seeing how easily it can be missed based on one's experience.

It is unfortunate to see how many grow up with a view of Christianity that makes it out to simply be rules and regulations in order to avoid God getting angry/hitting you.

As an aside, this may be a bit too much for some. But I've always appreciated Christian Mystic John Crowder for his very fascinating thoughts on the issue.

Yeah this is a hard one. On it's face, I utterly understand that the opinions of some aren't the opinions of all but in America that "some" is more like a "many", maybe even a "most". At any rate, it should be detached from Christianity as a religion but there's where the bounds of religion and culture become so sticky and hard to separate. Over the years its been presented that if I were still a Christian, it would only be right that I am a registered Republican who votes for conservative causes and listens to the talking heads because hey "that's what real Christians do". Even if that isn't literally true, the perception in the demographic I am exposed to and the demographic I was raised in reflects that quite a bit.

However controls the media often gets to shape the perceptions, even if it's abnormal what they present. Going into different cultures, it does make a difference seeing for oneself.

I'm curious if you have any recommendations for the an overview of the Early Church? I love history and would enjoy such a read. It would give me a different perspective.

If I may offer, you may want to start with something simple before going to more complex reads on the issue. I'd highly recommend looking into places like the following:

• Ancient Christian Witness

Also, EO Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart actually did an excellent job discussing the extensiveness of the Church and variations within the Body of Christ - as seen best in one of the books I've recently gotten called "The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith" - amazing presentation on why the history of the faith is a GLOBAL faith

​

I can give more as time goes on, but that was something I thought should be shared early on.

​

I liked that Biologos article. I had a quick thumb through of that site and found it pretty interesting, I didn't know it existed. It was refreshing.

I'm glad it gave a lot more food for thought, as they always do

​

I understand where you are coming from, though typically here is where the bone-picking begins with pagans. If I may offer my perspective, Neopaganism in the United States (and by extension, Europe) was not born in a vacuum but in a way was a response to Christianity. Taking social mores and religious tendencies into consideration, many Occultists (often but not always pagans) don't see themselves as consorting with the devil (if they believe he exists) but rather accessing forces that they feel Christianity has denied them. Pagans and Occultists see this as a power play: as only priests or bishops or pastors can have "access" to the esoteric forces and magic of God. Sure the parish member may be able to pray to God but their prayers are one of many, many others presumably regarded with equal priority. It's seen as being relegated to the most limited way of communicating with god; through spoken word (most often, pre-scripted by approved authorities) and thus as a way to prevent people from accessing more mystical aspects of the divine. Being accused of being "devil worshipers" (something I am still called to my face in this day and age, though only on rare occasion) simply legitimizes this feeling that there is intentional isolation going on.

I understand where you are coming from, although I would say that there is a dynamic not often understood when it comes to what many in the Pagan world do. Specifically, people often assume that only the priest or pastor has access to God and yet that does not deal with what Christ did for us on the Cross when he interacted with HIS Disciples/empowered them through the Holy Spirit to do amazing things - from the miraculous to other forms of Divine Intervention. I Peter 2 notes this on us being a Royal Priesthood/kingdom of priests - and we have an extensive history of others who were Mystics/Monks experiencing mystical aspects of the Divine that the Lord made available.

And others today have often shared on that. I am reminded of people I appreciate such as Todd White:

As an aside, I hope it's understood that I have never assumed all Pagans claim to worship the Devil. Even watching Dr. Strange as a Fantasy film can lead others to note that many of those in the Occult don't focus on Satan nor do they believe he exists (even though they believe in malevolent beings who are not to be trusted). What I was saying with the Devil or "Evil One" is that any ideology (according to Christ) which doesn't point back to him does damage since it points away from him and others who used to be involved in Paganism before walking away from it/the Occult noted how they didn't realize they were involved in Satanic work until they stepped away from it. And to be consistent, even within Judaism as Christian thought evolved, there has been discussion on how the concept of the Devil didn't always appear to be negative:

• Satan and demons | Dr. Michael Heiser
• Where Do Demons Come From? | LogosTalk
• Recent Dissertation on Satan Available Online | Dr. Michael Heiser
• The Absence of Satan in the Old Testament | Dr. Michael Heiser

Female pagans may take this a step further as the overwhelming majority of religious official positions in Christianity can be (or are) only held by men; it is seen as yet another attempt to isolate those unworthy of God's power from him. As I understand it (feel free to correct), I think this stems from the idea that Eve was the first sinner and thus women are more prone to sin and thus have lower spiritual acumen. I think many people in that religious community would sort of scoff at the idea of the Spaniard as an embodiment of the authorities telling people to "know their place" with regard to religion and magic. Does this make sense?

There's actually an entire world of thought that gets missed when it comes to females being HIGHLY exalted within Christianity and others realizing how much women were never meant to be seen as "second class" to men, with the sin of the world falling on ADAM rather than Eve since she was deceived...but he rebelled. The many who were females and leaders in the church is often ignored - and regarding the Spaniard, if it wasn't him, it'd be another female leader who would have said it....and we have others who often did.

This really isn't a problem when considering the sheer history of women who noted the same issues - some have even pointed out this isn't new, as it concerns seeing the similarities between Christianity and other religions, if remembering films like the movie Avatar when it comes to the "Mother Earth"/"Gaia" theology shared...more shared in Nov 8, 2014#14 and elsewhere. It's not wrong to have a view of a feminine view of the Lord in any way - some of this was noted elsewhere, as seen here:

the persons of the Godhead are distinct but relational and one thus "God is love" as John states. This is not the case with the Olympians (or other gods that I know of). Further, in discussing this issue, a list was made of the abilities etc. of the persons of the Holy Trinity in Scripture, and were found to have the same attributes with the exception that the Father originates, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. This is again not the case with the Olympians, etc.

Very excellent points - and yet within that there's the dynamic of the Trinity having relationship amongst itself just as it is within a Human Family of Father, Mother and Son...and on a side note, to be clear r with the Family Dynamic - as noted elsewhere more in-depth - it is challenging seeing others tackle other possibilities of there being a FEMININE Aspect of the GOD-Head, as it relates to the concept of Family (i.e. Father, Son, Mother, etc), "Lady Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 (and how the Historical Church often viewed the issue)----and understanding the reasons behind why many had issues with it down in later centuries of the Early Church.[/SIZE] [/COLOR][/FONT]. If aware of what is taught in the Syriac Orthodox CHurch on the Holy Spirit and women, it's very surprising to see their thoughts on a Feminine Holy SPirit (Even though others disagree in regards to the reasons why feminine language was used by parts of Ancient Christendom)- more here at The Role of Women in the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch*/The Holy Spirit as Feminine in Early Syriac Literature or The Holy Spirit: Classic and Contemporary Readings - Page 113


And on the issue of the Trinity having a highly SOCIAL aspect to it even as all are unified together - for good review on the issue, one can consider going here:

• social trinity | Eclectic Orthodoxy

As another noted best elsewhere in Crowned, anointed, and communed as clergy: On the coronations of Russian empresses regnant
:

It is well-known that in May 1896, at the last coronation of a Russian monarch and his consort, Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna were both crowned and anointed by the Russian Orthodox Church’s senior-ranking metropolitan. Russian tsars had been crowned from time immemorial, but what is fascinating about this last coronation ceremony was that many of the time-honored rituals Nicholas II participated in as the monarch were rituals first observed in 1730 at the coronation of a female sovereign, Empress Anna Ivanovna.

​

Laurits Tuxen’s 1898 Coronation of Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna.


Keeping with imperial precedent dating (according to Brenda Meehan-Waters’ 1975 essay “Catherine the Great and the Problem of Female Rule”) to Elizabeth Petrovna’s 1742 coronation, the sovereign Emperor Nicholas crowned himself, symbolizing that the autocratic power devolved to him directly from God and not from the blessing of the Church. In contrast, Empress Alexandra, as the consort and not the sovereign in her own right, was crowned directly by her husband, who briefly took off his own imperial crown, touching it to her forehead before crowning her with the smaller consort’s imperial crown. This act of the physical crowning of the Russian empress consort by her sovereign spouse closely follows Byzantine custom for the crowning of the Augusta/Βασίλισσα (see Wooley, Maxwell, B.D. Coronation Rites. Cambridge University Press, 1915), and has its first example in Russian history with Peter I’s 1724 coronation of his consort Catherine, who ultimately succeeded him as sovereign (r. 1725-27). Catherine I does not seem to have had a coronation as Empress regnant, but at her coronation as consort in 1724 she received the pomazanie, the anointing with holy chrism, following her crowning by Peter.

​

Crowning of Empress Maria Alexandrovna by Emperor Alexander II, 1856 – Coronation Book of 1856.

​

Nicholas II crowned Alexandra as Empress consort immediately following his own coronation. He took off his Imperial crown and touched it briefly to her forehead, symbolizing her sharing in his sacred duty of ruling Russia, and then proceeded to crown her with the smaller consort’s crown.

To emphasize Nicholas’ role as monarch, in which he fulfilled a quasi-sacerdotal role as intercessor for his people before God, in keeping with his male and female predecessors the Emperor was anointed during the Divine Liturgy at the Royal Doors/Beautiful Gate by Russia’s senior-most Metropolitan. Mirroring the anointing performed at one’s chrismation, the monarch was sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit in the eight holy places — on his forehead, his eyes, his ears, his nose, his mouth, his breast, his hands, and his feet. Reflecting that she was not the sovereign in her own right, but her husband’s help-meet and consort sharing equally in his imperial dignity and the ultimate spiritual responsibility for governing the empire, Empress Alexandra too was anointed by the metropolitan, but only once, upon her forehead.

​

The anointing of Nicholas II, May 1896, Uspenskiy Sobor, with Empress Alexandra waiting behind him for her own anointing.

The key distinction between the monarch and his consort came not even at the anointing, which was performed immediately before the Holy Gifts were administered, but in the reception of communion itself. Emperor Nicholas II, as the monarch — not, as it has been argued, due to his maleness — received the Lord’s Body and Blood directly in the altar itself. He communed directly of the Body and Blood as if he were a priest or a bishop, using his hands to take the bread and the chalice, symbolizing his spiritual equality among Russia’s senior bishops and metropolitans just this once in his life. Thus, for all intents and purposes, during the Divine Liturgy on this one occasion the monarch was regarded by the Church as a mixed person, set apart as part-priest and part-layman. In contrast, the Empress Alexandra, as the imperial consort and therefore not a “mixed person”, but nonetheless exalted over all other lay people, was the first of the laity to receive communion, but she received on the solea as did the laity, and from the chalice via the spoon, with the Body and Blood mixed together in the lay manner.​

​

Again, just some food for thought. I think when discussing "female clergy" we still have to be very careful because deaconesses were clergy and major clergy at that - plenty of documentation. As a matter of practice, we do have female Orthodox hospital chaplains already. There are others who are already chaplains. And with being a chaplain, it was not always a religious role. But of course, facts are facts.

As others have pointed out, there are some jurisdictions that have restored the female diaconate - not in the place of deacon, but in a similar role as the historic deaconess - teaching the women, ministering to the sick, helping adult women prepare for baptism, etc. (a very different role that the liturgical role held by deacons). There are even organizations dedicated to this (St. Phoebe Center ).

And when it comes to sources, I think we have to be ready to deal squarely with them and not react. Greek Church restored the female diaconate awhile ago and that's still a problem for some (Church of Greece Restores Diaconate for Women | St. Mary Orthodox Church in Central Square, Cambridge) - AND to be clear, the aforementioned article cited comes from the Church of Greece and was by Dr. Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, who is the author of Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church which contains an extensive preface by Professor Evangelos Theodorou. She has represented the Ecumenical Patriarchate at numerous theological conferences including the Pan-Orthodox Consultation on Rhodes in 1988..

• Biography of Dr. Kyriaki FitzGerald | Antiochian Orthodox Christian ...
• Women Disciples of the Lord, Part 3: Podcast with Dr. Kyriaki: St. Vladmir Orthodox Seminary ...
  
  
• "Eve, Mary, and Us" by Dr. Kyriaki FitzGerald Podcast Available / Women Disciples of the Lord: Part Three
• "Women Disciples of the Lord" Speakers on Ancient Faith Radio

Besides what has happened in the Greek Church, for folks who think women are 'less' in Orthodoxy, take a look at the present Philoptochos president

- http://www.philoptochos.org/president-and-officers/

"His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in America, announced the appointment of Maria Logus, Esq. of New York as the new National Philoptochos President at the inaugural meeting of the 2014-2016 National Philoptochos Board held on October 17 at the Hilton Hotel in New York. Archbishop Demetrios praised Miss Logus for her commitment and service to Philoptochos and the Church."​

And besides that, a lot of people seem to forget that the empress Eudocia designed and funded building projects in the iirc 5th century Byzantine empire. Several other female Empresses did extensive things for the Church and the Church honored/submitted to them as they defended the Church, some of their views influencing the Councils themselves. We know this historically when seeing events that preceded the Councils themselves, with one example seen in what occurred within the time of Nestorius when there were cults of Mary (which were supported by Pulcheria in the Imperial Court). As the daughter of the Roman emperor Arcadius and sister of Theodosius II, she was perhaps the most powerful person within the Eastern Roman Empire for decades AND a critical force in shaping church orthodoxy. In 450 she married Marcian, who became emperor, and together they called and supported the Council of Chalcedon.

Besides her, I'm reminded of similar moments where even the deposition of John Chrysostom at the beginning of the fifth century was done because of the power of female leadership...specifically, Aelia Eudoxia (died 404): empress, wife of the emperor Arcadius, and deadly enemy of John Chrysostom (due to their interactions/his criticisms of her style of dress and fashion)...as she was also active in the affairs of the church, patronising the Nicene Creed, paying for religious processions and involving herself in Christian celebrations and vigils, often appearing without her husband.

One of the best reads on the issue that I think everyone would benefit from would be from Holdum's work on Empresses:

G​

Just as in Native American/Indigenous cultures, we have women who have been matriarchs in the households and occupying high roles of leadership.

And of course, I'm thankful for the many ministries already available for women to lead:

• Women's Club | St. Mary Orthodox Church in Central Square, Cambridge
• Ministries | St. Mary Orthodox Church in Central Square, Cambridge
• Parish Ministry Resources - Involving Our Young Girls
• Greek Orthodox Ladies Philoptochos Society | National Philoptochos Society

​

These have been bookmarked for more meticulous study as I am very interested in them. Thanks for sharing.

Nice

This frames more of the Christian perspective for me. Thanks for sharing.

Cool.

I think a large part of the problem here is knowledge and awareness and the tendency for denominations to downplay or downright suppress this subject matter. The mystical aspects of Christianity (and Judaism moreso) have never EVER been covered my religious upbringing as a Catholic and as a Protestant even mentioning it was seen as somewhat suspicious as anything that wasn't part of the church order of "being slain in the spirit" was categorically seen as something dangerous and occult. I think that what this does is lead people to stop asking about mystical interaction with God since they are afraid that it will paint a target on their backs. In terms of being a teenager, its not something I would have brought up to a youth leader that is for sure. My interest in the Occult actually began when another member of my church had a similar discussion with me: "why are only the church leadership allowed to contact God in the most complete way?" <- this point mostly came from the fact that never of us ever had a true "slaying in the spirit" moment where we spoke in tongues or convulsed on the floor.

As speaking in tongues is regarded as a gift from god (citations can be found throughout the New Testament); we both took this as we had been rejected by the divine which began years of spiraling doubt of our religion and investigation into alternate spirituality.

Makes sense....and sadly, that has happened to many others who discuss things AFTER the fact.

These resources you have provided have been useful for me taking a second look at some of it, though, because its all basically "new" to me that one could be allowed to have a personal mysticism pointed towards God in Christianity. It seems to have been at odds with everything I have thus been taught in my life.

I understand

Yeah I hear you. I regularly get myself into all kinds of trouble here with my Atheist friends as they assume an endorsement of spiritual matters is a rejection of logic and reason. It might be of naturalism, but that doesn't mean I reject logic and reason: my belief system absolutely incorporates modern scientific theory and finds science to be a wonderful tool for advancing the human condition and knowledge of the universe. It's a pain point though because my community has lots of bad stereotypes of being as anti-Science as any other religion.

Many within the Native American community have noted the same when it comes to leaving out scientific perspectives that incorporate scientific theory with philosophy of the world....and seeing others fulfill bad stereotypes with being anti-Science because their groups adhered to a bad form of dualism/gnostic thought that didn't know how to incorporate science and theology. I keep this in mind a lot when it comes to seeing the ways that theological stances truly do impact. One amazing read on the issue can be seen here in the book Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence

For a quick review, the author "examines the multiple levels of meaning that inform Native astronomy, cosmology, psychology, agriculture, and the healing arts....Unlike the Western scientific method, Native thinking does not isolate an object or phenomenon in order to understand and work with it, but perceives it in terms of relationship. An understanding of the relationships that bind together natural forces and all forms of life has been fundamental to the ability of Indigenous peoples to live for millennia in spiritual and physical harmony with the land."

Thought the work was so timely when it comes to seeing why many don't understand how logic/science vary depending on the culture and worldview.

​

​

And for another read on the issue, one can consider Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Education. I really appreciated it since There definitely needs to be more consideration for Native American philosophy/religion (ecosophy) when seeing what science has to say

​

Your understanding of lesser gods being "corruptions" of one greater God makes sense to me. It is also interesting to see people who probably would qualify as naturalists assume some supernatural beliefs casually; such as maybe belief in ghosts. I do think that part of this is mislabeling people as "Atheists" which, while maybe accurate, sort of implies a certain philosophical framework at play that isn't truly at play for most people. Maybe irreligious is a better term for those "not particularly religious people who might hold a spiritual belief or two". Just a little side thought I had.

I think that's appropriate and a good point to consider. Personally, I don't think ANYONE is truly non-religious and at the root of things, people are really more irreligious to be accurate.

Even with regards to the thread itself, mythology is something that all people can appreciate and it's part of why it's important to me.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

More filler for next week, so it looks like the Universal Survival Arc will be epic, and long.

Glad that the Universal Arc is seeming rather intriguing so far.

And many have wondered if Goku will get a new form.

Others have given out an interesting theory saying Zamasu will return...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

More filler for next week, so it looks like the Universal Survival Arc will be epic, and long.

Watching the series so far, I am more convinced than before that I DO NOT TRUST THE GRAND PRIEST...

​

The new arc should be rather amazing...

 

[Aryeh]

Watching the series so far, I am more convinced than before that I DO NOT TRUST THE GRAND PRIEST...

​

The new arc should be rather amazing...

When Goku showed up unannounced to "ZENO,"and Daishinkan said, "oh, its you..." i was like, "hmm... seems like Daishinkan is losing patience with Gomu. When Daishinkan said, "Goku, you silence would be appreciated" or something, I was like, "ohh shoot! Goku's favor has run out!"

Daishinkan - if we extend the analogy of angel/god dynamic - may actually be stronger than Zeno.

Take the Hebrew Kingdom couplet for example: the King is the King, but even he is advised and counseled by a (Levite) priest - and technically the priest has more "power" than the king in this dynamic.

I think TSHTF when others find out Goku is [tangentially] responsible for the upcoming destruction of the universes. As I said before, this may be the news that causes one or multiple gods to go rogue.

I wonder how Vegeta will take the news, seeing as he has a newborn now (OMGOSH my Vegeta is growing up - sacrificing training for Bulma and the baby.)

Maybe the destruction of the universes will motivate vegeta to unlock potential and ascend. I wish he could have a CLEAR ascension that qualifies his superiority - not like USSJ, or Ma(jin)Vegeta.

I hope universe 6 doesn't die I like Champa, Vados, Botamo, Maggeta, and especially Cabbe.

This will be an intestine arc. Clearly, Goku/Goha /Buu will win. This "exhibition" is Toriyamas way of giving us a show of Buu and Gohan fighting since we missed that.



Goku IS a nuisance now. Notice only entities as "slow" as he is actually like and tolerate him nonstop - like Zeno.

I hope this leads to Goku being assassinated, or pummelled. If he had some manners and culture perhaps this wouldn't happen with the universes.


Daishinkan, I believe, will come off as good - like stopping the destruction of unuverses. I could see a cliche "battle in the heavens" between Zeno, his attendants, and the angels. I neglected the gods because they aren't a match for angels.

Also, did you notice that Daishinkan used "power cosmic" with just his hands?! No staff. Daishinkan worries me more than Zeno, ways has.

 

[Aryeh]

Btw, in the Manga, Daishinkan IS the strongest fighter in the universe - not just top 5.

 

[Aryeh]

I also saw theory that says Future Zeno absorbed Future Zamasu, and is actually evil.

*shrugs*

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When Goku showed up unannounced to "ZENO,"and Daishinkan said, "oh, its you..." i was like, "hmm... seems like Daishinkan is losing patience with Gomu. When Daishinkan said, "Goku, you silence would be appreciated" or something, I was like, "ohh shoot! Goku's favor has run out!"

Daishinkan - if we extend the analogy of angel/god dynamic - may actually be stronger than Zeno.

Take the Hebrew Kingdom couplet for example: the King is the King, but even he is advised and counseled by a (Levite) priest - and technically the priest has more "power" than the king in this dynamic.

I think TSHTF when others find out Goku is [tangentially] responsible for the upcoming destruction of the universes. As I said before, this may be the news that causes one or multiple gods to go rogue.

I definitely believe that Goku needs to leave this season learning some SERIOUS lessons on being careless - ones that make him no longer eager to fight and do stupid moves, but that cost him greatly without the ability of change. A wife dying or a son, I don't know. But I have grown a bit tired of him at this point. And yes, I do agree that he was more than responsible - and with Daishinkan, I think he is the power behind the throne. I would not say he's more powerful - but I do think he's up there...

That said, all of the angel figures from the universes were rather amazing....

And so far, seeing the gods of destruction alongside their respective gods of creation are interesting - including the fighters from their universes.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I also saw theory that says Future Zeno absorbed Future Zamasu, and is actually evil.

*shrugs*

Shrugs??

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Btw, in the Manga, Daishinkan IS the strongest fighter in the universe - not just top 5.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out:

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Daishinkan, I believe, will come off as good - like stopping the destruction of unuverses. I could see a cliche "battle in the heavens" between Zeno, his attendants, and the angels. I neglected the gods because they aren't a match for angels.

Also, did you notice that Daishinkan used "power cosmic" with just his hands?! No staff. Daishinkan worries me more than Zeno, ways has.

Glad that Goku is finally being held accountable in the series...

As one review said best:

Over the past few weeks, a series of controversial arguments have been brought up in the Dragon Ball fandom. The franchise recently threw fans into a tailspin when Dragon Ball Super initiated its newest story arc. The ‘Universal Survival’ saga kicked off after Goku boldly approached the Omni-Kings to request they hold a multiverse martial arts tournament. They were happy to oblige, but the rest of the universes were not pleased to learn their ranking in the event would determine whether or not their homes were obliterated.

Within the span of a few episodes, Dragon Ball Super managed to convince scores of fans Goku was going dark-side. Theories popped up about the Saiyan’s potential heel turn as fans pointed out foreshadowing shots and dialogue quips. However, for other fans, Goku’s apparently turnabout was anything but nefarious. Rather, they thought it was a rather clever misdirect.

As Dragon Ball fans know, Goku is someone who loves to fight. The franchises’s creator has even stressed that Goku’s desire to fight overrules everything else; In fact, Toriyama has gone so far as to say Goku is not very heroic or altruistic with his skill set. When it comes down to it, Goku fights for chaotic-neutral reasons as he gets off on the adrenaline that comes with beatdowns.

For Goku to present himself as a villainous figure in Dragon Ball Super - well, it’s not totally unheard. The character has no inherent desire to be a hero but rather to fight. And, really, who’s to say Goku isn’t presenting himself as a target on purpose?

Goku wanted the Omni-Kings to host the Tournament of Power because he was bored and wanted to fight. The hero was smarting after his long-held battle with Goku Black, and there was no one in Universe 7 who could appease his need to fight save for Beerus and Whis. However, even with a multiverse tournament at hand, Goku may have felt concerned he wasn’t going to get the most out of his competitors. So, what better way to ensure his opponents go all out that to make them think Goku is really a villain?


In the past, Goku has said he fights best under pressure and when his opponents are gunning against his full-force. The Saiyan was disappointed with his most recent fight against Bergamo because the Universe 9 warrior hesitated to go all-out. However, next week, Goku appears to be in a better mood as he gets to fight Toppo of Universe 11 after the other fighter accuses Goku of being a villain out to end the multiverse.

If Goku is purposely setting himself up to be a villain, then the Saiyan is smarter than anyone gives him credit for. And, yes, a bit on the irresponsible side as well. For all fans know, the theories about Goku asking the Omni-Kings to lie about the multiverse’s possible annihilation could be true as well. In order to light a fire under his competitors, Goku could have called in the favor, and no one will be the wiser until the Tournament of Power comes to an end.​

 

[Zoness]

I haven't been ignoring your posts @Gxg (G²) I just have been very busy. I plan to respond this week!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I haven't been ignoring your posts @Gxg (G²) I just have been very busy. I plan to respond this week!

Not a problem, dude - I've been busy myself and taking care of several issues at the same time

 

[Zoness]

As an aside, I hope it's understood that I have never assumed all Pagans claim to worship the Devil. Even watching Dr. Strange as a Fantasy film can lead others to note that many of those in the Occult don't focus on Satan nor do they believe he exists (even though they believe in malevolent beings who are not to be trusted). What I was saying with the Devil or "Evil One" is that any ideology (according to Christ) which doesn't point back to him does damage since it points away from him and others who used to be involved in Paganism before walking away from it/the Occult noted how they didn't realize they were involved in Satanic work until they stepped away from it. And to be consistent, even within Judaism as Christian thought evolved, there has been discussion on how the concept of the Devil didn't always appear to be negative:

Satan and demons | Dr. Michael Heiser
Where Do Demons Come From? | LogosTalk
Recent Dissertation on Satan Available Online | Dr. Michael Heiser
The Absence of Satan in the Old Testament | Dr. Michael Heiser

Hey man, finally getting back to this! Sorry for the slow turnaround. Thanks for the links, they are informative.

It's definitely interesting to see how

No worries, I certainly did not take it personally and I am sure that most pagans would also not take it personally due to the nature and tone of our discussion. I understand your perspective on this matter as it has to be that if one is not of Jesus then they must be against him. While I personally wouldn't say against, I understand the idea. I think the reason that people get jumpy at this idea is because people have a hard time separating theoretical from practical. If someone is thought to be "of Satan" then of course its righteous for that person to be a target of some sort of religious justice. It doesn't happen often but it has happened in the past.

You're pretty much spot on: a lot of Occultism doesn't focus on a specific idea of Satan (though some do, those who associate with Christianity of course) but rather malevolent beings that may be culture-centric. We take very seriously the risk of malevolent spirits and I highly advocate against their invocation as its too risky for those who don't know what they're doing and even those who ARE qualified are at risk.

There's actually an entire world of thought that gets missed when it comes to females being HIGHLY exalted within Christianity and others realizing how much women were never meant to be seen as "second class" to men, with the sin of the world falling on ADAM rather than Eve since she was deceived...but he rebelled. The many who were females and leaders in the church is often ignored - and regarding the Spaniard, if it wasn't him, it'd be another female leader who would have said it....and we have others who often did.

This really isn't a problem when considering the sheer history of women who noted the same issues - some have even pointed out this isn't new, as it concerns seeing the similarities between Christianity and other religions, if remembering films like the movie Avatar when it comes to the "Mother Earth"/"Gaia" theology shared...more shared in Nov 8, 2014#14 and elsewhere. It's not wrong to have a view of a feminine view of the Lord in any way - some of this was noted elsewhere, as seen here:

As another noted best elsewhere in Crowned, anointed, and communed as clergy: On the coronations of Russian empresses regnant

Again, just some food for thought. I think when discussing "female clergy" we still have to be very careful because deaconesses were clergy and major clergy at that - plenty of documentation. As a matter of practice, we do have female Orthodox hospital chaplains already. There are others who are already chaplains. And with being a chaplain, it was not always a religious role. But of course, facts are facts.

As others have pointed out, there are some jurisdictions that have restored the female diaconate - not in the place of deacon, but in a similar role as the historic deaconess - teaching the women, ministering to the sick, helping adult women prepare for baptism, etc. (a very different role that the liturgical role held by deacons). There are even organizations dedicated to this (St. Phoebe Center ).

And when it comes to sources, I think we have to be ready to deal squarely with them and not react. Greek Church restored the female diaconate awhile ago and that's still a problem for some (Church of Greece Restores Diaconate for Women | St. Mary Orthodox Church in Central Square, Cambridge) - AND to be clear, the aforementioned article cited comes from the Church of Greece and was by Dr. Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, who is the author of Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church which contains an extensive preface by Professor Evangelos Theodorou. She has represented the Ecumenical Patriarchate at numerous theological conferences including the Pan-Orthodox Consultation on Rhodes in 1988..

Biography of Dr. Kyriaki FitzGerald | Antiochian Orthodox Christian ...
Women Disciples of the Lord, Part 3: Podcast with Dr. Kyriaki: St. Vladmir Orthodox Seminary ...

"Eve, Mary, and Us" by Dr. Kyriaki FitzGerald Podcast Available / Women Disciples of the Lord: Part Three
"Women Disciples of the Lord" Speakers on Ancient Faith Radio



Besides what has happened in the Greek Church, for folks who think women are 'less' in Orthodoxy, take a look at the present Philoptochos president

- Greek Orthodox Ladies Philoptochos Society | National President/ Officers


And besides that, a lot of people seem to forget that the empress Eudocia designed and funded building projects in the iirc 5th century Byzantine empire. Several other female Empresses did extensive things for the Church and the Church honored/submitted to them as they defended the Church, some of their views influencing the Councils themselves. We know this historically when seeing events that preceded the Councils themselves, with one example seen in what occurred within the time of Nestorius when there were cults of Mary (which were supported by Pulcheria in the Imperial Court). As the daughter of the Roman emperor Arcadius and sister of Theodosius II, she was perhaps the most powerful person within the Eastern Roman Empire for decades AND a critical force in shaping church orthodoxy. In 450 she married Marcian, who became emperor, and together they called and supported the Council of Chalcedon.

Besides her, I'm reminded of similar moments where even the deposition of John Chrysostom at the beginning of the fifth century was done because of the power of female leadership...specifically, Aelia Eudoxia (died 404): empress, wife of the emperor Arcadius, and deadly enemy of John Chrysostom (due to their interactions/his criticisms of her style of dress and fashion)...as she was also active in the affairs of the church, patronising the Nicene Creed, paying for religious processions and involving herself in Christian celebrations and vigils, often appearing without her husband.

One of the best reads on the issue that I think everyone would benefit from would be from Holdum's work on Empresses:

Just as in Native American/Indigenous cultures, we have women who have been matriarchs in the households and occupying high roles of leadership.

This is pretty interesting information; culture has shifted over the centuries away from women having authority for what appears to be largely political and cultural reasons rather than being endorsed specifically by Christianity. The problem is that as it permiated so much of Western European culture for so many centuries, it was exported to North America during its young colonial years and only really in the last century does it seem to be receeding to outside pressure. I didn't know the Orthodox had female deacons (even if not liturgical).

As an aside, many people in my part of the country don't know anything about the ORthodox at all. In fact to them, the Orthodox might as well be a different religion. They even regard Roman Catholicism as suspicious.

Many within the Native American community have noted the same when it comes to leaving out scientific perspectives that incorporate scientific theory with philosophy of the world....and seeing others fulfill bad stereotypes with being anti-Science because their groups adhered to a bad form of dualism/gnostic thought that didn't know how to incorporate science and theology. I keep this in mind a lot when it comes to seeing the ways that theological stances truly do impact. One amazing read on the issue can be seen here in the book Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence

For a quick review, the author "examines the multiple levels of meaning that inform Native astronomy, cosmology, psychology, agriculture, and the healing arts....Unlike the Western scientific method, Native thinking does not isolate an object or phenomenon in order to understand and work with it, but perceives it in terms of relationship. An understanding of the relationships that bind together natural forces and all forms of life has been fundamental to the ability of Indigenous peoples to live for millennia in spiritual and physical harmony with the land."

Thought the work was so timely when it comes to seeing why many don't understand how logic/science vary depending on the culture and worldview.

And for another read on the issue, one can consider Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Education. I really appreciated it since There definitely needs to be more consideration for Native American philosophy/religion (ecosophy) when seeing what science has to say

I think that's appropriate and a good point to consider. Personally, I don't think ANYONE is truly non-religious and at the root of things, people are really more irreligious to be accurate.

Even with regards to the thread itself, mythology is something that all people can appreciate and it's part of why it's important to me.

Yes I appreciate the threads you've made on the subject of mythology because it is capable of tying many different cultures together that appear to be so disperate. I work in an environment where I regularly work with people all over the world, especially from south Asia (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan) and its interesting how have even basic familiarity with their cultural and spirital framework makes people more accessable.

With regard to the Native American perspective, I think that the lack of consideration of NA views on science and the world is a symptom of a very large problem of marginalization of natives period. It doesn't help that their numbers have been reduced to a tiny fraction of what they once were but it definitely seems like in this culture, they're an afterthought, to not be taken seriously in the modern political context. I've seen their poverty as a citation as why they aren't taken seriously but I wholly reject the idea that status like that matters.

I've been attempting to learn more about native American spirituality and its relationship to other mythologies and religions that have developed over the ages. I've mostly been stalled with my lack of free time this season.

Given the current political climate I don't see much getting better for them unfortunately.