39 pages and counting

By elevating Mary are we attempting to add something/someone to Christianity that never actually existed? If we draw the parallel between Mary and the Goddess figures of pre-Christian beliefs might Mary be as flawed as those goddesses were, as demanding of loyalty as the male Christian God has been? Can one God expressed in one term speak to all people? Elevating Mary, a lowly human, means that all of humanity, even the lowliest of society, even women, can be elevated. We too can carry the Divine within us; Eastern Orthodox theology best understands that all humans bear the image of the Divine within. Yet, there is still an emphasized maleness in our understanding of God. Jesus was both God and man. A man is our fullest representation of God. Like the Shakers, I ask where is the female fullness of the Divine?


ps- Spent Saturday at Pantheacon, a big four day pagan conference. Hit and miss it was; neat and nerdy, weird and wonderful, as one would expect. I had a thought: perhaps next year I'll put together a lecture on the pagan underpinnings of the Virgin, her similarities and uniquenesses. I suspect there would be interest, and God/dess knows that I am as much, if not more than, qualified to teach judging by some of the presenters I witnessed. I did learn a thing or two. The most important is this: Flee the Gnostic Mass! Aleistaire Crowley can kiss my feminist educated Christian witchy clothed ass.