Re-Emergence of Mother Goddess Worship

The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

Or donate directly via Paypal

This message board is The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum's SMF Archive Board. It is closed to new memberships and to posting, but there are over 250,000 messages here that you can still search and read -- many full of interesting and useful information. (This board was open from February 2007 through June 2011).

Our new vBulletin discussion board is located at http://www.ecauldron.com/forum/ -- if you would like to participate in discussions like those you see here, please visit our new vBulletin message board, register an account and join in our discussions. We hope you will find the information in this message archive useful and will consider joining us on our new board.

[yewberry]

I've heard of that theory before, and personally, I don't find it convincing. In my opinion, statues like Venus of Willendorf don't look sexy or nubile, they look like the emphasize fertility. With the large belly and big, sagging breasts, they look like women who have gone through many pregnancies. I think if they were meant to be porn, they would look more youthful and... perky.

Just my opinion.

I'm afraid opinion is not unassailable here.  Especially when you claim knowledge of prehistoric porn.

I was referring to the pantheons themselves, not human societies. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

We're discussing motivation, which has everything to do with people.  Your claim is that there are some societal traumas that give rise to mother-goddess cults/beliefs/whatever.  And you've yet to convince me or (as far as I can tell) anyone else in this thread of its veracity.

In the pantheons of more advanced societies (loaded terminology, I know), the heads of the pantheon are gods of kingship/sovereignty and male political power rather than goddesses of motherhood and the actual life-generating function. Personally, I think the argument that the worship of mother goddesses or a single mother goddess pre-dated the worship of the king god is convincing, due to the shifts in human culture and nature of mother goddesses within the later patriarchal pantheons.

You keep focusing on mother-goddesses, as though they're not only peaceful, but promote societal peace in their worshipers.  I would love to see any proof that this was ever true.

An example that comes to mind is the Eleusinian cult of Demeter

A mystery cult about which we know almost nothing.  This is becoming a really annoying debate tactic.  You don't get to fill in the blanks with stuff you like.  Or you do, but the rest of us shouldn't be expected to agree.

puts the mother goddess (Demeter) in the most prominent position.

You call her mother goddess.  I say you've taken her multifaceted nature and reduced it to a single attribute.  I think it does such a complex goddess a disservice.

Yes it's just speculation, but the argument that something like the Eleusinian mysteries could be a survival of mother goddess worship from a time before human society prioritized politics and war over fertility and motherhood, is convincing to me.

I think we all understand you're convinced.  But given that this is a debate and discussion forum, this topic (and more importantly the way you've presented it) is bound to kick up some dust.

I don't necessarily believe in matriarchies, or in ideas such as those like Robert Graves who said that, in primitive human societies, women were the dominant sex and men were nothing more than her frightened victim. I think it's more in the nature of men, with all their testosterone, to assert their dominance, while women focus more on rearing children. I do, however, think it's quite possible that early humans viewed the divine in feminine terms, due to the female characteristics of pregnancy and childbirth.

I agree it's possible.  Lots of things are possible.

I'm just saying that the idea of universal mother goddesses did exist in antiquity, and aren't a neo-pagan invention.

The only "universality" was in the beliefs of the cults that followed them.  Also, you might want to define what you mean by "universal" in this conversation.  For a lot of us (me included), "universal" means something different than "universalized by the cults of the goddess in question".  The former implies worship by the vast majority or all of a population, while the latter implies there might be just as much excitement at the war lovin' sky god's temple across the street.

This is true, but my point was that Isis was worshiped as a universal mother goddess and supreme deity in her cult, and that this was still during antiquity rather than in the modern age.

And my point is that she was a whole lot more than Mommy to her followers.  Why focus on one characteristic?  What purpose does that serve?  Is it just a case of "when all you've got is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail"?

Brina

[Star]

I've heard of that theory before, and personally, I don't find it convincing. In my opinion, statues like Venus of Willendorf don't look sexy or nubile, they look like the emphasize fertility. With the large belly and big, sagging breasts, they look like women who have gone through many pregnancies. I think if they were meant to be porn, they would look more youthful and... perky.

I would think that in a society where fertility was important, a woman who had proven her fertility through many pregnancies might be considered very sexy.  Not to mention the appeal of a woman prosperous enough to have enough food and resources to have a large belly.

Which is only speculation, I'll grant, but then we're on equal footing there.

Also, in a society that is pre-civilization, I don't think they would have the same restrictions regarding sex that more "advanced" (whatever that means) societies would develop, so porn and masturbation probably weren't necessary.

Necessary?  Maybe not.  (Although this seems to assume not only a lack of sex taboos, but also a ready supply of partners in every situation and location.)  But either can be fun, even when not strictly necessary.  Lack of "necessity" does not indicate that it didn't exist.

[Ellen M.]

Also, in a society that is pre-civilization, I don't think they would have the same restrictions regarding sex that more "advanced" (whatever that means) societies would develop, so porn and masturbation probably weren't necessary.

So... having access to as much sex as you want completely negates any need for masturbation? That seems to assume both actions fulfill the same emotional and physical function. I don't know what prehistoric sexual practices are, but I would find it hard to believe that a woman being given sexual pleasure was ever a top priority in society over getting her knocked up to continue the species. Masturbation gives people the freedom to control their own body and make themselves feel good without having to wait around for a partner.

[HeartShadow - Cutethulhu]

Also, in a society that is pre-civilization, I don't think they would have the same restrictions regarding sex that more "advanced" (whatever that means) societies would develop, so porn and masturbation probably weren't necessary.

You mean like that crazy "waiting for permission" restriction?

[Owl]

I've heard of that theory before, and personally, I don't find it convincing. In my opinion, statues like Venus of Willendorf don't look sexy or nubile, they look like the emphasize fertility. With the large belly and big, sagging breasts, they look like women who have gone through many pregnancies. I think if they were meant to be porn, they would look more youthful and... perky.

As a woman in her 50's, I think they look post-menopause.  They don't look fertile - they look old.

[Owl]

I think it's more in the nature of men, with all their testosterone, to assert their dominance, while women focus more on rearing children. I do, however, think it's quite possible that early humans viewed the divine in feminine terms, due to the female characteristics of pregnancy and childbirth.

No gods of hunting?

[veggiewolf]

I would think that in a society where fertility was important, a woman who had proven her fertility through many pregnancies might be considered very sexy.  Not to mention the appeal of a woman prosperous enough to have enough food and resources to have a large belly.

Which is only speculation, I'll grant, but then we're on equal footing there.
...

I was just about to respond with this, Star.  Thank you!

[yewberry]

You mean like that crazy "waiting for permission" restriction?

You're lucky I wasn't drinking coffee, lady.

Brina

[yewberry]

No gods of hunting?

Exactly.  You can live a long time without screwing or birthing.  How long can you live without food? 

Brina

[Sperran]

Exactly.  You can live a long time without screwing or birthing.  How long can you live without food? 

Brina

Speak for yourself!   

Sperran

[yewberry]

Speak for yourself!

I make no claims as to its quality of life.  

Brina

[Darkhawk]

I'm just saying that the idea of universal mother goddesses did exist in antiquity, and aren't a neo-pagan invention. Cybele is another one that comes to mind.

Given that there are plenty of cultures that did not worship Cybele, She does not strike me as terribly "universal".

[SatAset]

Actually, I don't think the way the Greco-Roman cult of Isis viewed her differed that much from her later Egyptian manifestation. Isis/Aset had long been equated with Hathor/Hethert in ancient Egypt, and came to be portrayed with her headdress of the sun disk between bovine horns well before the Hellenistic Period.

Aset and Hethert were not equated with each other in ancient Egypt.  Many goddesses, not just Aset, wore the horns and sundisk headdress.  This did not equate them with Hethert (Hathor).  Sharing attributes is common among Kemetic gods and this does not mean that these gods have the same identity, just a same or similar sphere of influence. 

Within a Kemetic context Aset and Hethert  are different deities and both differ from their Greek/Roman re-interpretations including their myths, personalities and attributes.   

[FierFlye]

Also, you might want to define what you mean by "universal" in this conversation. 

This is what I would also like to know.

[Tana]

Any thoughts, comments, agreements or disagreements?

Problem is, there are no proofs for or against it.

Second, and imho bigger problem: we are not able to view through the eyes of those long passed.
We already have problmes with times not so far away.

Like the sexy status of the "venus" figurines.
The skinny-walking-skeleton style is a pretty modern ideal for "beauty".

One does not have to go to far down in history, when a more voluptuous ideal of beauty made men drooling.
And it is not so far away, that a fatter belly was a sign of power and wealth, because only those people could afford to overeat.

Constant supply of food, everything at everytime, is a blessing of modern times. So being skinny was most of the time in human history a sign of famine and of being poor as a church mouse. Not very attractive.

What do we have:

Cave paintings.
Most famous theory (lets call it guessing around, shall we?) is, they were there for mysterious hunting magic.
Could be, or it was the graffti artist of the clan, or it was to teach kids - we will never know.

The tools found.
If you have a spear head or the blade of a knife and you finde bones of animals, that show marks by those tools, you are on a pretty safe ground to guess that the stone age people ate something. And that is it. We wont know how the relation between hunter and prey had been. If there even was a relationship besides: food, eat.

Then the even more difficult things to guess.
Things that could be jewelry. A flute. Venus figurines.

We wont know if there was a sense of beauty and dressing up. The things found, like a sea shell far away from the sea, could be a curiosity, money, amulet or only decor. We wont know.

The flute - it is even guessing to assume they made music with it. It could be as well a thing to just make unholy noise and drive a herd of wild horses over the edge of a gorge with it.

The figurines, maybe they were persons, maybe they were magic, maybe they were made just for fun.

We do not know.

And thats about it.
I dont mind if someone goes around and assumes whatever works. I even think the universal mother goddess thing is a pretty useful idea. But there is no use in discussing if or if not the stone age people had and thought one or another thing.

Of course it is logical to assume, that humans - no matter when they lived - did everything out of a reason. That they loved each other, buried their dead and mourned them, tried to look pretty, used methods to influence that dangerous world around them, maybe with praying and even magic, made music, danced, told stories, laughed, loved, fought with each other and so on. After all they were human and I think they did all these things too. But we just do not have proof.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- About The Cauldron ----------------------------- => Rules and Regulations => Cauldron Announcements ===> Volunteers Needed: Site Assistants and Projects => Introductions => Board Questions, Suggestions, and Feedback => Chat and CauldronMUX Support => Test Board ----------------------------- Religion and Philosophy ----------------------------- => Paganism For Beginners => Books and Other Resources => Pagan Religions => Pagan Spirituality => Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology => Worship and Ritual => Holidays and Festivals => History and Religion => Faith in Everyday Life => Philosophy and Metaphysics => Non-Pagan Religions and Interfaith Discussions => Miscellaneous Religious Discussions ----------------------------- Magic and the Occult ----------------------------- => Magic and the Occult for Beginners => Witchcraft, Hoodoo, and Folk Magic => The Western Magical Tradition => Chaos Magic => Lodges and Other Magic Organizations => Miscellaneous Magical Discussions ----------------------------- Special Interest Groups & Special Discussions ----------------------------- => Special Topic Discussions => Chavi Memorial Chronic Illness SIG => General SIGS ===> College Pagans SIG ===> Cooking SIG ===> Divination SIG ===> Home and Garden SIG ===> Pagan Parents SIG ===> Teen Pagans SIG => Religious SIGS ===> Asatru and Heathenry SIG ===> Cauldron Cill ===> FlameKeeping SIG ===> Hazel and Oak: A Celtic Polytheism SIG ===> Neo-Druidry SIG ===> Reformed Kemeticism SIG ===> Ta Hiera Hellenic Polytheism SIG => Book/Media Discussion Boards ===> Academic Book Discussions ===> Pagan Religion Book Discussions ===> Magick Book Discussions ===> Fiction Book Discussions ===> DVD/Video Discussions ----------------------------- Life, the Universe, and Everything Else ----------------------------- => Pagan Announcements => Prayer and Energy Requests => News and Politics ===> Religious News ===> Non-Religious News ===> Political Discussions => Social Discussion Boards ===> Art, Poetry and Writing ===> Books ===> Computers and the Internet ===> Crafts and Hobbies ===> Family Life ===> Gaming ===> Health and Medicine ===> Humor and Quizzes ===> Music, Television, and Film ===> Pets ===> Science and Technology ===> Sports and Recreation