Why God chose a virgin to became flesh?

a reply to: OrphanApology

You say you don't consider earth as a mother, but have remarked that she is wonderful cruel violent and even abusive, then attributed that to mothers historically.

What i get from your overall contributions is she is not your mother, but at the same time you make her out to be a bad one?

Patriarchal principals speaking?

a reply to: Wifibrains

I never once said I considered earth to be a female or a mother. Show me one instance where I used "she" in conjunction with earth. If I did it would have been a typo.

I did explain how earth is cruel and wonderful at the same time and how ancient people might have connected the dots in terms of their relation to their own mothers behavior(and therefore thought earth was a mother).

Also, earth is neither good nor bad. It is just another part of the universe and is chaotic and orderly all in the same breath. It's neither patriarchal or matriarchal. It is neither a woman nor a man(or worm, dog, stone, or star).

I would think of my view toward it as I view the ocean. It is beautiful, inspiring, life-giving, life-destroying, violent, calm, and everything else that exists on both ends of the spectrum. Therefore to attribute it to any human aspect or emotion is both meaningless and meaningful(depending on who you are).

If you want to view the earth as a mother, go for it.

If you want to view the earth as a father, go for it.

I for one, just think it IS. It doesn't need to be anything but that.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Also, earth is neither good nor bad. It is just another part of the universe

If this is true, so are Humans, mothers too! So how is it you have atributed good or bad to mothers historically? You do know his-tory is written by the victor and not the victim...

And further more is enforced through repetition....

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Wifibrains

Well good or bad are adjectives that modify a noun. While earth could be considered a "thing" it is not a "person".

A bad or good "thing" is different than a good or bad "person".

We say a person is bad when they make conscious decisions to act in a harmful manner toward other people(or things).

We say a thing is bad if it's sole existence is bad to us in some way.

"That toilet is bad".

Usually means the toilet won't flush, not that the toilet is making a conscious choice to harm someone's ass as they sit on it.

So when humans are bad it is in a social context. In the example of the mothers, historically they were abusive toward their children. Child rearing practices have just recently started to improve vastly.

If you believe earth is conscious then you could then say that it is good or bad as if it were a person. I don't though. So I won't.

a reply to: OrphanApology

If you believe earth is conscious then you could then say that it is good or bad as if it were a person. I don't though. So I won't.

Ok maybe I am misunderstanding you

It's wonderful yet terrifying all at once. Not something I would want to connect with my own mother, but perhaps the ancient people had different child rearing practices that meant people associated their mother with something nurturing, violent and abusive.

So are you saying the earth is nurturing, violent and abusive like the mothers "his-tory" portrays?

If you don't think the earth is abusive, why add that to what you think others "may" have thought of it? I know you say you don't think it is, just curious to know why you think others may have thought so. How can the earth be abusive to someone? If it can't, surely that "motherly" attribute can not be attributed to it, only the ones that apply can, no?

Maybe the Earth mother was the ideal, like all gods and goddesses, and played her part to the fullest unconditionally. Water sources such as springs were thought to emanate from the breast of Mother Earth. Mounds, caves and wells were thought to entrances to the womb...

There are philosophies and old schools of thought that proclaim that the body, the earth, the solar system and space itself are identical in principle and law, differing only in magnitude, and that all things follow one immense pattern...

Except modern man?

a reply to: Wifibrains

I was explaining how the title of "mother" might have been applied to the earth and why.

Why would ancient people apply "mother" to something such as the earth, which at the time they would have thought everything belonged to rather than imagining it as an ecosystem of different elements functioning at the same time?

If I didn't explain my meaning properly, I apologize. You seem very confused by the point I was trying to explain so let me try again:

The earth is a place where life is nurtured but everything about life on earth can be violent and chaotic at times. It can be lovely, it can be inspiring(this is all of course from the human perspective), but again it is filled with both terror and wonder. So WHY would an ancient people apply the title of "mother" to such a thing? Well it would make sense that their mothers while nurturing probably had attributes that weren't always so lovely. Why would you call something that has earthquakes, tornados, volcanoes, storms, lightning, mudslides a "mother"?

Does that make more sense?

a reply to: OrphanApology

So the earth is made of different systems now? What happened to being part of one system? All this parting is part of the problem I think.

There is nothing to fear when life is eternal and mother stirs the pot every once in a while.

Too many cooks spoil the broth. Hense the "terrible" world we live in today.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Why would you call something that has earthquakes, tornados, volcanoes, storms, lightning, mudslides a "mother"?

For the same reason the ancients attributed those things to father gods, and their wrath, either against man or each other.

Ancients offered sacrifices and offerings to volcano gods and grain goddesses to appease their anger and illicit their approval.

a reply to: Wifibrains

You should really read thoroughly the posts I made.

I never said the earth was just one system or that it doesn't include many different ecosystems. I am not sure at this point if you are just arguing for arguments sake or if you're genuinely confused.

Either way, I normally stop responding in conversations when they start heading toward a "loop". If you have any additional information to add let me know. Otherwise, have a good one.

a reply to: windword

Yeah, it goes back to child rearing practices.

Angry mothers and fathers and their children(behavior of the gods and goddesses and their relation to humans).

a reply to: OrphanApology

Yeah, it goes back to child rearing practices.

I know the threat very well, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out!"

a reply to: windword

Yeah and if you notice the current religions or modern takes on religions start morphing the goddesses and gods into these all loving and nurturing gods/goddesses(forgetting their violent aspects of the past)

Ironically, child rearing practices have become less abusive over the years overall.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation in the decreased level of violence in the current editions of deities to the change in child rearing practices.

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: Wifibrains

You should really read thoroughly the posts I made.

I never said the earth was just one system or that it doesn't include many different ecosystems.

But you did say it was part of a larger one, the universe.

I am not sure at this point if you are just arguing for arguments sake or if you're genuinely confused.

I'm arguing? No I am not. Lol.

Just trying to understand.

Either way, I normally stop responding in conversations when they start heading toward a "loop". If you have any additional information to add let me know.

Only that I think you may be twisting or inverting the truth, perhaps knowingly, perhaps not.

Perhaps the creation of the modern deities have allowed the world we live in today to get where it is, the modern mothers are doing such a swell job, ay?

The "terrible" gods and goddesses would never put up with such crap from the kids running amock through the house.

have a good one

I do.

See ya!

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: Wifibrains

I was explaining how the title of "mother" might have been applied to the earth and why.

Why would ancient people apply "mother" to something such as the earth, which at the time they would have thought everything belonged to rather than imagining it as an ecosystem of different elements functioning at the same time?

If I didn't explain my meaning properly, I apologize. You seem very confused by the point I was trying to explain so let me try again:

The earth is a place where life is nurtured but everything about life on earth can be violent and chaotic at times. It can be lovely, it can be inspiring(this is all of course from the human perspective), but again it is filled with both terror and wonder. So WHY would an ancient people apply the title of "mother" to such a thing? Well it would make sense that their mothers while nurturing probably had attributes that weren't always so lovely. Why would you call something that has earthquakes, tornados, volcanoes, storms, lightning, mudslides a "mother"?

Why is earth called Mother? She has storms & natural disasters & kills without mercy, what better way to demonized women in the ancient world, or even instill a core sense of it into the populace over a long term.

Why is the sun called Father or daddy sol? Same reason God is assumed to be He.

Patriarchal societies will perpetuate patriarchal societies.

There's a theory floating around that suns birth planets outwards. This would make the sun female & Earth male.
Frankly, that analogy makes way more sense to me.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Well as much as I would like to believe that it is simply demonizing women and women as a group are complete victims...I unfortunately see indications that mothers weren't that great historically overall.

Lots of infanticide, child abandonment, neglect, physical abuse, favoritism, and a slew of other things happened from mothers in the past.

Now don't get me wrong, I am in no way saying the men of these societies were not just as bad and to be blamed just as much(they were, and their "fatherly" deities matched the blame accordingly).

I am simply stating that as much as it pains me. Women make up 50% of the population and we are 50% responsible for whatever # hole society is or is not. The "mother" deities of the past matched the behavior of women toward their children at that time. If women were truly just entities that had no significant role whatsoever in shaping their children and were no threat to males at that time(child or otherwise), the deities would match that role. Instead you have these "mother" deities that are very powerful and responsible for life while bringing disaster and destruction upon her "children".

Even looking at current times there are many misogynist and borderline(and not so borderline) child abusing females out there that make me shake my head is disgust at having to be lumped in the same group.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Most of the destroyers in Greek & Norse mythology were males. The OT God was male. The NT God was male. All ruled over very humanity based societies which is just obvious projection of human desires & flaws into their hopes & fear of death/something more than base mortality.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

There were many goddess cults that pre-dated Greek mythology that bled over into the mythology.

While many of the gods of war and general destruction were male, it would take a completely different topic to go into the violent femmes of the mythological(Greek) world. Generally the violence of females was more subtle because again their role at that time were as mothers. There are many indications of bad child rearing practices in the ancient world and since women were the primary caregivers it doesn't take long to figure out who was doing to abusing most of the time. That's why you see women representing the earth.

Either way, there are examples of violent femmes that were not motherly in Greek mythology such as Enyo and quite a few others.

a reply to: OrphanApology

My point was more that there's no relation between "Mother" Earth & the innate evils of women. I think it's not even worth thinking on because there are far more seriously innate & conditioned evils around us & in history.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Very well.

But I don't really believe in innate evil. I think we are primarily products of environment, especially during the first five years of life.

I think that ignoring child rearing practices in the context of how it churns out future members of society is very very very important and not studied nearly enough. I think of all the things that has created violence throughout history, child abuse practices have ranked up there higher than anything else that can be taken into account. I really think it's that important.

And for that, the reason why I focus on this so much. Not just in terms of how women have treated children but men as well, the reason why these "mothers" and "fathers" could have such dark sides to their personas...is because it is absolutely critical in understanding if we're ever to break these cycles of abuse that get perpetuated for centuries.

That's all. Thanks for discussion and have a good night.

a reply to: Abednego

Why God chose a virgin to became flesh? It was necessary for her to be virgin or it is just a theological motivation? It was just to fulfill a prophecy?

No, it was to get around the blood curse He placed on the line of David.