S3, Yes, the archetype being depicted may be the same. But one is a true character in history and the other is a myth. This is the reason why I made a post a few days ago about the world as a hologram. IOW, a piece of our world whether real or imaginary/myth is a reflection of the absolute, not the archetype.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote: Re " . . . the Blessed Virgin Mary . . . why bother with Isis": Because they are different expressions of the same Goddess archetype. A Google brings up this comparison: Isis was the most prominent female figure in ancient Egyptian religion. Mary is the most important female figure in Christianity. Isis had a son named Horus. Mary had a son named Jesus. When Horus was born, his father, Osirus, was already dead, which is very much like the birth of Jesus, fathered by the Holy Ghost. Both Isis and Mary are depicted in art as being maternal and holding their infant deities. Isis protected Horus from an evil uncle, which was much like Mary protecting Jesus from King Herod. Both Isis and Mary have primary roles in their respective religious movements as the eternal mother. “Lady of Light” is a title given to both Mary and Isis. The infant Horus was born as the god of light for Egypt, while Jesus is known as the light of the world. Isis has a solar disk of light over her head and Mary has a halo of light above her head. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote: S3, The Catholic Church already has a special place for the Blessed Virgin Mary. She is considered the Mother of God. And she was assumed to Heaven body and soul. So, why bother with Isis who was a pagan goddess of myth? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote: Re "women cannot be priests": Can I propose an alternative approach? What's wrong with women being *priestesses*?! That was the honourable title they were given in the pagan world of antiquity. It strikes me that the Christian churches are so male-oriented that trying to include female priests and bishops is really to try and include women who happen to imitate more or less successfully their male colleagues. Is that really desirable or feasible in an institution that for millennia has been dominated by a male ethos? Isn't it asking women to essentially conform to male values? But, on the other hand, do we really want to exclude women from having a central role in our religious life? Is their a solution to this dilemma? What about this: the Christian churches continue in having only male priests and bishops - and exclude women. That fits naturally with their historical story and avoids embarrassing admissions that they've been wrong for 2,000 years! But how about this: women develop their own religious ceremonies and practices outside the Christian dispensation but alongside the male bias of Christian churches and thus run in parallel - not as opponents but as adding a complementary aspect. I have in mind someone like Olivia Robertson, (who died last week!). She was an author, artist, co-founder and high priestess of the Fellowship of Isis, an international spiritual organisation devoted to promoting awareness of the feminine aspect of the divine. The Fellowship of Isis has thousands of members worldwide. Take a peek here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1PFYQOn4DI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1PFYQOn4DI ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: Religion will stand for nothing if its foundational principles are that gay people are not permitted to marry, or that women cannot be priests, or other small-minded obsessions with sex and gender. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Little sheep that have lost their way, is all! Pretty soon Religion will stand for nothing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: Actually, more and more religionists are supporting gay marriage, exactly because they believe that to be against it would be contrary to the moral and ethical foundations of their religion. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Most Religions have lost contact with their essential source of knowledge, that is, pure intelligence, or Being as Consciousness. As such, they are like ships with a damaged rudder, better than nothing but not very effective. Slowly, as ethical humanism takes over decaying Religion, the ethical and moral foundations of Religions will all be knocked slowly away (note gay marriage) by the intellectual elite who happen to be atheists. Life, without a guide, will disintegrate until a revival of knowledge and experience and *Religious Science* replace moral relativism and ethical humanism. True knowledge of the true principles of living can never be totally lost... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote: Ann, I believe the Catholic Church considers the role of women to be motherhood and not as patriarchs of the church. The Church may change its stance depending on how well the female bishops in the other denominations are perceived by the general public. Also, the Church may change depending on the quality of men that enter the seminary to become priests. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote: Probably not as long as men are running the show. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote: This appears to be the trend among Protestant Christian churches. But one wonders if the Catholic Church would ever accept women as priests. http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html http://news.yahoo.com/church-england-paves-way-women-bishops-2014-142619228.html
