Passion of a Goddess (Jesus, ritual, virgin, church, experience)

[Halcyon]

http://www.passionofagoddess.com/

Warning, link contains art depicting semi-nude female forms.

The above link is the website of an artist who depicts Christ on the cross as a woman.

If you click the link you can read the artists reasons for doing so, and as long as you stop scrolling down at the end of the main text, where it says New Production, you won't see any controversial images.

What do people think of this art?

Is it blasphemy, plain and simple?

Is it artistic expression?

Or is it a celebration of the feminine aspect of deity?

Are you offended by the depictions of Christ as a female? Do you find them spiritually reflective?

[Scarlett Wampus]

I think its an interesting idea to depict Christ as a woman for artistic expression, and I looked to the site to get a sense of the feminine aspect of divinity, you know, to be 'spiritually reflective'. Unfortunately these photographs are awful and look more like soft-porn. If this is art its so badly done it undermines the stated intention of the artist. It ends up being bad taste and for that it does seem to me blasphemous.

I've heard Christ as a woman brought up in a discussion amongst local Catholics before. The issue was whether Christ could appear to someone as a woman, because that was in fact one person's experience in the group. It boiled down to whether his being a man was somehow important to the embodiment of Christ as the Way and the Life. Most people in that discussion thought it wasn't, so Christ could appear in feminine form to some people. In the case of a figure like the virgin Mary her being a woman was essential though. Just thought people might find that interesting.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

I think its an interesting idea to depict Christ as a woman for artistic expression, and I looked to the site to get a sense of the feminine aspect of divinity, you know, to be 'spiritually reflective'. Unfortunately these photographs are awful and look more like soft-porn. If this is art its so badly done it undermines the stated intention of the artist. It ends up being bad taste and for that it does seem to me blasphemous.

Possibly, but i'd rather discuss the concept than the talent of the artist.

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

I've heard Christ as a woman brought up in a discussion amongst local Catholics before. The issue was whether Christ could appear to someone as a woman, because that was in fact one person's experience in the group. It boiled down to whether his being a man was somehow important to the embodiment of Christ as the Way and the Life. Most people in that discussion thought it wasn't, so Christ could appear in feminine form to some people. In the case of a figure like the virgin Mary her being a woman was essential though. Just thought people might find that interesting.

Yes, i was researching Montanism and Prisca's vision of Christ as female, which led me to this site.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

http://www.passionofagoddess.com/

Warning, link contains art depicting semi-nude female forms.

The above link is the website of an artist who depicts Christ on the cross as a woman.

If you click the link you can read the artists reasons for doing so, and as long as you stop scrolling down at the end of the main text, where it says New Production, you won't see any controversial images.?

What do people think of this art?

Interesting, and thought provoking.

Is it blasphemy, plain and simple?

I don't see it as being Blasphemy.

Is it artistic expression?

Very much so; the artistic expression of the feminine part of jesu's character

Or is it a celebration of the feminine aspect of deity?

That's the way I see it

Are you offended by the depictions of Christ as a female? Do you find them spiritually reflective?

It is thought provoking...........however, I would question one point made by the author

Although, the question is raised why is always these artefacts male? In a few cases Jesus portraitures as a female this then raises negative consequences from the conservative parts of the church. The idea that God can only be a man is an idea created in a society with male dominance. The owner of this site would like to develop the idea that giving God a sex is not honest. These believer of the idea that God can only be represented as a man, disregard the female half of the worlds population. And also its in his belief that a woman has greater ability to give love than a man. Christ represents the great love.

The conclusion, to my mind, is flawed; not out of dishonesty, or blasphemy, but I do believe it is wrong.

First the Author makes a case for Jesus being female; Jesus was a human, just like any of us, and therefore had a body. All scriptures point to him being 'a man'.

The point about God's 'sexuality' is totally different. I agree, if fact, that the idea of giving God a 'gender' is a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

The other point I would like to make is that Jesus would not have had to be feminine to show 'Great Love'.

[fantôme profane]

I don’t think the artist is trying to say that the historical Jesus was literally a woman. But perhaps to get us to ask certain “what if” questions.

How would we feel if this story was about a woman being killed in this way? Would it make any difference? Would you feel more compassion for her because she is female? Or would her sacrifice be somehow less meaningful? How would the Roman guards have treated her, differently than him?

Would a woman have been taken seriously back then? Would she be taken seriously now? Would you take her seriously?


I have always felt that the concept of the divine feminine is tragically missing in much of our culture, and in religion in general. But I do not believe that this can be solved by such a simplistic substitution. I think the divine feminine can present itself to us in other ways, better ways.

The story of “God’s” son who sacrifices himself for humanity is one that is well known and has been told countless times throughout human history. Perhaps the story of “God’s” daughter should be different. Perhaps we need to be told that “God’s” love need not be expressed only through pain and suffering, but also through joy and pleasure. And perhaps she can help tell that story if we just get her of that stupid cross.

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

The website is down.

[Sunstone]

It's an interesting concept and one that I see as legitimate, given that the Christian deity is said to have no real gender.

[Random]

The website is down, but I have seen pictures of the Female Messiah before elsewhere.

It depends on whether you accept the involvement of the Goddess as a salvific figure or not. I do, but the male intellect scoffs at the idea.

I'm certainly not offended by the image of a crucified woman, but the original concept was always that man's Suffering was caused by his own inherent (sinful) nature, and that only a male could redeem him.

Which is rubbish, but facts are facts: women do not make for emotive Saviours because a saviour is usually the last, least thing a woman wants to be. Women are wordly creatures in general, their naked bodies are symbolic of primordial truth, yes, but they themselves are not interested in salvation for everyone in general, only at best themselves and their loved ones. Which leaves the rest of the human race in dire straits.

It is more honest to have a male up there on the cross: the sign-value of the Cross and its meanings are best attested to in terms of that gender which is most affected by the issues therein. That is, men, the male.

Women don't care so long as the life-now-lived is comfortable and pleasurable. But a man is often affected by more existential problems, and needs to tend to matters of the Soul more often.

I hope the link comes back up, though, interested to see the pics.

[Scarlett Wampus]

Originally Posted by Godlike

Which is rubbish, but facts are facts: women do not make for emotive Saviours because a saviour is usually the last, least thing a woman wants to be. Women are wordly creatures in general, their naked bodies are symbolic of primordial truth, yes, but they themselves are not interested in salvation for everyone in general, only at best themselves and their loved ones. Which leaves the rest of the human race in dire straits.

I found this odd. If we're talking masculine and feminine divine archetypes here then the feminine is usually associated with the collective, while the masculine the individual. To me it sounds like you switched things round. Also, rather than whether or not the masculine or feminine has a greater interest in salvation I'd say it was more a case of how this is sought rather than if it is sought.

Women don't care so long as the life-now-lived is comfortable and pleasurable. But a man is often affected by more existential problems, and needs to tend to matters of the Soul more often.

I think the impression you give diminishes the feminine terribly. While its true that men are more inclined towards abstract existential conflicts, women are more inclined towards