In our day and age in the West, modern science and Christianity are in fierce conflict over the subject of the origin of humanity. In my last article, I gave a very brief and humble overview of the Feminine Essentialist teachings regarding the origins of Axial Beings, such as humans, and regarding the cycles of time, which does not hold with either Evolutionism or Creationism. One may wonder, why this is such a fierce debate in the world, and why does it matter anyways? What impact does this question have on our daily lives?
I think that the questions of where humans came from and what will happen to us when we pass from this earthly realm is of utmost importance, and in many ways it impacts every decision we make, including decisions on the mundane, day to day level.
In the Modern West, the dominant belief regarding these question is Evolutionism. As I write this, I am cringing at imagined outcries from my readers. Surely, Evolutionism is not a belief, it is a scientific theory! What is more, it is a scientific theory that has been proven. I understand that this is what we have all been taught from earliest childhood in the West; however, the very vehemence of the outcries is a sign that this is a belief system with its own dogma and doctrine. Even on its own terms, this belief has holes in it. For example, animals adapt to their environment far faster than can be accounted for by mutation and chance. Another hole is that while there is much physical evidence for the adaption of species, there is still no proof or evidence of one species changing to another.
Yet, even if the physical evidence for the evolution of our bodies was incontrovertible, this still says nothing about our souls or when or how they came to inhabit the physical body. Extreme Evolutionists would deny the existence of our souls and would instead reduce even our spiritual nature to biological processes.
I understand that what I have just said is challenging to many of my readers, but I ask anyone who is having difficulty to take a deep breath, have a cup of coffee or tea, and open your mind to this. It does matter, and it is important. I will let you digest this for a moment, while I discuss the opposition to Evolutionism, Creationism.
In the U.S., Creationism is the belief primarily held by Fundamentalist Christians. I am not sure to what extent similar beliefs are still held by other religious groups; however, the vocal and public opposition to Evolutionism has come from Fundamentalist Christian Creationism. The authority for the belief in creationism comes from a strict and literal reading of the Judeo-Christian Creation Mythos as if it was an accounting of factual historical events. The group of people who believe this are a small, but very vocal, minority in the U.S.
Recently, there has been a new movement known as Intelligent Design. Evolutionists fear the theory of Intelligent Design and decry that it represents a backdoor to teach Creationism in schools, but Intelligent Design is not Creationism. It does not rest on any Biblical authority, nor does it really speak to the question of where we came from. If I understand the Intelligent Design theory, it is the theory that the universe is too complex and beautiful for it to have happened by random chance, so there must be a Creator. This is as far as the theory goes, as far as I can tell. As an aside, as a Filianist, a Feminine Essentialist, and as an astrologer, who has studied the movements of the planets for meaning for decades, Intelligent Design seems to be an obvious truism, and I have trouble even imagining how Intelligent Design can be open for debate. Of course, there may very well be complexities that I am not aware of, so I will not enter further into that discussion .
So, now that I have likely offended everyone reading this, except for my readers who are already Feminine Essentialists, I shall take a deep breath and summon up courage for a bit of a side by side analysis of Evolutionism, Creationism, and Feminine Essentialism. Before I begin, though, I would like to refer the reader to the article, Fate, Free Will, the Cross, and Wa, to understand the metaphysical meaning of the symbolism of the Cross. For more intrepid readers, you might want to read an article that I wrote for the ISCA, Nativity Charts and Free Will. This article is a more technical astrological article about the application of the doctrine of the symbol of the Cross in Nativity readings. For the purpose of the following analysis, what is important to understand from these articles is that the Cross incorporates two axes, the vertical and the horizontal. The horizontal axis represents our material existence, and the vertical axis represents upward and downward movement or choices.
Now that the reader understands (or at least is aware of) the symbol of the Cross, let us all take a deep breath and delve into the analysis. I will preface my analysis a disclaimer that it is very simplistic. I am well aware that all of these belief systems are much, much more complex; however, I think that a basic analysis is helpful for purposes of this article.
—————-
Evolutionism
Origins of the Human Physical Form: We evolved from lower forms, specifically from primates. We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other apes, who are our closest relatives. At some point in time, we became intelligent and eventually formed civilizations.
Origins of the Human Soul: Completely unknown, if indeed there is really such a thing as the human soul.
Goal of Humanity: Survival
Fate of the Soul: Completely unknown, if indeed there is really a human soul. Our body will perish at some point. After that, what happens to the soul is unknown.
Analysis using the Symbol of the Cross: There is no cross. There is only the horizontal axis. Everything, including spirituality, is judged based on its relation to the horizontal or material axis. This belief gives rise to such theologies as the Prosperity Gospel (the goal of spirituality is personal material success) and the Social Justice Gospel (the goal of spirituality is to promote and work for a better and more just world). This is not to say that there is anything wrong with either material prosperity or working for a better and more just world. The problem with both of these theologies is that they make the spiritual subordinate to the material, which is backwards from the Feminine Essentialist perspective, which is that the material is always subordinate to the spiritual.
————
Creationism
Origins of the Human Physical Form: God formed the first man, Adam, from clay and his wife, Eve, was formed using Adam’s rib. All humans descend from Adam and Eve.
Origins of the Human Soul: This is a bit tricky and is different with different denominations of Christianity. It seems that the human soul was created with the human body, and each of our individual souls only has one life in a physical body.
Goal of Humanity: Salvation
Analysis using the Symbol of the Cross: Creationism recognizes both the horizontal and vertical axes; however, there is a belief that our place on the vertical axis becomes fixed at some point in time. Different denominations have different beliefs as to the point that this happens, and how one is able to move along the vertical axis before one’s place becomes fixed. According to this belief system, after we die, we will go either to Heaven or Hell, and we will stay there eternally. The goal of spirituality is to help us go to Heaven, rather than Hell. The biggest difficulty with this goal from the Feminine Essentialist perspective is that is it grossly simplistic, and eternal Hell is an impossibility. Any Hell we may find ourselves in must be temporary, in that it is a state other than ultimate reunion with Dea.
—————-
Feminine Essentialism
Origins of the Human Physical Form: Our physical form is a reflection of the Essence of the Perfect Human Form in the Mind of Dea. The mechanics of how this actually happened on the material level are not all that important. We acknowledge that the “scientific proof” of evolution is not as solid as Evolutionists belief; however, it is not really a question worthy of debate or dispute.
Origins of the Human Soul: The Filianic Creed states, “I believe that I was created from before the dawn of time by the one eternal Dea.”
Goal of Humanity: Liberation.
Analysis using the Symbol of the Cross: Feminine Essentialism teaches that we have full movement up and down the vertical axis. We can choose Light or Dark at any time, and we can and do choose between Light and Dark moment by moment. As mentioned above, we believe that any state other than ultimate reunion with Dea is temporary. The goal of spirituality is to hold on to our connection with our Source through the Unfolding of the Ages. In the words of a dear friend and mentor in traditional metaphysics, “we don’t believe a soul can be eternally ****ed, but it can find itself in a Fine Mess.” The way a soul finds herself in a Fine Mess to separate herself from the Divine. Our connection becomes more and more attenuated as the Ages unfold from the Age of Gold to the Age of Iron, but in the later stages of time, simple efforts are enough, and Dea will make up for any deficiencies. In the feminine Scripture, it says, “None shall call upon Me and be lost.”
————-
Why It Matters
I have just stated that in Feminine Essentialism, any state other than ultimate reunion with Dea is temporary, so a reader may ask, what does it matter what people believe? In a sense, it doesn’t. Sooner or later, all must come to the Truth, and it does not matter what name or image we have for our Source, whether God, Allah, Jesus, Dea, or any Name that has existed in history. There is only One Source. The true spiritual battle is not that which is between different religions but that which is between Light and Dark. All we are doing is offering our knowledge of Truth for anyone who may be interested.
On the other hand, these beliefs have practical implications. Evolutionism seems rather soul deadening, at least to me. Evolutionism also promotes a rather arrogant view of our ancestors. If we are descended form lower primates, then of course, we would know more than those who came before us. It also seems to me that a pure belief in random chance and survival of the fittest promotes a rather cut throat and materialistic attitude towards life. Because Evolutionism denies the vertical axis and teaches that we are animals (albeit intelligent animals), it negates true Free Will, reducing all human behavior to biological processes and survival mechanisms.
On one level, Creationism seems less soul deadening than Evolutionism, and from a Feminine Essentialist perspective is not exactly wrong like Evolutionism is. It is grossly simplistic, to be sure, but it preserves the notion that we are descended from the Angels, rather than ascended from Apes. While most forms of Creationism do not negate true Free Will, like Evolutionism does, they do severely limit it with the notion that there is a time that our souls can become fixed on the vertical axis (before final reunion with Dea), and it leads to some rather unpleasant and rude behavior in the name of “saving” people, such as conversion attempts that range from mildly annoying to brutally violent.
I appreciate the patience and indulgence of my readers who may not share my philosophy and faith. Please remember this is not intended to “convert” anyone, but merely to explain the thealogy and philosophy behind Feminine Essentialism.
See also:
The Wisdom of Our Grandmothers 
It seems to me that the origin of the human soul in Creationism, taken literally from Genesis, would have to be the breath of God given to the man of clay – there is no other scriptural accounting for it. The non-eternal nature of this breath stems from the error in the Garden, and where most Christians and I differ is the notion that the breath of God could ever expire. I think the Catholic concept of Purgatory was an attempt to reconcile a single material lifetime with the divine origin of the soul and the need for eventual reunion.
LikeLike
You may be right, Cure Ocha. I think that I have been told that Judaism reads and treats the Genesis story a bit differently than Christianity does. I have also read that the different sects of Judaism that were in existence at the time of Jesus had different beliefs regarding the nature of the soul. The only sect of Judaism that survived the destruction of the Temple was the Pharisaic sect, which then evolved into the Rabbinical sect. I am not a Rabbi or a Jewish scholar, so I should probably not delve any deeper into the the Jewish tradition.
Interestingly enough, the Jewish tradition itself is representative of a larger patriarchal revolt against the earlier Feminine Tradition, which occurred around the world around 600 to 500 B.C. If the history as told in Chronicles is an accurate recording (which I have no reason to doubt or dispute), the revolt was quite violent. For a long time prior to that, the Divine Feminine had been given consorts, and around the time of the patriarchal revolt, these consorts took over in the spirituality of people all over the world.
As another tangent and aside, we can still see remnants of the Primordial Feminine Tradition in Judaism, in that the primary center of worship is the home, and that it is the mother or mistress of the house who is responsible for lighting the weekly Shabbat candles and saying the Shabbat blessing.
LikeLike
Apologies – a breath can literally expire. I meant perish.
LikeLike
Miss Hildotter, thank you for this helpful account of several alternate theories of origin.
I think it is correct to say there is a fierce conflict between materialism and essentialism in modern culture. One form in which this conflict appears is in discussions around the term “evolution”. Part of the problem is that “evolution” is not a well-defined term. Properly, the biological theory should be called “natural selection”. We have an associated metaphysical theory, “naturalism”, which holds that reality is limited to what the physical sciences hypothesize to exist. Its companion epistemology is “empiricism” that holds only empirical and logical methods can yield knowledge. Evolutionism (or better Darwinism) is a component of naturalism, that holds natural selection is a sufficient explanation for all varieties of life. The term “evolution” properly has a metaphysical meaning relating to cyclical manifestation, as such it is grossly misapplied to the theory of natural selection. This adds to the confusion.
Some people of faith, holding to some degree to an essentialist understanding, may accomodate natural selection by bringing back form and teleology. Using Aristotle’s terminology, natural selection deals with material and efficient causes, but formal and teleological causes are still required on this view. Form and Teleology is anathema for a Darwinist, of course. I think Intelligent Design can be characterized as “formal evolution” (assuming species change occurs), that is “the design” is the subtle form that is necessary to account for the gross material form that emerges in time.
Mr. Chesterton, in his book “Orthodoxy”, makes the point that traditional doctrines, of which Christianity is one example, can comfortably accomodate physical science. The visible cosmos has its regularities that can be studied. The metaphysical naturalist, on the other hand, denies the intelligible subtle worlds and recognizes only the gross. As such the naturalist cannot accomodate religion. The naturalist’s cosmos is flat and accordingly is infinitely smaller than any traditional cosmology. Naturalism has had a quantitative success of sorts in producing pragmatically successful theories. Qualitatively, it is a thorough failure that, despite the labors of many philosophers, completely lacks a metaphysical and epistemological foundation that can withstand elementary criticism.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment, Mr. Philemon. Thank you for talking about the true meaning of the word evolution, or moving away from the center. I had considered talking about that in my article, but I was worried about detracting from the main points.
I have been thinking about and digesting your comment. One of the things though that came to mind, using the Symbol of the Cross, is that the natural and physical is incorporated in the vertical axis. I suppose that there are world denying traditions that try to avoid the material, horizontal axis, but ours in not one of them.
I also had a random thought about the Roman Catholic doctrine regarding Natural Law, which I believe Thomas Aquinas wrote about, but it is late, and I am not sure where that thought was going, except that it seemed an outgrowth of what I talked about previously concerning Aristotle’s break with Plato regarding Perfect Form.
Thank you for your indulgence on my late night ramblings about this.
LikeLike