I guess the word "converted" suggests to me the idea of, "Oh my, here all this time I thought I was a goddess, when actually YHWH is the only God and Jesus is the second person in the Trinity!
If this view is correct, then what actually happened is not that she "realized she wasn't a goddess," but, rather, that as one of the gods of the nations (see Deuteronomy 32:8-9) who remained true to the High God, she gladly surrendered the direct rule of her people to Jesus once his priests arrived. (Imagine a feudal lord surrendering the authority of his castle to the king upon his arrival).
Of course you're right that many people now experience her as a goddess. The question is, is she shepherding the people back to polytheism? Or is she taking on the guise of a goddess for now, in order to watch over those people who can't participate in Christianity at this time-- due to an invincible ignorance produced, in many cases, by abuses within the Church itself, which were particularly egregious in Ireland and in parts of America run by the Irish priests? Or is some third alternative correct? I don't know. In my writing and my thinking I prefer to deal in possibilities, rather than certainties.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2022-02-02 02:52 pm (UTC)If this view is correct, then what actually happened is not that she "realized she wasn't a goddess," but, rather, that as one of the gods of the nations (see Deuteronomy 32:8-9) who remained true to the High God, she gladly surrendered the direct rule of her people to Jesus once his priests arrived. (Imagine a feudal lord surrendering the authority of his castle to the king upon his arrival).
Of course you're right that many people now experience her as a goddess. The question is, is she shepherding the people back to polytheism? Or is she taking on the guise of a goddess for now, in order to watch over those people who can't participate in Christianity at this time-- due to an invincible ignorance produced, in many cases, by abuses within the Church itself, which were particularly egregious in Ireland and in parts of America run by the Irish priests? Or is some third alternative correct? I don't know. In my writing and my thinking I prefer to deal in possibilities, rather than certainties.