I find it difficult to reduce our concepts of what is male and what is female to masculine and feminine principles such as animus and anima simply because these distinctions owe much to biological givens socially interpreted. Different societies will describe these concepts differently. The same society may describe them differenly at different times. Animus and anima appear to be, as Jung sees it, aspects of every human psche.
It is possible, however, to note in the emergence of Christianity from Judaism a shift in how these concepts are seen. Perhaps the shift may explain, at least, our human need for complementation of ideas seen as opposite.
I have heard it said that the emphasis on Christ’s compassion in the NT is an attempt to feminize the overtly masculine Hebrew god. It is probable that Hebrew theocracy rose, at least in part, as objection to fomer fertility religions with goddesses. The OT gives sparse account to women who are not just seen as carriers of the seed of patriarchs. There were stories of a female judge, of Ruth and Naomi, etc. Yet Lilith gets relegated to folklore as a banshee; and Judith appears in the apochraphal witings, which many protestants simply ignore. In the NT, probably the most interesting woman mentioned is Mary Magdeline. The othodox cannon does not refer to her as a disciple of Jesus; the pseudepigraphia does and claims she was privy to spiritual secrets.
In the so-called middle ages (circa 1200 CE) the cult of the virgin, deifying Mary arose. For many people, from then to now, Mary assumed the compassion of Christ and added the femine aspect to the trinity. It may be that in our need for religion, we cannot ignore the possibility that a god must encompass all possible human relations and that whatever relationship we exclude in belief will inevitably return to us.
By a scholar?
And why is it supposed that compassion is a particularly feminine attribute? Is there a trace of sexism in this view?
Jesus of Nazareth, according to the gospels, came to earth as a man, not a woman; described himself as the Son of Man; referred to the supernal deity (himself) as ‘Father’; and chose only men as his disciples. He fully supported every jot and tittle of Mosaic Law while it remained valid. He treated women kindly and with respect, but not as having the same leadership qualities as men in spiritual matters; and his own disciples followed suit. How, then, does this idea arise?
If people see compassion in Jesus, it may be that he meant to teach that the male ideal includes compassion- as well as humility and willingness to ‘turn the other cheek’, not attributes that are too readily associated with masculinity in popular culture. Not that the Jews had any reason to suppose that this ideal excluded compassion, because they mostly ignored popular culture. Their own Scripture was half promises of the tender, limitless forgiving mercies of their God, for those who admitted their faults, just as much as it contained warnings of his sterner side for those who refused to admit them.
What is more, nobody before or since has spoken as radically as Jesus with regard to the consequence of that refusal.
It seems to me that there is a doubly false perception abroad. One error is to suppose that the Old Testament portrays only a vengeful, destroying deity. In view of the highly selective approach of many today, some of them in ‘high’ and influential places, that view is understandable. The other is to suppose that the New Testament describes a Jesus who is mild and gentle- which is perhaps more excusable, because of course Jesus had to be pliant enough to be crucified. But perhaps one should not mistake ‘niceness’ for softness. As well as giving the seemingly forgotten view that it would be better to remove one’s eyes rather than let them stray, Jesus warned that he would return as judge of all; the whip that he used to clear out the cattle in the Temple will seem mild rebuke if his warning is justified.
The message of the whole Bible is that the human ideal is to love justice as much as mercy, and the task of combining those judiciously is for all.
If it was, then it was done by people far after the Hebrew’s wrote about God.
Asherah was the feminine nature of God.
Some also chose Astarte-Anath instead, but if I recall correctly; Asherah was the more common for “faithful” Hebrews than Astarte (so far from what we can tell from Archeology that is).
And somewhat as ochaye was getting at, Jesus was hardly this floating bucket of lovey dove panzy pants that many like to paint the picture out to be.
The Bible has a radicalist within it’s pages; not a surrogate man-mom.
I believe Jesus embodied a visage of masculinity in action and emotion. His compassion could be mistaken for a feminine aura. I also believe Jesus was pragmatic in his dissemination of expressing what God wants of us. Therefor if there is any observation concerning the appearance of the feminization of Hebrew God, it’s probably due to His perceived transgressed position against the High Priests of the Jewish Temple. Christ being observed as a heretic by the Pharisees had their long lived beliefs challenged by someone who claimed a personal connection to God.
This position being Jesus’ portrayal of a caring, loving God as opposed to the Priest’s hardline orthodoxical stance with rigid rituals that they deemed necessary for being in God’s favor. Not to mention Jesus’ message that all men are worthy of God’s redemptive powers that had always been seen as soley for the Jewish people.
Some good observations, but not much of the OP is being discussed here. Does the average human psyche contain elements that are socially interpreted as male or female? If so, why? And to what extent were these interpretations part and parcel of the Hebraic, paternalistic theocracy? (Accepted in all Abrahamic religions.) Does a Jew still pray , “Thank God I was not born a woman?” And, why the cover up of Mary Magdeline’s relationship with Jesus, not the DaVinci Code BS, but the dicipleship? And why the necessity of the “middle ages” deification of Mary? Can anyone here see why sex as both an act and a biological given could be problematic for a religion that would seek negate the fertility worship of Astarte? (Sex for pleasure?)
My take is that there does exist in the human psyche those elements that continue to be defined according to social biases, that a concept of a diety that could in any way approach universality must include all human relationships–mother, father, son, daughter. And why here a strong defence of Christ’s masculinity, as if that mattered at all? Come on folks, let’s think beyond our prejudices. This topic is also applicable to the “modern” problem of pedophile priests. At what expense is normal sexuality subected to ideological purisms or social biases?
I suppose there is. It could be enbedded within the DNA structure of our makeup. Later on as we grow this gets reinforced through social interactions.
In early Jewish belief structures God is thought of as the quintessential patriarchal figure and was noted as such. Jesus’ references of this carried on as He spoke of God.
I can’t say I remember ever hearing or reading this pronouncement before. It’s not surprising due to a lot of cultures lean to the paternal hiearchies in social order. Especially since it’s a recognized convention of power and standing.
I have never seen or heard of either of these till the ‘Da Vinci Code’ writings had come to my attention. As to how true or to the extent those people who may have been privy to such information.
There again this falls back to belief and respect to God’s wishes through Jewish orthodoxy which bound them from alternate ways of social thinking.
From my point of view this type of social order was developed from the origin of mankind through banishment from Paradise and the exegetic recordings of the Bible. That type of social structure won’t be viewed as a necessity when we pass onto the afterlife even though it possibly may be remembered that we were of a father-mother-son-daughter stature here on earth (IMHO).
The prejudices you speak of may only be exceeded once we recognize that the spiritual side of our existence is the principal necessity we should aspire to.
So what do you offer those of us who opt not to evoke the “deus ex machina” as a catch-all response to difficult questions?
I suppose it depends on what you feel you need resolved in your own mind. Let’s say I accidently give the correct answer to the interrogative you suggest and you still do not see the significance of the reply, how should I proceed? Would there be an answer that could enlighten you?
You mentioned ‘prejudices’ earlier. Perhaps you may have some that may hinder the true aspect behind the questions you ask. If you do not have all the available information at hand, then it may not be possible to resolve these type of conumdrums. Since we all develop our reasoning through what we choose include or exclude as the basis for our logic, there could be vital information missed that could aid in finding those answers. Seeing the whole picture then winnowing the pertinent knowledge while being imbued with a fair amount of wisdom might help in ascertaining the right answer. If you shackle yourself with preconceived notions without effecting an honest search for the truth, then you could lose track of what you seek. Discernment in my way of thinking is key in information gathered.
L.,
Your responses remind me of two of my favorite cartoons. The first (referenced by Dennett) shows a man writing a huge explanatory equation on a blackboard. Halfway through filling the blackboard, he writes “and then a miracle happens”. Then he completes the equation. The second is about a man standing before St. Peter and saying,“Now, I’ll know the truth about everything,” St. Pete replies, “Yes, but now you’re dead!” So, as you can see, I don’t really place much value on the everything will be revealed to us by and by, the then a miracle explains it all or having any desire to exist in an afterlife devoid of human relationships. So, shoot me. Discernment is a word too often used to hide the fact that one is just being judgmental. God gave us reason, not as a curse, but as a way of adapting to what exists in the world here and now. Please spare me the fundy, ill-thought-out responses. But thanks for extending the thread since I seem to have pissed off everybody else.
Ierrellus, sometimes during discussions we don’t get the feedback we wish to hear or read. I’m not certain what you were searching for in opening this thread. If you just wanted to read answers from certain thinking, then philosophy would indeed get stale after a while.
Also, I’m not sure what I have said which has put you off at my thoughts. Anything I have placed here was my effort to answer your questions. What I have to relate I put a lot of thought into. Plus I don’t think you have upset anyone else to end this discussion. I found this subject line to be interesting and thought you would like to read everyone’s thinking on this. If I have offended you, I apologize. If you would like me not to participate in anymore of your threads, I will do so. This not being the case, I can’t restrict thought for what I believe. I wouldn’t ask you to restrict yours.
Not at all! I simply expected that, in a philosophy forum, good rigor would not be based on flimsy assertions of supernatural experiences not everyone has known or can know. The absolutism of the fundy take allows no discussion.
This statement:
‘That type of social structure won’t be viewed as a necessity when we pass onto the afterlife even though it possibly may be remembered that we were of a father-mother-son-daughter stature here on earth (IMHO)’
places no restriction on the debate, because it does not assign any fundamentalist premise. The fundamentalism is entirely incidental to the purpose of this discussion.
I don’t view my responses as flimsy assertions of supernatural experience. Plus, your statement of the “absolutism of the fundy” places a diminutive aura on people of faith which I feel is a derogation whose opinions are as noteworthy as anyone elses.
Perhaps it would be better that I don’t participate in your threads which cause impasses of thought which you may feel might derail your thread. I’ll reiterate that I nonetheless enjoyed discussions in your threads.
The religion section isn’t governed by strict logic.
It is only governed by the charge to explore the reverential allegations of the human condition.
Both Intuitive, and yes; “flimsy”, as well as the most critical assertions are not only present here; but encouraged.
This said, everything I know regarding Litey doesn’t suggest to me that any decision that he would make on the matter of reverence would be in the regards of flimsy in logical application of reason.
Also to note, as Litey made highlight regarding, there are rules in the Religion section you may wish to read regarding the respect of belief’s; even one’s in which adherents are not present from.
You didn’t do anything to fault the rules yet, but you might not mind learning them if you haven’t already.
Staements:
I respect and believe the need of religion and its legitimacy. I personally accept the teachings of Jesus as moral mandates, which are also found in other religions. I cannot respect any take on religion that assumes its tenets of belief should be universal. That being said, I apologize to L. for the name-callings, etc. My personal experience with fundies has not been positive. For me, a fundy is one who can make no distinction between real and ideal. That those relationships may not exist in some afterlife does not negate the fact of their importance in this life, hence Ls radical shift from the real to the ideal. All that aside, is there anyway we can get back to the OP?
What is considered an ideal for you concerning some of my responses to you, I regard as real to me. If you restrict or negate parts or whole of discussion, as not being congruent to discussions, then I won’t be able to further participate.
Since we are drowning here in a sea of relativisms, I’ll end this thread.
Thanks you for the post.
Thanks you for the post.
And thank you for understanding it. I’m not being elitist here by noting that many here would rather post their own agendas than offer unbiased criticism of ideas. But, that’s human nature. We all do it.