Many writers on theology (in many religions, including Christianity) believe that the masculine principle is primary in divine creation; the feminine being secondary, or perhaps inessential.
Or else, they believe that such sexual differentiation is superficial, and that primarily/ originally there is no sex, no masculine or feminine - but a single creative principle that includes both.
Others believe that sex is merely an earthly and mortal accident or expedient; and that the highest form of after-life entails loss of sexual differentiation (either as spirit, or as resurrected Man).
But I regard God as a loving dyad of man and woman, masculine and feminine; and that original divine creation comes from this creative love.
This dyadic quality is not a matter of 'equality' - it is simply that both man and woman are the actual basis of this divine creation that we all inhabit.
A man and woman, who are coherent on the basis of love, were and are the true spiritual 'unit' of both divine and human creativity: thus God (the prime creator) is a Heavenly Father and Mother - both.
The destiny of individual mortal men and women is a different question. Each person's mortal and resurrected destiny is unique - and we are not supposed to conform to a template, not be poured-into a standard human (or male, or female) mould. Love of God first, and fellow Man second, is mandatory for salvation - because only such persons want Heaven.
Thus woman/ the feminine is Not subordinate to man/ masculine - both are absolutely spiritually necessary; just as (by analogy) both have been necessary for reproduction in this mortal life.
We were not originally, nor will we ultimately become, de-sexed or a single sex. The dyad goes 'all the way down' to before creation; because dyadic love was what made creation possible.
Ultimately; in absence of both - there cannot be love, therefore no real creation nor creativity.
How do I 'know' this? Simply by having formulated the question; after which it 'answered itself' as these things do. I other words by 'intuition', by direct knowing.
By contrast, when I asked other questions, when I formulated my understanding in other ways; I came up with answers that did not suffice - as became clear after a while.
This is not the kind of thing that anyone should accept from external sources - not from me, nor anybody else, nor institutions.
We are supposed-to discern such matter for ourselves - and there is no substitute for this conscious choice.
(Probably, it was not always thus - at times and among some peoples, it was right that Men be ruled spiritually by their environment or society or church - but here-and-now we must choose consciously.)
To know-for-ourselves, from experience, the nature and motivation of God is perhaps the primary task of Man here and now; given that almost-all external sources of such 'information' are deeply corrupted.
At the very least, we need to exercise experiential direct personal discernment in relation to the external sources that we choose to accept as authoritative; for instance, choosing a denomination and church; and then choosing-between the conflicting views emanating from denominations and churches. The requirement for each individual person to discern is unavoidable.
Having gone through this process of discernment - rooted in formulating a question such that the answer is coherently self-validating in ones actual and examined life - I don't really care what 'other people' say about the problem - and certainly will not abandon my direct knowledge of such matters on the basis of people pointing at 'authorities' whose authority to determine my spiritual life I do not acknowledge!
Others should do likewise.
And what if/ when they come up with 'a different answer? What then?
What then depends upon each individual for himself or herself. Group-orientated policies and behavioural/ belief compulsions can have nothing to do with such matters.
But whatever happens in each mortal life, we certainly should not attempt to avoid personal responsibility for deciding upon such matters. Salvation is between each Man and God (God would not have it otherwise!); and 'my' salvation depends on 'me' discerning the nature and motivation of God.
I think it is worth noting that the sexual revolution merely shifted female submission rather than eliminating it. Women did not become independent, rather dependent on something far less reliable.
ReplyDeleteBasically, humans are creatures of submission. Women submit to social consensus, men submit to sexual necessity (by which I mean they need to find a way to reproduce constrained by feminine disinterest and selectivity enforced by groups).
The only escape from submission to these things is by submission to God the Father, who wants us to be free and creatively powerful, and God the Mother, who wants us to be in good relationships. Good relationships are not less important than freedom, but they do come after freedom, because a good relationship must be a free association.
Generally speaking, a woman has no ability in herself to properly prioritize freedom until her anti-freedom relationship planning has proven to make things worse for her...in relationships, especially with her children. This is the basis for my belief that feminine goals are secondary, meaning coming after, despite the gamble it is, especially for the woman. Because the man-woman relationship is mainly a masculine goal if properly executed, by freedom and discernment. The mother-child relationship, the feminine analog*, is a matter of submission and faith in the unseen, by it's nature. Male and female are in opposition, probably from before the beginning, in their real selves. It is a beauty of creation that God enables us to create something wonderful out of this opposition.
*I use the word "analog" because I don't believe women are goal or creation-oriented perse, rather relationship-oriented. Women take up goals and creation as a necessity for relationships. This may sound like gibberish though, given modern assumptions.
I'm not sure I follow yet. Is there some text missing at the end of the 7th paragraph (that starts, "The destiny of individual mortal men and women is a different question...")?
ReplyDeleteYou said "Thus woman/ the feminine is Not subordinate to man/ masculine - both are absolutely spiritually necessary." Are you saying this in a spiritual sense? Because it seems clear that in a physical sense, in earthly marriages, man is set in a position of authority over the woman. But Paul does say that "there is neither male nor female... for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Seems to me that God has given men and women a physical hierarchy for our earthly lives but men and women are equal in spiritual potential to be children of God. Is that what you're referring to?
Christ said "the resurrected will neither marry nor be given in marriage." I've always understood this to mean that though we may be married in this life, we will all be individual resurrected beings in the next.
You said we will not become de-sexed or a single sex. I'm thinking if I extend your thought process a little, that a man and a woman joined together in marriage (properly, a spiritual covenant), would perhaps become the two parts of a spiritual dyad, similar to God Himself? That would make some sense to me, given that God "made man in His image" and that when we are resurrected "we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is."
@Sean - I've deleted the surplus words.
ReplyDeleteRather than try to answer you point by point - I shall speak plainly, but I don't intend to be aggressive!
I would just say that you are doing exactly what I say we cannot do! which is to adopt beliefs in accordance with external authority - in which you are being guided by unacknowledged assumptions.
For instance, you quote bible verses as if all Bible verses were necessarily literally true - presumably on the basis that you have been told by some external authority (a church, a theologian...) that this is how the Bible ought properly to be read, and this is how @a Christian' ought to construct his understanding and belief. But that is precisely what I am challenging - and which I regard as a possible pathway to error and damnation!
As for a man and woman in marriage - this is certainly one possibility. But there are many incarnate souls born into this world - some don't get out of the womb, some die as children, some suffer handicap or disease - and there are many types and personalities. Each man and woman is an unique soul, who is put into this life with an unique destiny.
So marriage is just one possibility - albeit a broadly-natural and biologically necessary one - at a social level - and therefore appropriate to be given special societal emphasis and status.
@Lucinda - Humans may have been legitimate creatures of submission in the past - but as-of-now that would (surely?) be lethal much of the time; unless there was a prior and ultimate individual discernment about "what was submitted-to" - and the possibility kept open of not submitting except to a judged-worthy person/ group.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to clarify this statement: "the feminine analog*, is a matter of submission and faith in the unseen". I mean an interest in a new relationship with a child whom she doesn't know but who will rule a part of her heart in many ways for the rest of her life, even eternally.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Ron and Hermione become 'better' in contact with each other or at certain times of contact. In the manner of Joseph Smith and Emma Hale with the plates, and Jesus and Mary Magdalene at Cana. Also George and the Princess vs the Dragon. Maybe there are other examples of this.
ReplyDeleteFurther thinking on this:
ReplyDeleteA number of years ago, I realized how unhappy the female hivemind was making me, because I was making choices that made me an outsider and uncooperative. Initially, I tried to break free from the hivemind, I emulated the men around me that seemed content in their outsider status. This was merely a superficial fix, a play-act. At some point I thought, what if there is a female hivemind of women from generations gone by, women who loved motherhood, appreciated men as husbands, valued their own nurturing nature, problem-solved with the idea that relationships are primary. This has worked for me, for the most part. I've been able to put aside the degrading modern-woman hivemind, without needing to put aside the feminine perspective altogether, or even at all.