david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (12/11/83)
> As for why it is "obvious" that the Deity is neither male nor female -- > surely you jest. If you assume an incorporeal Deity -- as most modern > religions do -- then the concepts of X and Y chromosomes, eggs, sperm, > etc., don't apply. Christianity, of course, is not a modern religion. Christ was a man who walked on this earth just like you and I. The concept of marriage, of a man and wife uniting to death, is symbolic of the relationship between Christ and the Church. The concepts of male and female, in this sense, are not limited to mere physical realities.
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (12/13/83)
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) Subject: God's gender Message-ID: <670@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Dec-83 17:42:11 EST Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle > As for why it is "obvious" that the Deity is neither male nor female -- > surely you jest. If you assume an incorporeal Deity -- as most modern > religions do -- then the concepts of X and Y chromosomes, eggs, sperm, > etc., don't apply. > Christianity, of course, is not a modern religion. Christ was a man who > walked on this earth just like you and I. The concept of marriage, of a man > and wife uniting to death, is symbolic of the relationship between Christ and > the Church. The concepts of male and female, in this sense, are not limited > to mere physical realities. The original question (in 662@ssc-vax.UUCP) was a followup to an article on Judaism; hence considerations of the sex of Jesus do not apply. My reference to "modern religions" was intended to include Judaism, Christianity, their successors, and others; it was specifically intended to exclude older anthropomorphic animist religions, i.e., the Greek or Norse gods. If my wording was imprecise and/or insulting, I apologize. But you raise several other points that are worth discussing. First is the question of the nature of Jesus. This was the cause of many bloody fights for several hundred years. Other readers are no doubt far better qualified than I to supply historical data; I will only note that one can easily speak of *both* Jesus -- a mortal man -- and the Christ -- a spiritual concept. You also claim, though, that the "concepts of male and female are... not limited to mere physical realities". That's a rather strong statement to advance without justification, especially since you called Dave Sherman to task for his equally categorical statement that the concept of sex does not apply to the Deity. I could make a persuasive case that the prevailing attitudes towards women at the time of Jesus were the source of such sym- bolisms; that any strong leader *had* to be male, hence the attribute of maleness was ascribed to the Deity. (Jewish culture of the time was very strongly influenced by Greek ideas and practices. Some scholars claim that what are today seen as traditional Jewish views towards women are in reality Greek ideas incorporated during the Hellenistic period. More data on request.) As for the sex of Jesus -- given that the logic of Christianity (today) demands that he had human form, and hence was capable of suffering and self-sacrifice -- he couldn't have been *both* male and female. And remember, given the attitudes of the times a woman would not have been listened to at all. I'm rambling, I'm afraid, so let me summarize my essential points: a) Judaism does not accept that G-d is either male or female, or even that the concept applies; b) your claim that Christian theology demands a masculine Deity needs a great deal more substantiation; and c) I claim that the sexual attri- butes portrayed in the New Testament are more a reflection of the times than a statement about the way the universe works. --Steve Bellovin
david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (12/13/83)
> Not all flavors of Christianity demanded a masculine Deity, either in > the early christian church, or today. Gnostic Christian literature is > replace with references to G-d the Father, The Mother and the Son -- > and contains other scriptures with G-d specifically designated as > androgynous. I think that you are correct, given a liberal view of the term Christianity. There are a plethora of religions today which profess to be Christian religions, when it is plain that they are not. Comparing the old Gnostics to Christianity is, I think, dangerous; It is easy to find numerous texts that point out Gnostic errors. I certainly wouldn't want to try to defend the Inquisition, who believed they were Christians carrying out the will of God, when any fool even only slightly versed in New Testament Scripture could see otherwise. I think my point is obvious. This will probably raise the question, "What, then, do you define as Christianity?" It is of course easy for any individual to create his own definition of Christianity, thus making any kind of logical argument impossible. If we can stick to Christianity's roots (that is, the Bible Itself) we can find a complete definition; after all, most of the Author's quotes can be found there. -- Dave Norris -- ..uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (12/13/83)
> But you raise several other points that are worth discussing. First is > the question of the nature of Jesus. This was the cause of many bloody > fights for several hundred years. Other readers are no doubt far better > qualified than I to supply historical data; I will only note that one can > easily speak of *both* Jesus -- a mortal man -- and the Christ -- a spiritual > concept. Your statement only leaves me confused (which, I admit, is not that difficult to do). Are you separating "Jesus" from "Christ"? Do you believe in the existance of one, both, or niether? > You also claim, though, that the "concepts of male and female are... not > limited to mere physical realities". That's a rather strong statement to > advance without justification, especially since you called Dave Sherman to > task for his equally categorical statement that the concept of sex does not > apply to the Deity. I did present the idea that Christian marriage is a mirror of the relationship between Christ and the church. I also stated that Jesus himself came to earth as a man. > As for the sex of Jesus -- given that the logic of Christianity > (today) demands that he had human form, and hence was capable of suffering > and self-sacrifice -- he couldn't have been *both* male and female. And > remember, given the attitudes of the times a woman would not have been > listened to at all. Are you then admitting that a *man* called Jesus Christ existed? Besides, I do not think today's logic effects yesterday's history... > I'm rambling, I'm afraid, so let me summarize my essential points: a) Judaism > does not accept that G-d is either male or female, or even that the concept > applies; b) your claim that Christian theology demands a masculine Deity > needs a great deal more substantiation; and c) I claim that the sexual attri- > butes portrayed in the New Testament are more a reflection of the times than > a statement about the way the universe works. I am making a case for Christianity, not Judaism. The statement that "sexual attributes" being "portrayed" is confusing. Stories portray Napolean as a man; I suppose that's because he was one. If I said "my wife is portraying a woman," well, she IS a woman. Steve's (valid) argument is why God created Jesus as a man. My belief is that it is because He was a man; Steve believes it was because God (rightly, and logically) assumed that no one would listen to Him (oops, Her) if She were a woman. But wait! We have assumed that Jesus was, in fact, the Son of God, and must consider what He had to say. The argument demands that, regardless of God's gender, we must seriously consider the teachings of Jesus (as a person, regardless of sex). I sat back for a moment, and re-examined the discussion thus far. I noted something that is worth pointing out to other readers: The Christian viewpoint, and the case for Christianity, always brings the argument to a discussion of Jesus Christ. This is not so remarkable, since Christ is the cornerstone, the crux of Christianity. It is no use trying to prove any basic Christan doctrine without discussing Christ himself. -- Dave Norris -- ..!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/15/83)
Reply to Dave Norris: Your statement only leaves me confused (which, I admit, is not that difficult to do). Are you separating "Jesus" from "Christ"? Do you believe in the existance of one, both, or niether? Ahem, David, the decision of the council of chalcedon was that Jesus Christ was one person with 2 natures, both human and divine. This is called a mystery which is a good way of saying "your guess is as good as mine" as to what that really means. The problem with the 3 councils was that they were formed to combat heresy, rather than say something useful, per se'. However, you later have to refer to "the human nature" or "the divine nature". The tradition was to use "Jesus" when you talk about the man and either "Christ" or "the Logos" when you talk about the divinity. I did present the idea that Christian marriage is a mirror of the relationship between Christ and the church. I also stated that Jesus himself came to earth as a man. Did you know that you are verging on heresy here? In the 6th century, such sentiments could have got you poisoned. You are not supposed to say that "Jesus came to earth as a man", but rather that the Logos was incarnated into the man Jesus. What you said seems to deny the divinity of the 2nd person, hence the poisoning. Are you then admitting that a *man* called Jesus Christ existed? He'd better not be. That one is sure to get you poisoned. (sorry to go so heavily into the poisoning, but I just wrote a term paper on the subject.) If you are talking about "Jesus Christ" you can't talk about the *man* -- this is the "1 person, 2 natures spiritual reality". You can talk about the man Jesus who was referred to as the Christ, (though he wasn't, given that the people he was associating spoke Aramaic and Christ is a translation). Steve's (valid) argument is why God created Jesus as a man. Then Steve has had it. If you think that God created Jesus as a man then the council of Nicea was for you, to combat your heresy, and it is a good thing that Christians don't for the most part go about executing heretics, because that belief would get you executed. The council of Nicea came up with the Nicean creed which has the lines. ...begotten not made, one in being with the Father, through Him all things were made.... precisely to keep people from saying things like "God created Jesus". Jesus isn't *made* or *created*. It does you no good to quote scripture which seems to prove that Jesus was created, because that's exactly what the people did at the Council of Chalcedon and the Council of Nicea, and they still got told that they were heretics when the whole thing was over. And as for: The Christian viewpoint, and the case for Christianity, always brings the argument to a discussion of Jesus. It is no use trying to prove any basic Christan doctrine without discussing Christ himself. This is a fairly modern view of Christianity, and one which is more "Protestant" than "Roman Catholic" and also one that was not prevalent during the middle ages. Read Anselem (sp?) of Cantebury on Jesus. His entire notion of Jesus is based on his notion of God which is based on his notion of feudalism, the government of his time. (His notion of God was also based on th Greek ideal of perfection, but the feudal aspect is more predomininant in his writings.) Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura