|
|
Goddess and Torah
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Father, husband, king; the list goes on. The Hebrew texts are filled with male references to Yahwah. For years people have had the traditional image of the old man with white flowing hair and white beard up sitting on his throne in heaven. Even the traditional name used, God/G-d, is direct reference of a male deity. The very mention of a 'she' or any feminine reference will get you branded as a pagan feminist in this society. Understandably, a patriarchal society which is following only one deity using masculine references and connotations is not really surprising. Though, in light of women becoming theologians, rabbis and priests and the experiences brought to the board...can we really find the feminine experience from the deity of these religious texts?
Goddess
A concept which has been labeled as pagan, the idea of a female deity. Monotheism took such hold in this world throughout so much of the past 2000 years that anything outside the one and only male deity is typically seen as just strange. Though, what exactly would gender be when coming to grips with a being which has no need of sexual reproduction? We have become so accustomed to gender and sex being interchangable that it is the only viable conclusion. However, with our new understanding of there being a difference can we really hold to these same ideas? Ever since Jewish times we have countless and names and designations to this being which we used in relation to the experience we are relating to another. After reading a passage by Jill Hammer in "The New Jewish Feminism" I realized how close I already was to the idea of relating Goddess in my own experiences and in my own understanding of Torah. An understanding which started from hearing one of my friends, Steve, who has become sort of a mentor use 'she'.
Elohiym
An Engima unto to itself. The word Elohiym is used to denote singular as well as plural objects, a masculine plural form for a feminine singular form. Many Christians see this as their proof of the trinity which I think it being proof would be a bit stretching it. Though, I could definitely see it as a way to relate to their experience.
In the first creation account in Genesis 1, we come to the creation of humans being made in the image of Elohiym. The proposal in verse 26 relates to the dominion over the earth and animals and the act in verse 27 doesn't. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." The image being related is the one of gender. Though, think about it. No matter how you interpret man here, male and female are the image. Male AND female. In other words not a genderless deity like the one taught in many Jewish circles or a male deity which is heavily focused on by Christians but a deity having both genders.
Is it possible that we can unbound ourselves to a deity which is he and she both at the same time? Would it be stepping into those 'pagan' ideals which the Israelites were supposed to shun to related God or Goddess depending upon our specific experiences?
Torah-law and teaching
Ever read through the proverbs attributed to Solomon? I mean really read through them instead of just using them as part of a doctrinal understanding? The kind of reading to really try and grab the essence of the type of wisdom that is being conveyed? I never did growing up. The books of Psalms and Proverbs were always a means to a doctrine everwhere I looked. They weren't taken for their pure values. I finally did, and in the very first chapter I came across something I have never thought of before.
"Hear, my son, the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the teaching of thy mother"
That's the JPS translation which struck me right away because I knew this verse and what belonged to the mother that was not to be forsaken was the law, not the teaching. I even looked up the Hebrew texts and found 'torah' being the translated word. 'How odd' I thought. Then it finally made sense after reading Jill Hammer. It clicked. How do we see the raising styles of our parents? Our father is the strict one, the rule maker and enforcer. Not that this is bad, but it is why we are more stand offish with our father than our mother often times in growing up. What does our mother do? She guides us. She is more gentle and understanding. She is more concerned with teaching us what we should do instead of enforcing a rigid set of rules and regulations. I understand not all mothers nor all fathers fit into these stereotypical roles, though this is certainly the traditional imagery.
So how does all of this relate to Torah? We have two very different images of Torah. In the beginning, Torah is our traditional imagery. The law, the rigid set of regulations and statutes Moses handed down to the Israelites before his eventually death. This has become the foundation for more than 2000 years of understanding of why Moses gave them Torah. It is linked into our male imagery of Yahwah as our father. Yet, we come to the Proverbs and we find something new; something more evolved from law. Torah is our teaching, our guiding principles handed down from our mother. She is no longer the rigid set of regulations we are to follow down to a T but a guiding light to embrace as we encounter daily life and situations which require applying Torah to decide on the best course of action.
The Torah-A gift from our mother
In a sense, I was already understanding Torah as this more evolved way of understanding. Like so many countless other things related through the Hebrew scriptures, Yahwah taught by progression. Changing things a little at a time in a way in which could be embraced before moving forward. I see no reason the Torah cannot be viewed in the same fashion. To see her as a rough draft blueprint instead of as an unchanging lawbook. Instead of relating to Torah as the law given from our father, maybe the next step of understanding can come from relating the Torah as the guidance of our mother.
Labels: Christianity, feminism, gender roles, goddess, Judaism, Torah
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
|
|
Please learn what an alternative theory is.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
I really never care to get into arguments over whether or not the theory of evolution is true, though I run into this all the time even when there are not places where people are trying to get ID taught in schools. So many people want an alternative theory to evolution to be taught in schools because they do not want their kids learning this. Granted, I don't know a lot of people who really went over evolutionary theory much in high school, where the focus is, so I am really unsure why this gets pushed so much. Though, I honestly do not think people understand either what the theory of evolution seeks to explain or what an alternative theory really is.
I think a lot of the problem stems from people's perceptions of Darwin himself, which started when he first published On the Origin of the Species. He wasn't looking to circumvent theism, and to be honest he worked hard to really avoid it ever touching upon the subject. Atheists and theists alike have worked in their own theological idealogies onto his theory. He only had one purpose when he started his work, to explain the taxonomic differences between different species. That's it. There is really nothing else which the theory, even today, is explaining. Now, there are many uses of the theory, as there is to any scientific theory, which I think gain more scorn than the theory ever does. Taxonomy is highly dependent upon the theory. Which really makes a lot of sense considering that is what the theory was seeking to explain.
So what is our alternative theory? Intelligent design. A theory, for those who call it that, which does not seek to explain the taxonomic differences between animal species but to show a pattern of design which could only be the result of an intelligent designer. Let's be honest though, the intelligent designer is a creator deity...so it is a theistic theory only. It has an agenda, which of course makes it suspect to many people. Though, what I do not get is how is it an alternative theory? They do not seek to explain the same thing. In fact they are not even in the same ballpark. Their perspective phenomenon to explain doesn't fit into being competing theories. At best one could try to say that irreducible complexity would be the alternative theory, though it doesn't really try and explain the differences in taxonomy as much as it seeks to put holes in the theory of evolution.
A lot of people think these are two theories, or a theory and an argument etc., to explain the same thing. Not even just theists but atheists too. Just as it was in Darwin's time, we have too many people putting their own ideologies into the theory. I often wonder how the theory would have evolved, pardon the pun, if we had not been doing this. Would the theory be as strong as it is today? Would we have competing theories now instead of one single theory? Would evolutionary theory have died out completely otherwise? There's no way to tell, though I can see all of these as possible outcomes if there had been no ideological bias in play with this one theory.
I saw someone claim that "Intelligent Design and Creationism are simply critiques of Darwinism, at face value." Which I think is probably closer to the truth. Though, our problem is that so many are claiming otherwise and trying to legitimize it as the alternative to evolution. We really need for people to stop this. Be honest and admit what this is, a use of a scientific theory to argue atheism vs. theism. The same old shit that goes on otherwise, just wrapped up in pretty paper with a bow wrapped around it. This was the arguments which had been going on in philosophy which have mostly died out and now science is the new method of doing so. We honestly lose too much by doing this.Labels: atheism, creationism, evolution, ID, science, theism
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
|
|
Prop 8 and the Modern Day Pharisees
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
I know we are all probably very tired of hearing the same old thing when it comes to this and I agree it got old quick. I didn't spend too much time discussing the issue much online nor am I looking to condemn those who voted yes on 8, regardless of my opinions of your decision. If you are not a Christian of any denomination or sect then this doesn't apply to you.
I honestly have to wonder what is wrong with you people. Now, I do not share the same opinion of many who have given death threats and all that; I do however want to know where things got mixed up in your minds. I mean seriously, the Jewish community overwhelmingly opposed the ballot; a community which has been deeply involved when it comes to fighting for civil rights. Modern Christians on the other hand aren't willing to fight for the little guy anymore unless they can find the group of people to be in line with their own morality. It's sickening honestly, are people in need not worthy of help based on things you do not morally agree with?
What are these people in need of? Money? Not as a whole. Shelter or food? Again it is a no. They do however need their dignity acknowledged. The whole idea of civil unions are ok but marriage isn't takes us back once again to an elitist mentality of trying to claim separate but equal. Though, this isn't my main beef. It's the amount of money raised for this issue...40 million dollars. I mean 40 million, you realize how many people that would feed? We are sitting in the middle of an economic depression, which honestly we aren't that far off from it being officially declared one, and you are wasting 40 millions dollars on something that doesn't effect anyone not involved in that marriage? Granted, Equality for All raised more money but in all fairness it was to oppose something infringing on another's civil rights. It's much more understandable. The same can not be said for legally recognizing a gay couple's commitment to each other as a marriage as imposing on anyone else's civil rights.
I want to get back to this though, the 40 million fricken dollars that was wasted here. Have you people lost that much touch with your religious roots? Christianity and Judaism both have religious texts full of condemnation on not helping the poor and the disenfranchized. It's why Jews are so involved in the struggle of civil rights no matter what the issue has been. I really cannot comprehend this really. Christianity flourished for 4 centuries while having no power when it came to the government. No laws were ever passed based on Christian ethics or biblical principles during that time, yet people flocked to the religion. So the idea that society backing something leads Christians astray doesn't really fit very well.
Throughout the Hebrew/Jewish texts are repeated commands to protect the homeless and the disadvantaged, nations are destroyed for it, prophets use Sodom's neglect to the needy as examples of lesser crimes than Israel's. It's a central topic repeated so much it should be engrained into the Church's head. Though what gets me worse is Jesus's favorite group to yell at for doing this, were the Pharisees. Now, I mean no offense to the Jews for their religious heritage here...though I have never seen a Jewish source ever label the Rabbis in the Talmud as Pharisees much for the same reason that I don't. Christians really have become modern day Pharisees as a whole. The image of the Pharisees was to use religion to oppress others, to the detriment of those in need. Sound familiar?
Now I know Christians will claim to the many Christian charities which do help the needy but honestly, if there is one person dying of starvation then there should never be 40 million dollars raised over a law which is not creating any victims. It's pathetic, the LDS, Focus on the Family, the RCC, the Knights of Columbus, the AFA; all of them raised money over this issue...when we have millions of people worldwide homeless and dying of starvation. Every cent should have been used for the needy. Instead it was used against a group of people who weren't hurting anyone.
To think how many of you are following a religion which used the image of the Pharisee as a condemnation, a religion who started out opposing these people, just to turn in to that very image. Even more, the image of the Pharisee matches fairly close, without the religion part, to that of Sodom. Which American Christianity has become a bunch of Sodomites. People who have enough money to live fairly comfortably yet would rather spend 40 million dollars on something which helps them feel better instead of those who are starving and homeless. It's shameless what you have turned into really.Labels: Christian, gay marriage, LGBT, pharisee, prop 8, religion
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
