🐱 Why a gender-fluid god can save religion from itself

CatParty


Patriarchal religion is dying. And by patriarchal I mean the worship of the father god, that big guy in the sky, the bowing, the submission, the hierarchy of domination implicit in language, symbol and story. Mostly, I refer to Christianity (my lived experience), but also to a lesser extent Judaism and Islam.

Christianity is male supremacy. Women were seen as second-class for hundreds of years; while most denominations now permit women pastors, the Australian Catholic Church still does not allow women to be deacons or priests. This faith is also historically intertwined with white supremacy and colonisation.

It’s all getting a little old, isn’t it? No wonder millions have left the church. I was a Pentecostal for 13 years and now that I’ve washed that away, I believe Australia should abandon the cosmological bondage to daddy god.
Apostasy may not come easy. Among those unwilling, unready or unable to leave, I see an ambition to reform the system from within.
This is already happening around the world. The book Defecting in Place cites research arising from interviews with more than 4000 Catholic and Protestant (unfortunately mostly white) women in America in the 1990s. They found many women “defected in place”: they refused to resign to gender inequality and chose instead to become agents of change, transforming the tradition from within. This looks like creating new rituals, reimagining God as Goddess or reinterpreting scripture.
It’s time to take this a step further. If dying patriarchal religions are to survive, believers who want to keep the faith must queer religion.
The word “queering” comes from a “queer reading” of literature or film, where heteronormativity or gender norms are challenged with alternative readings of the text. So, how to join the profound number of rainbow believers in queering systems of faith?
The first step is to actively resist homophobia in religious communities, apologise for the violence of the past, and create a welcoming space for all genders and sexualities. Queers Be With You runs educational workshops to guide churches on how to be LGBTQIA+ inclusive. Radical inclusivity is so much more than a tick on a diversity checklist; it offers spaces where people can feel safe and free.
Holy Spirit’s pronoun differs between languages and traditions; following this logic, god could be gender-fluid.
Queer theology asks us to decentralise the male hetero experience (this already happens in some spaces). The Pass. The. Mic. organisation invites a diverse range of congregants to interpret scripture, perform rites and speak – preferably with a feminist, queer and/or antiracist reading. Aisya Zaharin, a Malaysian Muslim academic living in Meanjin, reinterprets Islamic texts from her perspective as a trans woman. These diverse voices invite more people to feel welcome and seen.

The third act of queering religion is to widen the understanding of the divine. While the masculine image of god excludes women and non-binary people from seeing themselves as the face of perfection and power, the Holy Spirit’s pronoun differs between languages and traditions; following this logic, god could be gender-fluid. The borders of gender, narrowly defined and once seen as fixed, have been played with, reversed, dissolved. Rev Anna Karin Hammar, a gay priest I interviewed in Sweden, uses god-words like You, Source of my Life, Love of my Being. None correspond to gender. This allows a more expansive understanding of the divine, favouring a mysticism of questions over answers, paradoxes over clear lines – eroding rules and law, and hopefully judgment, guilt and shame.
Queering religion stems from a theology of liberation in which radical love is religion’s core, and god sides with the oppressed. To be queer is to be outside society’s norms. Aligning with the oppressed and fighting systems of domination – minus the saviour complex, please! – gives believers a chance to practise what they preach.
Are you like me – have you killed the god in your head? Or are you taking on the ambitious task of defecting in place? Be heartened – these urgent conversations are already happening across religious communities. It’s time to come together and plot a revolution from within.
 
someone post this journalist photo pls.
1660314690158.png
 
Christ was incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit and became man, and existed as part of the Trinity beforehand. It wasn't out of carnal lust nor was it done through means of the flesh. She wasn't inseminated, she was a vessel to provide his mortal form through means of birth, and is regarded as free from sin as a result since Christ, who came from her is free from sin, even Original Sin. There's a reason why it is called the Immaculate Conception and people are so autistic about it.
I'm going to be autistic here and say that the Immaculate Conception was not the conception of Christ but of Mary.

God created sexual reproduction. Peepee in cooter. He created Adam as a person like Himself with a peepee. When God decided to become incarnate, He grew as a baby in a woman's womb, instead of beaming down like Spock or whatever.

Trying to say that God the Father was not acting in a male capacity when He had a woman give birth to God the Son, and that His choosing to be incarnated in a male form was a coin flip... I need to see some text for that.

Finally, the Bible doesn't define all sexuality as "carnal lust." Sex between a married man and woman is good.

Full disclosure: I don't believe in any of this but I enjoy theology as a discipline and I think the text should be taken at face value unless otherwise indicated.
 
There's a reason why it is called the Immaculate Conception and people are so autistic about it.
"Immaculate Conception" refers to the Catholic doctrine regarding Mary's conception, since everyone figured that Mary had to be sinless to not be incinerated while bearing God incarnate, but the western Christians specifically believed that man inherited the sin guilt of Adam (as opposed to only the consequences of Adam's sin, as eastern Christians believed), and therefore it was necessary that Mary was free of that original sin at a point when the sacrament of baptism hadn't been established-- ergo, when she was conceived.

I'd argue there's some precedent for it among the Latin fathers, but it was never dogmatized in the RCC until well after the East-West schism.

Trying to say that God the Father was not acting in a male capacity when He had a woman give birth to God the Son, and that His choosing to be incarnated in a male form was a coin flip... I need to see some text for that.
There was no sex that was had. It'd be more accurate to say that Mary was "caused to conceive", but the entire point of the virgin birth was that nobody had sex for Jesus to be conceived.
 
God made Adam based on his own appearance. It literally says that in the first pages of the god damn bible.
You may rewrite history but you wont rewrite the holy book, you god damn sinner fucker.

Mostly, I refer to Christianity
Yes I bet you do. Nobody’s going to snackbar you for it unlike if you go after Islam.
Christianity is male supremacy. Women were seen as second-class for hundreds of years;
Everywhere saw women as second class. Now for ten points, tell the class which countries still do? Would they be, rather shockingly, the Islamic ones? But let’s keep bashing Christianity because Muslims do get a little annoyed don’t they if you do that
Apostasy may not come easy.
And which countries execute apostates? The Christian ones? No yet again, it’s not.

I recall this scene from Dr House, the one with the fatty patient, he predictably made fun of his weight and the fatty said "oh, fat jokes! Classic. Still one of the few people you can make fun today."

Dr House replies "Well, that and christians...oh and black people!"
Good to see you can still make fun of at least one of these today
 
I'm going to be autistic here and say that the Immaculate Conception was not the conception of Christ but of Mary.

God created sexual reproduction. Peepee in cooter. He created Adam as a person like Himself with a peepee. When God decided to become incarnate, He grew as a baby in a woman's womb, instead of beaming down like Spock or whatever.

Trying to say that God the Father was not acting in a male capacity when He had a woman give birth to God the Son, and that His choosing to be incarnated in a male form was a coin flip... I need to see some text for that.

Finally, the Bible doesn't define all sexuality as "carnal lust." Sex between a married man and woman is good.

Full disclosure: I don't believe in any of this but I enjoy theology as a discipline and I think the text should be taken at face value unless otherwise indicated.
The concept of virgin Mary birth was that Jesus was born without the sin of man, because someone with sin cannot bear the punishment of sins of sinners. If he is born from "man", then he will be born with the "sin of man" within.

Being born of a woman also makes Jesus a mortal, because he has to die as the son of man. Thus he was the perfect example of a sinless "man", who became the sacrifice bearing the punishment of death for all other man, and he is qualified because he is sinless.

Despite some autistic christians that said Eve is at fault for being deceived first, the responsibility actually still fall on Adam, because God "told Adam", and Adam failed and listened to Eve instead. Notice that despite Eve eating the apple, the sin didn't took effect because Adam hadn't ate the apple yet.
 
I'm very tired of the old "christianity is sexist because women can't..."

Sure, in Catholicism at least, a woman can't be a priest, but she can be a nun. It's not about banning, but about roles. A man can't be a nun either and nobody complains?

In any case, Catholicism never banned women from being whatever they wanted outside the Church. You want to be a president? Go ahead.
 
I don't believe in god and am not religious, but shit like this annoys the fuck out of me because these uppity fag-enablers always go after Christianity & give Islam a pass because Islam is commonly seen as a shitskin religion even though there are tons of Whites that have historically practiced it. Christianity is bad because it oppresses the faggots but Islam, which oppresses faggots worse than Christianity ever did, is pure and good because darkies practice it. These are the same retards that think that "Muslim" is an ethnicity and want to flood White nations with niggers, forcing miscegenation on Whites through film, advertisement, and television PROGRAMMING.

The entire reason that they hate Christianity is that they associate with Christianity with "WhItEnEsS" as if being White were a bad thing and not the most awesome thing ever. They won't criticize Islam for being barbaric because shitskins primarily practice Islam and these people are so fucking cucked and hate themselves so much for being White, that they aren't capable of criticizing barbarism when it is blatantly obvious. Nevermind the fact that Christianity is not the indigenous White religion, and that the majority of Earth's Christians are their beloved precious shitskins, Christianity is le ebil because White people have historically practiced it in Europe and everyone knows that everything Europe and Western civilization ever produced was evil and horrible (READ: awesome)

These people will never even talk about Hinduism or the caste system, something you figure they would be against because they're buttfucking commies, but again: non-Whites practice Hinduism when they aren't busy contracting leprosy and shitting in the street.

I'm so tired of this nonsense that it makes me wish I could believe in God and Christianity just to really rub it in their faces. I would try to find the Whitest, most nigger-hating branch of Christianity possible and participate in it's rituals and try to force myself to buy into it just to poke them in the eye, but the problem is that Christianity is inherently not White Supremacist regardless of what the commie fag-enablers try to claim. Matter of fact, White Supremacy and Christianity do not go hand in hand at all, as Christians worship a Jew.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
Tell that to Richard Dawkins, oh wait you won’t because you want him cancelled for his stance on biology.
I find the hard line atheists that are trannies or simp for them to be the funniest. I do wish I could take online atheists from the 00’s straight to current year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heraclitus Pavo
I'm very tired of the old "christianity is sexist because women can't..."

Sure, in Catholicism at least, a woman can't be a priest, but she can be a nun. It's not about banning, but about roles. A man can't be a nun either and nobody complains?

In any case, Catholicism never banned women from being whatever they wanted outside the Church. You want to be a president? Go ahead.
Every society that doesnt control (and protect) its women will soon be replaced by one that does.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Super Hans
I find the hard line atheists that are trannies or simp for them to be the funniest
Anyone who simps for shemales or is a shemale is hilarious. They need to just admit that they are faggots who want to have a man cum on their feces. Sucking dick doesn't magically become any less gay just because the body the dick is attached to is a mockery of the female form.

I would never fuck a shemale, not even if they bribed me with money that could end all of my problems, because dignity is priceless & there's no going back from sticking it up a man's ass or putting a cock in your mouth. You are instantaneously a faggot when you do either of these things, just because the man crossdresses and has breast implants changes nothing, You are still a faggot and you would still rot in hell for eternity if it existed.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
Back