XIII. And WHAT OF 'GOD'? A HETEROSEXUAL FORMULATION

Human cultures normally find a conceptual place in their scientific and/or technological understanding of the universe - whether primitive or advanced - for a supernatural entity such as 'God'. (In the Jewish tradition, such a name should not be voiced and, although not a Jew, I shall sometimes use the designation 'G-d' that, without a vowel, cannot really be spoken. Also, 'G-d' de-emphasizes the aspect of existence and points to, rather, a function.)

[In what follows (and other Posts) this blogger makes reference to "God", "the heavens and the earth" and "Adam and Eve" as described in the first few pages of the Judaeo-Christian "Bible". However, the Philosophy of Heterosexuality that is elaborated here does not depend on these classical references. It stands or falls on its own merits.

Nonetheless, it turns out that many elements of the beginning of the first Biblical book, "Genesis", can readily be read in a heterosexual way that corresponds quite nicely with this blogger's heterosexual thesis.

In addition, of course, my earlier 'non-sexual' education about Genesis may well have paradoxically cued my own heterosexual formulations. I may have (sub-consciously) 'heard' and 'read' this part of the Bible heterosexually from an early age.]

THUS:

A. Aristotle's model of a cosmos composed of concentric spheres wherein the outer spheres determine the movement of inner spheres suggested the placement of an "unmoved Mover" (viz, 'God') in the outermost locale.

B. With the technological development of such mechanisms as clocks, 'God' was conceptualized as a kind of clock-maker and/or the one who wound up the clock.

C. The traditional reading of the very beginning of the Judaeo-Christian Bible (Genesis 1) has conceptualized a 'free-standing' and independently-existing "God" who, as a supernatural entity, creates the universe out of nothing. 'His', 'Her' or 'Its' productive capacity is perceived as non-sexual or 'uni-sexual' or, virtually, hermaphroditic.

Although no personal pronoun referring to "God" appears in early chapters of the Bible, male pronouns are used to identify God later, and Jesus certainly refers to God as "Father".

In the traditional Judaeo-Christian 'cosmos', then, God (more or less a male) is given the place of a free-standing and independently existing fabricator with, evidently, supernatural powers.

During thousands of years of reading/reciting Genesis 1, many men have conflated the concepts of (i) a non-sexual or uni-sexual or hermaphroditic God and (ii) a free-standing male creator God -- with the result that a male human being has often similarly thought of himself as independent and not really having want of a female co-creator other than as a womb/uterus to gestate and give birth to HIS children.

Contemporary 'political-correctness' conflates maleness and femaleness and, thus, reinforces the concept of hermaphroditic uni-sexuality, if not non-sexuality.

NOW, A FLAGRANTLY HETEROSEXUAL READING OF GENESIS 1 IS SUBMITTED WHEREBY G-D HAS MERELY MALE FUNCTION:

The extensively foot-noted edition of The New Jerusalem Bible (the authoritative contemporary Roman Catholic version) [ISBN 9780385142649] offers the following translation of the best Hebrew and Greek sources: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. God said, 'Let there be light, . . ."

This is an essentially traditional phrasing; and it is ambiguous regarding whether "God" made the "formless void" out of nothing or whether G-d acted on a pre-existing "formless void".

Then, The New Jerusalem Bible (in its foot-notes) also offers this translation: "When God began creating heaven and earth, the earth being then a formless void, with darkness over the deep, and a divine wind sweeping over the waters, God said, . . ." etc.

In this latter phrasing, it is evident that "the earth", as a "formless void" was already present when G-d began G-d's pro-creative endeavour. ('Creation' can be carried out by an individual alone; whereas 'procreation' requires interaction between a male entity and a female entity.)

The New Jerusalem Bible notes: "Both translations are grammatically possible: the one we retain here, with all the ancient versions, gives a more coherent rendering of the text."

This blogger perceives that the "coherent rendering" espoused by these editors involves an overlapping and mystifying uni-sexual or hermaphroditic 'coherence' between male and female functioning so that male human beings (whether identifying themselves as 'he', 'she', 'father' and/or 'mother') remain the 'be-all and end-all' of creation and procreation.

Without the latter editorial bias, it seems that the person who composed Genesis 1 perceived the universe as being the off-spring of G-d (male) and nature (female) with G-d's words, "Let there be light", etc. being the analogical equivalent of male genetic/chromosomal input that informed (ie, impregnated) the laws and possibilities provided by 'mother' nature so that She could give birth to light, etc.!

In this heterosexual formulation 'God' entirely lacks the female capacities to conceive, gestate, and give birth. He functions merely/exactly/only as an 'impregnating' male. (It can be noted that Genesis 1 does not state that G-d exists - only that G-d spoke.)

In summary, it seems evident that Judaeo-Christianity it founded on a scripture/writing that is (i) ambiguous regarding the 'sexual' character of G-d or (ii) clearly describes G-d as a male entity participating in procreative endeavour that requires complementary existence and power provided by "the heaven and the earth" (ie, nature and her power/laws).

God presents as the (archetypal) progenitor/sire/father (but not mother) to the universe. While composing/speaking data autonomously, He lacks independent existence- a mystery!
Accurately, Genesis 1 identifies God as a principle (not principal) of creation-procreation.