I was in a women's studies course, and the discussion came up 'would Christianity been adopted if Christ had been a woman?'
To be honest, at first, I was slightly baffled that we were even having the discussion. Then I had to think about it. I don't know.
The relevence of gender and sex should not be of any importance when considering the importance of hearing God's word. Still..
I do have to admit I like the face of Christ as I have imagined him most of my life. I think it would be slightly unsettling to find out otherwise. I don't know why, other than the fact I don't give it much thought about Christ's appearance, and to do so is to take me out of a comfort zone I have not left in a while.
Anyways, nothing terribly enlightening today.. just some thoughts that I had to muse out loud about..
Shawn
Posts
The Passion Translation: Content Review
1 day ago
2 comments:
The Whole Concept of Christ came about after the advent of Wiccan beliefs, which accepted the male and female deities, which is probably what puts you in the "no comfort" zone.
If Christ had been a woman, then God wouldn't have a penis, and that would introduce all kinds of theological and existential quandaries. Indeed, such a catastrophe could rip apart the fabric of space and time.
As for Wiccan beliefs, they're conclusively newer than Christian ones, Gerald Gardner having been pretty decisively dated to 20th century Britain. (The concept of male and female deities, mind you, is certainly older). Don't feel bad, though. When Christianity was sixty years old, it was playing the "our religion is older and therefore better" game too. It made even less sense for Christianity than for Wicca, but there's a simple principle which I find applies in most of these cases: religion and reality do not have to correlate, and indeed they often do not.
Post a Comment