Saturday, June 06, 2009

On gods and goddesses...

Cramner examines Caroline "gobby fishwife" Flint's resignation letter from a theistic perspective (unsurprisingly)...
Ms Flint has simply discovered the consequence of Gordon Brown’s failure to find femininity in God. Gordon Brown’s God is a father, husband, king, clan leader and warrior. Caroline Flint’s is a pregnant woman, mother, midwife, mistress.

Now, unlike Cramner, your humble Devil is not a theist—indeed, I am an atheist. However, I do take an interest in just about everything (other than sport, about which I couldn't really give a shit. Commercial sport is just a distraction used to keep the populace from tearing its government limb from limb).

I wouldn't claim to be an expert on religious matters: however, it seems to me that the over-weening dominance of the patriarchy comes through particularly in the monotheistic religions, including Christianity. God has most often been seen as male and Jesus, assuming his existence, was male—as were all of the original disciples.

One might argue that, in a male-dominated society, it could be no any other way. However, in the Celtic religions (for there were many, although all shared certain features), this is not the case.

As a general rule, the great gods also had a feminine equivalent—sometimes the gods even had a female and male aspect within the same entity. In any case, female deities were, in many cases, as powerful as the male, even if they represented different things: the male aspects were usually concerned with warriors and manufacturing, e.g. the Trí Dé Dána of the Tuatha de Danann (although the Morrigan is notable for being a female aspect of battle and death), whilst goddesses were generally more concerned with growth and fertility (although the male Cernunnos was also concerned with these things).

And both technical progress and traditional growth were seen as of equivalent importance: they were two aspects of human life. The deities themselves were essentially more balanced, reflecting the perceived priorities essential to life.

Further, of course, the Celtic religions allowed for the fact that gods can be deposed and, indeed, killed. In fact, their gods could be removed by other gods, or even specially favoured humans and semi-humans. The Celtic gods were responsive to their worshippers, and to the world in which they lived. They were fallible because they were closer to the people who worshipped them—in nature if not always in form. And their gods evolved, whether within themselves or into other sets of gods: there was constant flux, as there is in life.

Contrast that with the Christian religion, in which one god is the all-knowing, all-seeing creator of everything: this one god can never be deposed, or replaced. This god is never—for all the Christ's urgings—the servant of his people, or even of this world.

Further, the god has always been a male aspect, for all that feminists have tried to claim a female or asexual entity. Unlike the Dagda, the Christian god did not have daughters who were as valuable as his sons; his has been an entirely male-dominated history.

Anyway, it's just a thought...


Anonymous said...

Cranmer is, quite clearly, talking through a hole in his arse.

God does not enter into this affair. Flint did not quit her job because of gender bias but because she is an ambitious cunt with a sense of entitlement the size of the Rock of Gibraltar. She essentially tried to blackmail Broon - that is the long and the short of it. Broon, for his own reasons, told her to go get knotted and Flint threw a bitch-fit and walked.

In walking, she did what a great many incompetent women have done over the last forty years when things don't go their own way - she cried sexism.

By the same token, had Broon given her the health portfolio she has always sought, she'd have been singing from the rooftops about Broon's commitment to equal rights (or rites, in Cranmer's reading). This is because for Flint, as for so many other women of her age and ability, the only metric for defining the rights of women is their own advance up the career ladder. Flint did not get what she wanted, ergo she was a victim of sexism; if she had got what she wanted, then the system would have been fair - until the next time she decided she was entitled to advancement.

Look hard at Flint and her whining entitlement and behold the face of Labour women. Behold the consequences of Labour's sexist quota system that rewards incompetent candidates simply because they have a vagina and punishes competent men for having a penis.

Lt Ogilvie said...


No argument from me on the above. However, The Dunce of Downing St does hate women. As to God entering into it, he was pushed by the Fife Feartie when he demanded we recognise the "specialness" of his upbringing as a Minister's son.


It is the God of Abraham - not just the Christian facet.

Constantly Furious said...

Fuck me, this is a bit heavy; where's all the swearing, for fuck's sake?

Anonymous said...

Lt Ogilvie

I wouldn't necessarily disagree that Broon hates women but I don't think he hates them any more than he hates the rest of us.

Whatever you're packing in your undercrackers, Gordon Broon hates you.

Anonymous said...

Addressing the imbalance...

Cunt cubed

CIngram said...

Brown has an intense dislike and distrust of people in general, except those who go out of their way to fondle his ego, probably because he doesn't really understand them. He has achieved nothing, and won nothing. He has been given every post he has ever held because someone found him useful. That is still true today, and that person is Mandelson.

Women politicians in general have learnt to shout sexism as a way of getting on, but in the case of Brown he probably does treat them even worse than men because they are less clear about exactly what to fondle.

BTW: How can the devil be an atheist? Isn't it a bit pointless, like my great-aunt Blodwyn who, in later life, went out every night with a carvinmg knife to scare the pixies of the lawn?

Chalcedon said...

Regardless of Cranmer, Male and female divinities are rife in Roman, Greek, Hindu, Japanese, Chinese et al pantheons. Only the monotheistic religions advocate a supreme male deity. Although Christianity acknowledges that a deity is a spirit and has no gender per se.

Flint is just a self obsessed cow.

Budgie said...

DK - please name the traditional and substantial Christian scholars who would limit God by gender. In other words those who believe that maleness alone sufficiently encompasses the personality of the Christian God, as you appear to think.

As an atheist I found that very many of my views of Christianity were merely hearsay and inaccurate. Arguing against the real thing, I found, was a lot more difficult than demolishing the commonly accepted caricatures.

I am probably not putting this very well for I lack the scholarship and the patience for it, but I hope you get the drift.