Christianity, Capitalism, and the "Witches"

Perhaps it is coincidence, but perhaps not, that Wintery Knight has again written a blog post against feminism--this time targeting nurses.  I say coincidence because in the spirit of Halloween, the original "healers," the doctors of the past, were women.  They were, as the church called them, "witches," and were demonized and burned at the stake when the church realized they had independence, autonomy and the respect of their communities, and did not need men to support them.  Interestingly, what Wintery Knight is complaining about--that is the lack of humanity and compassion amongst nurses--is is ironic, because the "witches" specialized in care and compassion.  They were the humanitarian and compassionate original healers who, for example, developed birthing chairs to make childbirth easier for women.  They also developed herbal therapies--some of which are still used today.  The church destroyed the humanity of the witches, and replaced it with the cold business known at "medicine."  I will delve into the issue Wintery Knight has with "feminist nurses" of today in a moment, but first I would like to elaborate a bit on the history of the "witch."

The medical practices and scientific techniques of the "witches" of the past were evolved, and worked so well that the church felt it gave women too much power.  Their work was then deemed the fruits of the devil, and the men of the church created propaganda against them by accusing them of sexual impurity, and that their "witchcraft" i.e. their "healing powers" was a product of carnal lust--said to be insatiable in the witches.  The so-called "fantasies" of these women were in reality the fantasies of their accusers, and they were used to torture them in some of the most inhumane ways possible. * They were often raped, and in many cases had their sexual organs cut off and mutilated--with the church's blessing.  Wintery Knight's moniker is also appropriate in this case, as the "knights" in the age of the witch burnings participated in torturing thousands of innocent women, and as their bloodlust grew, so did the scope of their victims, as they began targeting not only the healers, but also widows, and the "spinsters" ie. the women who "spun wool" and did not need men to support them, which evolved into the church persecuting anyone that did not agree with them as a way of "purifying" society.  I am sure that if "Wintery Knight" had been born in the age of the witch burnings, he would have gladly participated in their torture and murder.  After all, he would consider it "God's Will" as the negative stereotypes against women, and their methods of torture and death originated with the church.

Now, Wintery Knight is complaining again that feminism is the cause of the lack of humanity within the medical profession.  Again, he is sorely mistaken, as the medical profession is dominated by men who regard medicine as a business--and is not at all like the humanitarian efforts of the witches.  No, medicine today is a "for profit" institution, created by MEN--not women.  If Wintery Knight and anyone else has a problem with the lack of humanity within the medical system, they need to put the blame at the feet of those who created the system in the first place--men.  When the men took over from the witches, their goals were different.  Their goal was to make money, therefore millions died needlessly from infection because they did not practice the same cleanliness techniques the "witches" passed down to each other throughout the generations--because cleanliness takes time and effort. Instead of using a birthing chair, which also takes a great deal of time, the men developed forceps so they could come into a home, yank out the baby as quickly as possible, and move on to the next--which caused many injuries and deaths.  But that was just the cost of "doing business" for the men. 

Christianity is the root of the problem within the medical system, as it demonized the original humanitarian healers, creating the system we have now; and also promotes the belief that all life has intrinsic value--even the lives of those that are brain dead yet kept on life support.  The Capitalists then use this paradigm to make money, and they use the nurses and other care givers to keep those in vegetative states alive.  To let nature take its course however, is not a "lack of humanity,"--but having overworked, underpaid caregivers release their frustrations on those that cannot defend themselves is--which would never happen if the "witches" ran the system.

If there are nurses that lack the humanity that "Wintery Knight" feels they ought to have working in such a profession, he should be blaming the patriarchs for creating the medical system in the first place--not the nurses.  After all, the nurses are now just "businesswomen" according to Wintery Knight, doing what the patriarchs tell them to do--much like the knights of the past who, on orders from the Christian patriarchs killed the witches.  If Wintery Knight wishes to blame anyone for a "lack of humanity"--blame the patriarchs, for the feminists did not create the system that promulgated the inhumanity found not only within the medical system, but within society itself.  Nurses are underpaid and overworked, and understaffed --yet do the majority of the labour, and in this system people who are vegetables and/or have no quality of life are being "warehoused" in medical institutions--because it makes the Capitalists' money.  Because to the predominantly male hierarchy in the medical establishment, the bottom line is always going to be worth more than humanity and altruism.

Real feminism is the fight to get back the system that men took away from the witches.  Real feminists have not forgotten the "witches," and neither should anyone else.  We should all embrace our "inner witch" and become more humanitarian and compassionate towards each other.  The world would be a much better place if we did.

As a final note, my father had congestive heart failure, and his health deteriorated to the point where he required life support.  He was too old to be a candidate for a heart transplant, and although he could have been kept alive for a long time on life support, we knew that was not what he have wanted, as he told us he was ready to "go" when he was conscious and aware that his heart was failing him.  His doctor agreed, and stopped administering the drugs that kept him alive.  He died peacefully in his sleep, with his family by his side--which was the most humanitarian thing we could have done.  His nurses were wonderful, and stood with us--with tears in their eyes.

* Mary Daly Gyn/Ecology, p. 180

The Trinity, and Why an "All Male Creation" is Illogical or Moot - Case 1

 

In this post, I will examine the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and I will argue that the trinity is either illogical, or it is moot. I will consider two cases. The first case being the claim that Jesus is Yahweh, and Jesus and Yahweh are the Holy Ghost in the strict philosophical sense, meaning they have all the SAME properties, as in Jesus =Yahweh=Holy Ghost. In case two, I will look at the claim that Jesus, Yahweh and the Holy Ghost merely share the attributes of "godness."

According to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, are 3 distinct persons, but one god, as stated in the Nicene Creed:

"God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."

How is this to be interpreted?

Case 1. Jesus is God in the "strict philosophical sense." 'Same' in the "strict philosophical sense" means that if a=b=c then "a" would have all the same properties as "b" and "c", and "b" would have all the same properties as "a" and "c", and "c" would have all the same properties as "a" and "b". This is why the trinity is seen to be illogical, since god is supposed to be the father, and jesus his son. To be equal they would have to both be EXACTLY the same in the strict sense of the word. This would be according to the Nicene Council, which claims that Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are the same in the 'strict' sense of the word, and not in the 'loose and popular' sense of the word. i.e. 'strict' meaning identical in every way; 'loose and popular' meaning they could be the "same" in that, for instance, they share the same properties, or they share same philosophy, but are otherwise different. Therefore, if a=b=c, then "a" would have all the same properties as "b", and the same properties of "c"--but this is not the case for Jesus, Yahweh, and the Holy Ghost, as described in the Bible. This is why the trinity is seen to be illogical, since god is supposed to be the father, and jesus his son, and we also have other biblical examples such as the statement that jesus is at the right hand side of the father, and that the father loves the son--that do not mesh with the Nicene conception of the trinity, if it is interpreted in the "strict philosophical" sense of same.

However, for a moment assume what the council claimed is true, and that Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are the same in the 'strict philosophical' sense of the word. Now, also assume that, as the Bible claims, Jesus said, "Father, father why has thou forsaken me?" while he was on the cross. Many Christians claim that this is a rhetorical question. Then it would follow that Jesus the son, is asking a rhetorical question of his Father, who is really just himself, so Jesus is asking himself a rhetorical question. That would seem neurotic. How do we determine whether a question asked over 1000 years ago is rhetorical or not?--this is an epistemological problem.

In similar fashion, when there is something in the Bible that disagrees with what Christians want it to mean, they say it's rhetorical or symbolic. One problem with this sort of explanation is that there many things in the Bible that could be called into question and said to be merely symbolic or rhetorical--including the claim that Jesus is God.

Consider, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) Perhaps this is rhetorical. The majority of Christians interpret this to mean Jesus is God; however, it makes more logical sense that Jesus is saying that his philosophy is the same as that of God. For instance, if I say "Me and my grandmother are as one" It means that me and my grandmother share similar beliefs as a result of her teachings, and not that she and I are actually the same being in the strict sense of the word 'same.'.

Furthermore, the passage below implies that Jesus did not know what Yahweh is thinking, which means he cannot be one and the same being, or even one god with three parts:

Matthew 24:36 NIV

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

The Trinity is not just a title. By definition, as determined at the Nicene Council, it means that god, jesus and holy ghost are considered to be one. But we do not have to accept their definition. I just want people to be clear as to what they really mean.

The following, from Wikipedia, is an explanation of the Trinity Doctrine as set out by the Council of Nicea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity:

"The Trinitarian view has been affirmed as an article of faith by the Nicene (325/381) and Athanasian creeds (circa 500), which attempted to standardize belief in the face of disagreements on the subject. These creeds were formulated and ratified by the Church of the third and fourth centuries in reaction to heterodox theologies concerning the Trinity and/or Christ. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, revised in 381 by the second of these councils, is professed by the Eastern Orthodox Church and, with one addition (Filioque clause), the Roman Catholic Church, and has been retained in some form in the Anglican Communion and most Protestant denominations."
 

Now, the Christian apologist, Josh McDowell, believes that that trinity doctrine is supported by not only New Testament scriptures, but Old Testament as well. Remember, the Jews wrote the Old Testament, many many hundreds of years before any notion of Jesus, and the majority of Jews do not even believe in Jesus to this day! But that does not stop Mr. McDowell from maintaining that Yahweh was making reference to Jesus in Genesis 3:22, (God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us"), and in Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image” )--which makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does make logical sense, is that Yahweh, in this story, was speaking to the "other gods" of the Jewish pantheons. The Jews were, after all, polytheistic at one time and had many gods and goddesses. In fact, the bible mentions this in Jeremiah 11:13:

"You have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah; and the altars you have set up to burn incense to that shameful god Baal are as many as the streets of Jerusalem."

But that is not all. Genesis 6 makes reference to the "Sons of god" who came to earth and saw the women were beautiful, so they took them (notice that they did not ask permission to do so) --these were not angels, as angels cannot have sex according to Jesus, and if they were angels, the Jews would have called them angels, as they have a word for angels; and they were not nephilim, as the nephilim were the sons OF the sons of god. They were, as is says "sons of god," and Satan was one of the "sons of god" as he comes in the entourage of "sons of god" in the book of Job. (Job 1:6; Job 2:1) Satan is a spy and adversary of men who works FOR Yahweh, according to the Jews who wrote the text.

References in the bible can also be found for many of the other gods and goddesses that the Jews worshiped at one time or another. Why, Yahweh is said to have had a consort named Asherah, who is the most likely reference to the "queen of heaven" mentioned in Jeremiah 7:18, and Jeremiah 44:17-19; 24. There is also references to Asherah poles in the bible that were most likely objects of worship, along with other archeological evidence that suggests Asherah was a goddess that was actively worshiped at one time. That is, until she, and the rest of the gods and goddesses were effectively killed off in favor of monotheism. Even Yahweh himself warned his people not to "put any other gods before him"--which implies there were other gods. So much for monotheism.

As unlikely at the Trinity is, in case one, what makes it even more illogical is that according to Christians, the universe and everything in it was created by a three in one male deity--without a goddess at all. Almost all other religions that have creation stories include a goddess, and the earth itself is viewed as a "Mother," in many religions, as it is the giver of life. Only the Christians believe that a male homosexual "union" is the cause of creation. What is ironic about this situation is that Christians view homosexuality as "not how it is supposed to be," among humans, yet an all-male "god" creation of the universe is fine with them.

The Christian apologist, Josh McDowell is quoted as stating: at a Youth for Christ rally in 1994:

"Tolerance is the worst roar of all, including tolerance for homosexuals, feminists, and religions that don't follow Christ."

Mr. McDowell claims homosexuality is wrong because, as he states in his handbook on counseling youth:

"It is obvious that the structural makeup of the physical bodies of two males or two females makes it impossible for them to experience this one-flesh unity. Thus homosexuality is rejected by the creative and purposive plan of the Creator-God"

But, according to Mr. McDowell and most other Christians, there is nothing wrong with an "all-male" creation of the universe--which is paradoxical.

In an excerpt from her book, Gyn/Ecology, the great feminist, Mary Daly pointed out the paradoxical nature of the Christian conception of an "all-male" trinity conception--pun intended:

"Western society is still possessed overtly and subliminally by Christian symbolism, and this State of Possession has extended its influence over most of the planet. Its ultimate symbol of processions is the all-male trinity itself. Of obvious significance here is the fact that this is an image of the procession of a divine son from a divine father (no mother or daughter involved) In this symbol the first person, the father is the origin who thinks forth the second person, the son, the word, who is the perfect image of himself, who is "co-eternal" and "cosubstantial," that is, identical in essence. So total is their union that their "mutual love" is expressed by the procession (known as spiration') of a third person called the "Holy Spirit," whose proper name is "Love." This naming of "the three Divine Persons" is the paradigmatic model for the pseudogeneric term person excluding all female mythic presence, denying female reality in the cosmos.

This triune god is one act of eternal self-absorption/self love. The term person is derived from the Latin, persona, meaning actor's mask, or character in a play. "The Processions of Divine Persons" is the most sensational one-act play of the centuries, the original Love Story, performed by the Supreme All Male Cast. Here we have the epitome of male bonding, beyond the "best," i.e., worst dreams of Lionel Tiger. It is "sublime" (and therefore disguised) erotic male homosexual mythos, the perfect all-male marriage, the ideal all-male family. Association, the mold for all varieties of male monogender mating. To the timid objections voiced by christian women, the classic answer has been: "You're included under the Holy Spirit. He's feminine." the point is, of course, that male made-up femininity has nothing to do with women. Drag queens, whether divine or human, belong to the Men's Association." (Gyn/Ecology, Mary Daly, p. 37-38)

The "Men's Association" may have created an all-male creation scenario--which is unique in that regard--but the concept of "trinity" is not unique to Christianity. The Hindus have the trinity of Brahman, Vishnu and Siva; the Egyptians have a trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horus; the Greeks have a trinity of Zeus Poseidon and Hades....and the list goes on. These trinities were all in existence long before the Nicene Council created the Trinity of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

In defense of their all-male trinity, Christians have developed a number of creative analogies. For instance, they claim that a person has two hands (as in two gods) but they are still one person--but that makes no sense. A person's hands are not equal to a person, and a person and his two hands do not equal each other. My hand does not equal me. Water, ice and steam is another common analogy, but water, ice and steam are actually three different things. When water becomes ice, it is no longer water--it is ice. When ice melts, it becomes water, and when water heats, it becomes steam--they are not the same in the strict sense of same that the council claimed Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are the same.

Therefore, The first case being the claim that Jesus is Yahweh, and Jesus and Yahweh are the Holy Ghost in the strict philosophical sense, meaning they have all the SAME properties, as in Jesus =Yahweh=Holy Ghost. This means that if a=b=c then "a" would have all the same properties as "b" and "c", and "b" would have all the same properties as "a" and "c", and "c" would have all the same properties as "a" and "b"--but this is clearly not the case, as I have shown. This is why the trinity is seen to be illogical, since god is supposed to be the father, and jesus his son. To be equal, they would have to both be EXACTLY the same in the strict sense of the word--but they are not.

Therefore, if the Trinity is interpreted in case one as the claim that Jesus is Yahweh, and Jesus and Yahweh are the Holy Ghost in the strict philosophical sense, meaning they have all the SAME properties, as in Jesus =Yahweh=Holy Ghost then it is illogical.