I doubt that any modern day feminist or for that matter any progressive male feminist could even define masculinity and femininity in the classic or philosophical sense..
It's interesting to watch you wrestle with your deep progressive indoctrination and the obvious destruction that many of these ideas are manifesting....
We don't have time to do a deep dive into the nature of the feminine. I will just say that Christ dying on the cross was not a masculine move and yet it transformed the entire world. Women have been sold the lie that only the masculine makes a difference... And both sexes are reaping the whirlwind.
I'm interested what you mean when you say that "Christ dying on the cross wasn't a masculine move".
In the narrative of classic Christianity, Christ doesn't redeem the world by merely being physically tortured (God would than be much less than other, greater men who have faced worse physical torture without sweating great drops of blood). God saves from hell by absorbing hell (spiritual death) into his person on the cross in the three hours of darkness.
I genuinely don't know of anything more masculine than absolute commitment to the highest purpose to the point of swallowing up an eternal hell in three hours, to say nothing of the total transcendence of the *need* for any social approval whatsoever.
I cannot conceive of anything more symbolically masculine because I cannot concieve of anything which constitutes a greater demonstration of infinite strength and power on every level imaginable (trivial add-ons notwithstanding).
I'm not trying to be combative with you here at all, I really and truly don't know what situation you have in your head which is promoting you to day "This is more masculine than the cross." I mean it when I say that I'm open to examples.
If the cross isn't masculinity par excellence, than it seems like you're basically stuck with a metaphorical Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, for saying that the cross isn't masculine seems equivalent to saying that demonstrating true humility (which is by no means apologeticuite) isn't masculine, or that a "masculine move" is one which requires holding on to self-image.
But if that's the case, you're than left with an image-bound "Gastonian masculinity" which depends upon the approval of others to find emotional strength.
I'm also not trying to sealion when I ask, "What is your definition of masculinity, and how are you grounding it?"
I know that it's a very difficult question, but your post seems to suggest that you can answer it.
I appreciate the inquiry but you realize this is an impossible conversation to have in the comment section...😂... I think part of the problem is that you're defining masculinity based on judeo-christian ethics woven into Western society over the course of 2,000 years. When we begin to define masculinity and femininity we can't just frame it based on the crucifixion. Quite frankly that moment created a sea change in the definition and we don't even realize those are the waters were swimming in.
The feminine is very difficult to talk about and in fact the church fathers would warn against delving too deeply into the feminine thus corrupting it. Suffice to say that the feminine is that which creates the space for the masculine to act. Without the feminine there is no masculine action...
With regards to the crucifixion I am simply arguing that by allowing himself to be crucified he created the space whereby he could actively defeat death. That's a feminine move... Whereas defeating death is a masculine move. To try to characterize Christ himself as either masculine or feminine is a category error... God isn't defined that way.
Thanks for the answer, and I do see what you're saying now.
I agree with you on several points, such as my cultural conditioning.
However there's something I don't understand in your thought which I think may be the source of difference between us.
Given the Christian dogma of Christ being fully man and fully God, how can you place God (specially God qua Christ, and Paul states that Christ's nature is exactly identical with the Father's) beyond gender without doing great violence to the "fully man" part of Christ?
Again, I'm not trying to play gotcha I just don't see any way past that impasse.
The Bible and the church fathers talk of Christ as being totally human not specifically masculine. To classify Christ as a man is to do violence to the feminine aspects of humanity. I understand the dilemma since he was the embodiment of a man but one has to be careful when attempting to classify the divine. Usually it's a mistake.
I doubt that any modern day feminist or for that matter any progressive male feminist could even define masculinity and femininity in the classic or philosophical sense..
It's interesting to watch you wrestle with your deep progressive indoctrination and the obvious destruction that many of these ideas are manifesting....
We don't have time to do a deep dive into the nature of the feminine. I will just say that Christ dying on the cross was not a masculine move and yet it transformed the entire world. Women have been sold the lie that only the masculine makes a difference... And both sexes are reaping the whirlwind.
I'm interested what you mean when you say that "Christ dying on the cross wasn't a masculine move".
In the narrative of classic Christianity, Christ doesn't redeem the world by merely being physically tortured (God would than be much less than other, greater men who have faced worse physical torture without sweating great drops of blood). God saves from hell by absorbing hell (spiritual death) into his person on the cross in the three hours of darkness.
I genuinely don't know of anything more masculine than absolute commitment to the highest purpose to the point of swallowing up an eternal hell in three hours, to say nothing of the total transcendence of the *need* for any social approval whatsoever.
I cannot conceive of anything more symbolically masculine because I cannot concieve of anything which constitutes a greater demonstration of infinite strength and power on every level imaginable (trivial add-ons notwithstanding).
I'm not trying to be combative with you here at all, I really and truly don't know what situation you have in your head which is promoting you to day "This is more masculine than the cross." I mean it when I say that I'm open to examples.
If the cross isn't masculinity par excellence, than it seems like you're basically stuck with a metaphorical Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, for saying that the cross isn't masculine seems equivalent to saying that demonstrating true humility (which is by no means apologeticuite) isn't masculine, or that a "masculine move" is one which requires holding on to self-image.
But if that's the case, you're than left with an image-bound "Gastonian masculinity" which depends upon the approval of others to find emotional strength.
I'm also not trying to sealion when I ask, "What is your definition of masculinity, and how are you grounding it?"
I know that it's a very difficult question, but your post seems to suggest that you can answer it.
I appreciate the inquiry but you realize this is an impossible conversation to have in the comment section...😂... I think part of the problem is that you're defining masculinity based on judeo-christian ethics woven into Western society over the course of 2,000 years. When we begin to define masculinity and femininity we can't just frame it based on the crucifixion. Quite frankly that moment created a sea change in the definition and we don't even realize those are the waters were swimming in.
The feminine is very difficult to talk about and in fact the church fathers would warn against delving too deeply into the feminine thus corrupting it. Suffice to say that the feminine is that which creates the space for the masculine to act. Without the feminine there is no masculine action...
With regards to the crucifixion I am simply arguing that by allowing himself to be crucified he created the space whereby he could actively defeat death. That's a feminine move... Whereas defeating death is a masculine move. To try to characterize Christ himself as either masculine or feminine is a category error... God isn't defined that way.
Thanks for the answer, and I do see what you're saying now.
I agree with you on several points, such as my cultural conditioning.
However there's something I don't understand in your thought which I think may be the source of difference between us.
Given the Christian dogma of Christ being fully man and fully God, how can you place God (specially God qua Christ, and Paul states that Christ's nature is exactly identical with the Father's) beyond gender without doing great violence to the "fully man" part of Christ?
Again, I'm not trying to play gotcha I just don't see any way past that impasse.
The Bible and the church fathers talk of Christ as being totally human not specifically masculine. To classify Christ as a man is to do violence to the feminine aspects of humanity. I understand the dilemma since he was the embodiment of a man but one has to be careful when attempting to classify the divine. Usually it's a mistake.