Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Thou Shalt Not Have Any Other Chickens Before Me

Every now and then I do a search for religious or spiritual videos on Youtube, although 90% of the videos on Youtube are mind-numbing rants occasionally I find a gem. This is definitely not a gem. From my research the street preacher is a member of Truth Defenders (domain owned by Luis Zepeda) and this video I believe takes place in Santa Monica, CA.

No offense to the members of the Interplanetary Church of Cosmic Chickenhood, but the emotionally stirred Christian has a point about not worshiping a chicken: why should we lower ourselves to worship an It instead of a He? I guess for the same reason we as a species stopped worshiping Goddesses, a male-dominated society doesn't want to bow down before a woman. Why should we lower ourselves, right?

The entire concept of worship is the act of acknowledging a power higher than ourselves regardless of what form that power may take, but why does the divine need to be gendered? The street preacher never explains why the divine as a person is superior to an It, he just states that He is superior, period. This is a language issue, and regardless if the divine is a Him or an It, in this line of thinking God is still superior. The argument is over the image of God, an image which is trapped by definitions and language which can not accurately represent the essence of God. The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. Well, that is if you believe there is an eternal Tao, if you don't then this entire debate is pointless (I believe there is an eternal Tao and I still think this debate is pointless).

The issue which I found most intriguing is the need to have the divine not only bear some similarity to man (the highest form of intelligence on the planet, using the word 'intelligence' loosely) but must be a superhuman form of man. But an It can be greater than man, just look at the totality of reality. Are not various elements of the cosmos as well as the universe as a whole greater than man? Some may call the totality of all things God, but regardless if God is an It or a Him, these are still flawed descriptions trapped by language. The point the gentleman at the mic was trying to make is that there are various views, definitions, and images of the divine made by mankind throughout history. The plurality of imagery and views ascribed to the divine is only offensive to those who need a foundational constant upon which they may fix their reality. Yet the struggle to define a divine constant (i.e. God) only increases the stress and fear which drive us to grasp It in the first place. A dog chasing its own tail. Can we find and understand the eternal by ceasing our search for It? Or is God found in and as the chase itself? What always surprises me about these street preachers is their focus on proving the world wrong instead of reaching out compassionately to the world. Love will heal the world, not hatred.


shallowfrozenwater said...

what value is there in an argument about the gender of God at all? i'd agree with the first guy quite readily and i don't consider myself any less a Christ follower for it.
God has no gender. we anthropomorphize him all the time but he's closer to an it than a him in my books.

Don said...

I am not convinced that God (or whatever you want to call the singularity desires our worship. To me worship of a "deity" is a relic of the monarchial, anthropomorphic vision of "God". If we are to gain a new vision of God, this must change. How do we describe the indescribable, the unnameable?

Doug B said...

For some time I've been comfortable with the concept of God as an it. Much more than I ever was with the concept of God as a person. And in my opinion the divine It is greater than the greatest man. I agree fully that "the cosmos as well as the universe as a whole" is greater than man. Excellent post!

ThePlentifulHarvest said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ThePlentifulHarvest said...

Its comments (the author) and those who agree with it(the author)are disregarding what the original meaning of the words and gender God chose to describe Himself as.

Since definitions are subjective to our feelings according to it (the author)like it changed the definition to line up with its feelings.

It (the author) is really saying that they are calling God a liar and don't really care what He says. Likewise, I'm calling it (the author) a liar and don't really care what it says because it is contrary to the truth of scripture.

Post like it wrote are really a soup sandwich. They might appeal to taste but they just make a mess out of things

Post a Comment