You know that point in Genesis after the creation where God looks over his work and saw that it was good? What exactly was he expressing satisfaction about? What’s the “it” in the statement?
I’ve been thinking lately that maybe God saw and said that it was good in the same way that a man might do after having sex with a woman. He experienced the act as good whereas, for the woman, it might well be the case that neither the act nor its consequences bore any relation to good in any of its senses.
God as man; creation as woman: how profoundly unoriginal.
Given my recognition of his culpability in all of it, I freely acknowledge my own hypocrisy (or is it desperation?) when asking God for help in any situation. I even asked for guidance writing this article, believe it or not. (Cretan alert!)
Well, you’re about to become acquainted with one of my worst features.
I am the centre
Of a circle of pain
Exceeding its boundaries in every direction.
—Mina Loy, “Parturition”
Need I say more? I mean, who conceives of something as sadistic and revolting as this? Evolution, I guess…
Incidentally, I would have said a resounding “No!” to God had he asked me to do what Mary the virgin was happy to do: bring a holy child into the world who would save humanity and, in the same act, secure my apotheosis for all of eternity at least in the eyes of approximately half of Christendom. No way, Yhwh! Be it unto me not according to thy will.
More incidentally, what does consent even mean in such a context? To what extent could Mary—the lowly subject of a God who has the potential to give and take her very life—truly be said to give consent in such a situation? Could she have withheld it?
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.