Pope Benedict versus Sophia (Click here to read Part II)
By Sophia Siedlberg.
23 Dec. 2008
This morning (23rd December 2008) I woke up to be confronted by a very interesting news item stating that Pope Benedict was speaking against the "ecology of man and woman being undermined by homosexuals and transsexuals". He went on to discuss homosexuality and transsexuality in the context of the environment. It crossed my mind that I myself may have struck a raw nerve when I wrote "Mater Salmacis Solanas" a few weeks before. I was myself responding to a number of newspaper articles discussing Phthalates and talking about how the two sex system (in the biological sense) was not doing so well right now and I suggested that it may well be a part of natural evolution.
One thing I did mention was how moral panic was being whipped up and anyone who does not conform to the two sex system would be scapegoated with the drawing of parallels between the two sex system and the environment.
I will admit to being the one of the very few people who appear to relish the idea of the two sex system facing a demise. Admitted, there were feminists and so on talking about the eradication of men in a half joking manner. But I said what I felt straight out, that the two sex system is probably in trouble and that may not be a bad thing.
I did not however consider the reaction it would get from the superstitious, or more specifically the Church or Rome. Sure enough, this morning there was Pope Benedict talking about the very same thing and talking as if "all American transsexual and homosexual groups were seeking to destroy the two sex system". This is incorrect. I said, "Won't it be nice when the two sex system is gone?" And unlike the feminists, I meant "the two sex system" and not "the gender binary" and I was also the only person who said it in that specific manner. As far as I am aware none of the GLBT groups has said anything in the context of the environment in the way Pope Benedict is describing it, except me.
Yes, the media have reported on the presence of pthalates in the environment and their consequences to reproduction. And in a separate, but unrelated, debate the gender theorists have been "deconstructing the gender binary". But I am the only one who expressly described the end of the two sex system and expressed that the environmental causes of this were perfectly logical.
Why does this speech by Pope Benedict bother me? Well, look at the way religious delusion works and it starts to make sense. The Church of Rome has consistently and for two millennia had a big issue with anything that challenges their phallocentric authority. Need I remind them of a few skeletons in their closets? Like the rewriting of history with regards to events during the mid to late Second Temple Era and early Hellenic period in the Middle East? You see, the Church of Rome had massive issues with competing sects of Christianity and Judaism, especially those that smacked of being matriarchal.
Look at the way Mary of Magdala was treated by the early church patriarchs. We all know the story about the theological hatchet job where she was branded as a prostitute and anything else that spoke of her in a more positive light (or gave her authority) was branded as "heretical". They are like that now. Look at the sect I belong to, the Kanaim. There is one predominant branch in India where you will find the churches which were founded by the apostle Thomas. (Yes, that Thomas of the Gospel of Thomas fame) in the Kerala region, which predate the Church of Rome, and the Church of Rome does not like it. In fact the Mar Thoma church, etc., was among the first to be founded outside of what is now Israel. And yes, they do predate the Church of Rome proper, which in its current form is the product of the Emperor Constantine. But the Church of Rome will swear blindly that the followers in the Kerala region are all liars because official dogma says that the Church of Rome came first, meaning historical fact is therefore a lie, it would seem.
I myself follow the early Kanai tradition and part of that means I learned a lot about the second temple era and the religious landscape of the time. Take the Gnostics for example, or more specifically the matriarchal side of their beliefs linked to my namesake, "Sophia". In Hebrew that would be Binah. I can see why my writings in 2008-2009 would spook a Pope. Because the Vatican has that vast library of confiscated books and hidden myth in which you may find a lot of what I know about documented. Like the belief that Sophia (the Gnostic one) was also seen as androgynous, and who was known to impart strange ideas about what the name "El Shaddai" actually meant. This was "secret knowledge" that today makes the Dan Browns of this world very rich on tales of conspiracy and dark secrets.
The "dark secrets", if they could be called that, were actually based around a form of ascetic belief that rejected a lot of materialism, including sex as in the two sex system itself. I can imagine what a Pope would be thinking in 2008 when an intersexed individual appears with what appears to be an encyclopedic knowledge of the Second Temple Era, and happens to answer to the name of Sophia. One peek into the (banned) Revelation of John the Theologian and he will be reading about the righteous all appearing as one stature "like bees in a hive" and feel that his little world ruled by men and served by women would be threatened.
Welcome to the world of religious delusion, and the not so religious need to remain "one with the material". Given that a lot of early Christian and Gnostic texts are a goldmine for propping delusions about a well read intersex person called Sophia, it is no wonder my article caught someone's attention (Dreger, Mc Hugh). I mean Alice Dreger talks like she is popping more magic mushrooms than Jochanan of Patmos ever did and then I find Pope Benedict giving a speech about her pet obsession (Homosexuals and Transsexuals) and framing it in the context of something I wrote about.
I recommend Alice reads "Valis" by Philip K Dick. Then she can trip away and not bother anyone then. At least she won't be taking the pistis anymore.
There is a serious side to this however. I mean the idea that the Church of Rome somehow has a hotline to G-d and all those who frame their "ethics" according to the teaching of that church are right, and always right. But the intersexed, Sophia, with a lot of knowledge about the Second Temple Era and a strong sense of morality disagrees. And if my background provides a few credentials in some religious delusion, then so be it. But I am going to question a few contradictions that "mere mortals" should understand. For example, Dreger goes on about "Parental choice" and Pope Benedict (who is her religious authority I assume) says "No abortion". I suspect there may be exceptions when it comes to the two sex system and those who do not happen to be born conforming to it.
Jeremiah 7 30-31 (KJV) has something interesting to say on this:
7:30 For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the LORD: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it.
7:31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
The issue here was calling G-d a "harsh master" and acting upon it. Sacrificing children to an idol, if that idol is the two sex system itself, being presented as some "Divine plan" which is acted upon as if it is greater than G-d. Then aborting potentially Gay, Transsexual or Intersex babies on the strength of tentative tests, and casting their remains into the hospital furnace is what exactly? I am sure the Good Pope would like to explain his way out of that, and if he does not, well this can be kept up for as long as it takes for him to lower himself to answer.
I suppose there is a sense of panic at the local Opus Dei household where they are all whipping themselves into a frenzy about how they will worm out of that one. For the record this particular narrative in Jeremiah is where hell was invented, Ga Ben Hinnom, and look at the crime that caused it to happen.
So what is going on here. I sound like an anti abortionist and the Church of Rome sound like they are pro abortion. There is a turn for the books. Let's look at the "divine plan" for a moment shall we. Or rather that one quotation the Church of Rome loves to mention when talking about "male and female".
Gen 1:27
So G-d made man in his own image, the image of G-d created he him; male and female created he them.
Have you noticed how the pronouns tend to read a little funny? "He created he him". You get an independent pronoun (bra). However, “him” (ath'u) is not an independent pronoun. There are two points to consider here. There is no doubt that G-d is referred to in the masculine, but the G-d in this part of the narrative is called Elohim (aleim) which is significant. As G-d had multiple names in the "Elohimist" scheme of things and the first book of genesis (The Bereshyth) is an Elohimist narrative. You cannot rely on the independent pronouns alone to define the "gender" of G-d. In fact the use of independent pronouns signify a singular entity made up of many parts, while paradoxically "man" (e'adm) gets to have more regular pronouns. An independent pronoun can refer to a singular entity like a noun in this situation. Why do I mention this? Because we have G-d making them in "his" own image. Being an Elohimist narrative means that the gender of the singular pronoun can vary in this context.
It is important to remember that in Elohimist narratives G-d has a more nebulous presence, relying on independent pronouns to identify the central concept called G-d (Elohim).
The "Divine plan" of "male and female" in Elohimist narrative depicts a G-d with a plural composition from which the singular emerges, to create another plural form (humanity). In Genesis 2 we find the whole thing being repeated again, focusing more on the creation of Adam and Eve, but this second narrative is a "Jahwist" text which handles the perception of G-d differently as a singular without multiple parts.
In the first narrative we are talking about a composite G-d. And that is for a very good reason, which I will explore shortly, but the point here is that G-d is both masculine and feminine, preferring to address himself by a masculine (but singular) pronoun.
In plain English, the Pope is talking crap. He would have done better to use the Jahwist narrative to prop up his argument, but then he knows that playing with Jahwist narratives to score dogma points will not work. Why? Well to focus on JH-H as a sole identifier of G-d is a bad thing. The history behind that is perhaps worth covering. Jbiel is a city on the Lebanese coast. It was the main center of writing and prior to the emergence of monotheism, it was overseen by a calf deity called JH-H. It was at one end of a trade route that crossed Mesopotamia into the Far East. The significant point of this was that Abraham would have traveled this route, and as many people using this route were known to, he would have discussed the "bright new idea" that described Marduk (the chief Babylonian Deity) as a being with many names. Just like the plural Elohim. It is also worth noting that Abraham met G-d on his journey and G-d used the name "El Shaddai" (meaning G-d, the all sufficient) the root of that name suggests "The G-d of the strong and breasted one" (Breasts meaning mammary glands, I add). "El" was a Canaanite naming convention meaning the boss deity or the mountain. This is the "Singular" in Elohim.
What Abraham spoke of when in Jbeil was basically a composite G-d, sort of like Marduk. Sumerian and Babylonian names in the list of names persisted but were prefixed by "El", a sort of "king of kings" idea of G-d. How about something like "King and Queen (singular) of Kings and Queens"? (This is after all what El Shaddai would suggest). JHV-H fits into all this by being a local name of the singular G-D, but when divine intervention happened later on (With Moses and that golden calf, remember?) you will notice that golden calves were not a good idea, why? Well, that was the slightly uncomfortable side of the little gilded bovine. To begin with G-d is a singular G-d having many names. Yes, but not a wife (or Asherah) and certainly not a mother-wife. (That is called incest.) The composite nature of G-d had to be described in pure terms. I am afraid that "Hail Mary, Mother of G-d" does not wash because that echoes this awkward little tidbit of theological confusion. What happened when G-d went ballistic over that calf in the desert with Moses? G-d gave Moses tablets with written laws on them, a Sumerian habit. And it is worth noting that Jbeil (where this confusion started many years before) was the city of writing. It is also where small alphabets came from. There was a big hint and the Church of Rome missed it.
Jbiel was also known as Byblos by the Greeks, if you were wondering where the word "Bible" came from.
If you have read this carefully, you may be realizing that gender and sex dimorphism are handled in two distinct ways. Jahwism tended to talk of wives, etc., talking in very materialistic terms, while Elohimism tended towards a composite depiction of G-d which spoke of an all sufficient (male and female) G-d. Pope Benedict would be walking a fine theological line if he started using Genesis 2 to ram the two sex dogma down our throats.
We are, you may have noticed, back in the realm of "Dark Secrets". The Dark Secret is that G-d can only be represented as either composite-singular or male and female at the same time. Anything else detracts from the notion of singular divinity, as such later concepts like "Sophia" (Binah-Chockma) allow for a female as well as male representation of G-d.
There are 144 names in all, the Elohim and the Elilim. In Hellenic theology that would translate as 72 angels and 72 demons.
All this brings me onto the misogynistic bullshit that the Church of Rome loves to spout. Lilitu, was a Sumerian name used to describe a deity that oversaw childbirth. She was seen as a bit gritty; mind you, since she was about the pain of childbirth, etc. Early Semitic stories demoted her to a "demon" who "was responsible for stillbirths". She was and still is one of the 144 names by the way. (They won't tell you that.) And she fell from grace before Christianity came about. Actually it was King Hezekiah with his "Family Values" and water tunnels offering refuge to fleeing Israelis from the hoards of Sennacherib. Judah was basically the place to hide when the Assyrians were being annoying and Hezekiah saw this as an opportunity to "unify" Abrahimic monotheism.
As such, those female names that appeared messy and from Sumerian sources were often branded as the not so nice names.
Then Christianity came along and "Lilith" was wheeled out to represent a few bad things. For example, she was magically the apple serving serpent in the Bereshyth. She was the "evil of woman misled by Lilith via Eve" and well we all know the rest. Woman-hating plain and simple and to make it even worse, by the time the Church of Rome was at it with all this Mary of Magdala bashing, etc., they had demoted womanhood to some new lows. But it was not the way of the early Church. It became that way because of the patriarchs of the Church of Rome.
But what is it that upsets the Church of Rome today? Well, it is a great fear of something being redefined as feminine after being masculine. The phallocentric, mysoginistic penis club known as the Vatican really does not like the idea that a "man" could be a "woman" or vice versa (to a lesser extent). That, along with G-d and intersex people having androgynous qualities, really gets their knickers in a twist. Guess what. As an intersexed individual called Sophia, I don't like them much to be honest. Let's ask a few questions shall we? What was all that witch hunting about? Let’s look at that. "Wise women" who were usually the village midwives were women who oversaw childbirth. Oops, that smacks of Lillith. Burn them! (Dumb!) They had big issues with some of the things these women came out with, like that Northern European tradition that informed such women of the time called Seidr? Oh, that was pagan and woman magic, and evil. So burn them. (Dumb!). Monotheism has mutated in the past thousand years or so into a battle of the sexes. And the masculine protagonists (Church of Rome) are looking dumb.
Now they have developed a castration complex since the rise of feminism. They are presumably scared that lots of angry lesbians will turn up at the Vatican with exact copies of Lorena Bobbit's scissors and do their worst. Perhaps I need to mention where Dreger and Mc Hugh fit into all this (aside from being the inquisitor generals hunting down LGBT and I folks). It is interesting that the Clarke Northwestern had this obsession with intersexed children being assigned female. (Castration complex perhaps?) It is also interesting that Mc Hugh only wants to ban infant feminization surgery. Why not ban both? Well, it does not work like that does it when the Pope is having fits over his castration complex.
There is no wisdom in what the Pope is saying; just religious dogma and bigotry, and he won't be touching wisdom with a bargepole if his reaction to Mater Salmacis Solanas is anything to go by. So perhaps I can use my accidental credentials fed by the religious delusions of others to point out the error of Pope Benedict's ways. So far his end of year speech has yet to be translated into English, but a number of quotations have been released in English. This is perhaps the most significant:
"It is not "outmoded metaphysics" to urge respect for the "nature of the human being as man and (or) woman,"
What he is actually trying to say is that we have to respect the idea of people as either men or women, and nothing else. And if you do not agree with that, you are guilty of the heresy that is called "gender theory". Well, I am not into gender theory. I am however an old school monotheist. And in a weird sort of way, he is right about respecting the "nature" of the two sex system not being "outmoded metaphysics". In truth the obsession with defining people as strictly male or female is a very modern product of the Hellenic dictatorship he represents. The earlier beliefs in an androgynous Elohim are the beliefs that were outmoded, thanks to the hatchet jobs that were carried out by the Church of Rome. But the really bad news for Pope Benedict is that placing abstract principles above G-d and using them to make an idol out of a false representation of G-d is idolatry. The Pope is the one who is guilty of "heresy" and it is not a heresy against modern political correctness but far older monotheistic principles of which he is undoubtedly aware. The other currently available snippet reads thus:
"Gender Theory blurs the distinction between male and female and could thus lead to the ‘self-destruction’ of the human race.”
As someone who was born as a "blurred distinction", I take it he means I am a threat to the human race. Which is perhaps why his sadistic minions in the form of Dreger et al. were sent forth to find ways of eradicating such a threat. As I have already pointed out, to do this he would have to break his own rules about abortion, and the moment he puts the two sex system above G-d or worse used abortion, etc., in the name of G-d, he is doing the very thing that gave rise to what Christians love to talk about, Hell! (Jeremiah 7 30-31).
It seems to me that when I read the full document translated into English, I will be asking him to explain himself, and whether or not he is the head of the Church of Rome or not, he will still have to account for what he has said, according to G-d's rules, not those of political correctness. Even if he simply ignores what I will be asking and what I have asked, it won't be me he answers to at the end of the day, but the G-d whose name he has used and abused in order to push the corrupt social agenda he is rapidly coming to represent.
He also has to explain why he saw fit to focus on my article (Mater Salmacis Solanas) and then falsely claim that this was the opinion of "Transsexual and Homosexual groups", when it was not. I feel that either Dreger or McHugh were talking to him or his representatives about Mater Slamacis Solanas. I am going to point out that unless humanity grows to a point where the flesh becomes irrelevant, since this includes the two sex system becoming irrelevant, then don't expect to see New Jerusalem anytime soon.
Perhaps most damning is his refusal to discuss (in any depth) the present day crimes of his church, the pedophilia. Or to be more specific, Dr. Martin Kafka, the Harvard psychiatrist who has, let's say, defended some of the pedophile priests. He is, I am led to understand, a big friend of the Clarke Northwestern clique who got involved with the current DSM editorial board discussing homosexuality and transsexualism.
I am sure he had a lot to say before now about the Vatican game of Musical parishes. Oh and possibly that strange little sex trafficking motorway between Brazil and France. (Yet to be proven of course).
It is so strange how all these "doctors" seem to have an allegiance to the Catholic church and like to come out with disgusting and dehumanizing "theories" about minority groups while at the same time peddling pedophilia. (I hear the sound of Opus Dei lawyers and shredding machines as I type.) How about that strange little document Joseph Ratzinger, alias Pope Benedict that appeared in the early 1960's as a guide to playing Musical Parishes, where pedophile priests could be shunted around to fiddle with kids in newer and "safer" climes.
You know, the more I read Jack T. Chick (the comic book evangelist who sees Popes and demons under the bed) or Dan Brown, the more believable it could seem, I admit I have a more preterist understanding of the book of revelation, (both parts) knowing that while the events described referred to the battles of the late Second Temple Era. I also know that history has a very nasty habit of repeating itself, meaning the end timers could well be right to some extent, that the Church of Rome is the whore of Babylon. Let's face it. "Holy Rome" and "Imperial Rome" are pretty much the same thing. And yes, some of the really nasty habits of Imperial Rome were carried over into "Holy" Rome, the pederasty being one glaring and obvious example, along with idolatry, sadism, mindless dogmatism, rampant misogyny and greed.
The present pope is so dumb he cannot differentiate between Qumran Asceticism and Homosexuality. (Matthew 19, if you have a brain to figure Your Holiness!) I mean why else would he claim that a text written by a Qumran Ascetic is a text written by a homosexual or transsexual.
I will issue the Church of Rome a simple warning. If they continue heading towards a new inquisition, it may not be tolerated so readily. People feel strongly about that.
For a list of articles by Sophia Siedlberg: Click here
