an old thought: god showed how much he loved the world by giving up what was most precious to a father, his son. that was his offering. that was the relationship he was bringing to the sacrificial table, the most primal bond between parent and child.
he took the most painful thing for any human being (perhaps even for other sentient creatures) — the loss of a child — and made that the measure of his love for humanity.
when my son got sick, my deeply catholic upbringing automatically bargained with god. i asked him to take me instead.
i’ve had a well-lived life: (for the most part) i’ve been clear-eyed and honest about myself, about what i see and feel, about what i judge and act on. i’ve lived many lifetimes.
take me, i pleaded on my knees. my son is still finding his way. he is just at the starting line of his journey to his purpose and meaning.
if god were a mother, she would not give up her child. she would offer hers instead. she would fiercely and fearlessly find another way to show her love for the world.
**
for over two millennia, the propaganda of the bible is that woman is weak, or as the millennial priest in our parish said, in a particularly superior and condescending tone, during a lenten mass a couple of weeks ago, “kayo kasing mga babae” in reference to eve’s partaking of the forbidden fruit.
to disobey an unexplained rule is to be banished from paradise.
why are curiosity and independence of thought and action penalizable sins?
an internal debate that has recently found some form of conclusion: if woman were really superior to man, how come we live in a man’s construct? that god is male? that most religions, as a social control mechanism and as a cultural pool that everyone swims in, are patriarchal and hierarchical?
because woman allowed it. because woman is “not strong enough” to make the man god’s sacrifice for power, for the power to exercise some control over other people.