Divine Sex
“Sex is the divine in its most available epiphany.” Huston Smith
The blindness of weak and fearful men
“Rulers make bad lovers. You better put your kingdom up for sale.” Stevie Nicks, Fleetwood Mac
It is no secret that those faiths which suppress the female and place men higher than women are not the practice of any spiritual truth. They are the product of weak and fearful men who seek to empower themselves so that they may control women by justifying their animal desires as a false divine right. It is this problem that leads to the mutilation of women, that puts them to death on mere suspicion, forces children into marriage, ‘celebate’ male pedophile priests protected by an ‘infallible’ pope, and many other crimes dressed up as the will of God. No religion has escaped these tyrannies. Ironically these very same men would believe in hosts of angelic beings, many of which are female, thus accepting the possibility of the feminine in the heavens. You don’t have to be woman in the 21st century to draw this conclusion. Only a man would chooses to be blind in this way to satisfy his animal nature.
The masculinisation of spirituality and the suppression of the divine feminine, has caused misery for many thousands of years, and continues to do so. This is not just a statement of a western liberal society. It is an obvious product of all things in nature, the coming together of male and female in the animal kingdom, the sexual parts of flowers in the vegetable kingdom, and the complementary chemistry of elements in the mineral kingdom, prove overwhelmingly that the universe is, and always has been, designed to create and evolve life through the coming together of the genders and what is complementary. Without this there would be no life and no universe.
Genders in the creation story
“ … male and female He created them …” Genesis 1:27
The Torah alludes to this in Genesis in a number of ways. The first verse tells us, in the Hebrew (previously Aramaic) language, that the ultimate unity of the ‘Infinite Light’ must first dualise when it uses the word ‘Elohim’, which is a plural word for God. A more literal translation of Genesis 1:1 would therefore not read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” rather, “[Before the beginning is a complete mystery that is unfathomable and …] In the beginning [it] created Elohim the heavens and the earth”. This has a very different meaning, and completely changes the whole meaning of everything that follows in the scriptures.
This is not a polytheistic statement, it is a reinforcement of the monotheistic perspective, even more so than the simple statement, “I believe in one God …” The author has always been confused by the question, “Do you believe in God?” since it assumes a knowledge of what God is, and such understanding is beyond human reason. It is therefore a question without meaning.
Taken literally the whole of Genesis then unfolds a creation that is formed through complementary forms: without form and void; darkness on the face of the deep; the Spirit of God (Elohim) on the face of the waters; light and darkness; expanse in the midst of the water … And then in Genesis 1:27, “And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” We have said before that there is nothing in the Torah that is there by accident. Most people understand Adam and Eve were the first humans created according to the Torah, and yet it is not until Genesis 2:7 where this occurs, “And the Lord God (Elohim) formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.” And so who were the ‘male and female’ created earlier in Genesis 1:27?
One theological assumption must be that God in the form Elohim contains the potential for both genders, before Adam and Eve. The etymology of the word Elohim naturally needs to be examined, but as it has remained plural to this day is not an accident of history. It could also mean that Elohim is actually the first natural expression of the divine on earth, as it can only exist here in the plural form. And this is why a lack of understanding of this principle, in the Abrahamic faiths in particular, and the masculinisation of spirituality, is so destructive and unbalanced. It does not recognise the underlying balance of nature and the universe that God is. This is why so many wars have been fought in the “name” of God, because this masculinisation or weaponisation of spirituality becomes very effective for those who seek power. This is a great comfort to weak, fearful and ignorant men.
Sometimes too hot the eye of heaven shines
“But your eternal summer will never fade, nor will you lose possession of your beauty, nor shall death brag that you are wandering in the underworld, once you’re captured in my eternal verses.” Shakespeare Sonnet 18
Regardless of any current (mis)interpretation of any scripture, all the spiritual leaders of the Abrahamic faiths had a great love of the women in their lives, their wives, their daughters, their neighbours, and the female strangers they came across. Why then are we so often taught that we can only find God through men, or as women only if we are chaste and ‘pure’, like a virgin? Why are sex and the female so demonised and made unclean by religion, when both are clearly the source of all life linking us all the way back to the earliest common ancestors and forms of life on earth 3.7 billion years ago? It is for the same reason that masculinises spirituality. To truly achieve a sense of the divine on earth, to truly bring ‘heaven to earth’, it is the union of the sexes that achieves this. A simple truth that we have always known. A simple truth of our own immortality.
The development of some faiths in appointing women as priests is a sure indication of an evolution of the consciousness of the world in recognition of this. Any happily married loving couple will tell you that the completeness that the love of their spouse fills them with has a clear unmistakable divine quality.
One of the oldest and most common cross cultural symbols that alludes to the divine in sex is the caduceus. The symbol of a staff with two snakes intertwined around it, can be found in Mesopotamia with the Sumerian god Ningishzida, dating as far back as 4000 BC. The caduceus represents many things, but in this instance hints at the need for the combination of the male and female to achieve a sense of the divine here on earth. A return to the complementary aspects of nature, when life began, when the earth and moon began, when the Sun and planets began, all the way back to the time of creation in the Big Bang itself as pure energy divided into separate particles and elements. In sex and love we share in this. As the serpents rise and cross they are as if chakras opening and ascending into an enlightened and angelic and indestructable form. They represent the two becoming “one in flesh”, connecting physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. This is why it is not possible to achieve ‘enlightenment’ by oneself, one must have a partner with which to share and evolve together with. This is how desire leads to enlightenment, desire does not prevent enlightenment.
What we know of ancient civilisations, even though we often consider them backward and inferior to our own (without good evidence) monogamy was a common feature and preferred social practice, even when marriage was not an institution. Love and relationships are of course the most enduring and persistent themes in almost every story line. And every story line of love teaches us something new about the human journey and condition. The beauty of this and at times the impossible nature of our relationships is perhaps one of the many reasons why finding true love in this world really is the Holy Grail. It is the sublime and heavenly experience of the love that being a couple brings.
Dr Nick Stafford
Eye of Heaven. Lichfield Cathedral a Theory of Everything
Unicordia Forest Publishing UK
“Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines”, Shakespeare, Sonnet 18.
All the ideas discussed in this article are pure speculation and the author makes no claim to any truth(s) therein.
