100% male and female = God

last night, under the yellowed hue of cold lamplight, in the midst of serious games of othello with a friend, a conversation was started about males and females, masculinity and femininity. we were agreeing upon the basis that it is better to allow oneself freely to disclose styles in his or her actions, thoughts, words, and body language that express what has come to be known as traits that are typically considered opposite to a person's male or female "gender." in other words, if something is considered feminine, for a male to express that characteristic would be a "step outside the norm of his gender." the same in the case of a woman portraying male qualities.

some may question the word "qualities" being used to describe traits of a human, keeping in mind that human traits are sometimes "evil" by human standards of judgement; i use the word qualities very purposefully - if all things were made by G-d (written as such to seem devoid of masculine or feminine nature), then all things are from G-d, therefore they are qualities. when we are one with G-d, then we are complete and whole, thereby the all-encumbering expression of the same imagination that created the universe. in that case, to which point we are striving, all qualities of male and female are dissolved, equalized and canceled out, so that only perfection exists.

i would say at this point we were in the middle of our third game, beginning to ponder the moves and the depth of the conversation to the greatest degree thus far in the evening. we moved into the discussion of how femininity was a tool that expressed not only a connection to our human partners, but also a longing to accept and be accepted as the same with them. in return, women would, by taking on the role of expressing the male role, would share with us their desire to assist, show their strengths in ways men can understand, and thus show commonality and acceptance in the same way.

in mortal terms, ever since grade school and probably before, males have been filled with the propoganda that "acting like a sissy" or showing meekness over force was a sure-fire way to be labelled as "girlish." females became "tomboys" or "butch." as we grew older, we (well, some of us) began to understand the opposite sex in ways that opened our eyes to the benefits of allowing ourselves to be open to traits that were outside the "norm" of our sexes. for instance, i know that i have "feminine" characteristics that stand out at times. not at all a bad thing, in my estimation; i express my feelings, communicate with and understand my wife by listening, letting down my guard and not being afraid to share deeply, allowing the time in my day to reflect on thoughts that have entered my mind and not put out so quickly things that could be beneficial to personal or spiritual growth. some may not think that these types of things are necessarily "feminine," but i challenge you to categorize every reaction, every need, into male and female categories. it's been ingrained in us that men and women carry out certain roles in society and that when those lines are crossed, two things occur: positivity and negativity. positivity in that we are all open to assist each other in growth, that we can create a world that serves our needs while not destroying the needs of the kingdom. negativity in the sense that this ingrained sense of "definition" means that if we do take a step towards "being in touch" with the opposite gender, we are losing touch with our own.

in essence, i'm saying that if a person, male or female, does not think simply as a male or female, but as a human with a spiritual self, then male and female responses and desires no longer come into play. the closer we become to being whole, the further we move from being set apart by our sex. at first i was picturing the perfect person being 50% male and 50% female, but i quickly struck that down. we must be 100% male & 100% female if we are to see G-d. however, by becoming 100% male and female, we become niether male nor female at the same time. the reason for this is if we are to incorporate all the goodness of G-d into our lives, half of each isn't going to do it. we cannot see as clearly if one of our eyes is shut. we lose depth. so our enlightenment is not an attachment to what is hidden, it is the clear vision of all that lies in us and around us.

it came to me that i had read a text that became revealed to me very differently once this conversation had taken place. i've quoted part of it below, with a short pre-quote familiarizer.

--------------------------------------------------------------

this is an excerpt from the gospel of thomas, a gnostic gospel that is part of the nag hammadi library. along with several other documents, this text was found a few decades ago and dated back to around or just after the same time of Christ's physical presence on earth. the sayings recorded in the gospel of thomas and other manuscripts all found in the same container are said to include virtually direct quotes of Jesus:

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."
~Gospel of Thomas (22b)

--------------------------------------------------------------

for more information on the gnostic gospel of thomas, follow this link:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
NOTE: this is not a replacement for the bible. there are many who challenge the validity of these texts, but my point in using them is that there is nothing that says the bible is the only available source of the written words of Jesus. just like some acoustic guitar stuff of john lennon's was just discovered and released well after his death, i am sure that there is a great possibility that some had written about Jesus and not made the final edit of the bible.

further, if you back up a bit in the website url listed above, you'll find more information from a decent source on the nag hammadi library in general.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html