- This topic is empty.
- Posts
HI, Andrew,
Try those in the so-called Minnesinger (Love Singer or Love Balladeer) tradition, which actually includes quite a few. One major example is St. John of the Cross, who speaks of drinking teh sweet and pleasant spiritual ‘milk” because God now offers the soul his “breast of tender love” to suck on. Hnece, his bridegroom mysticism, where the soul; is described as the groom , and God becomes the bride who offers the soul her naked breasts. Another major example is St. Teresa of Avila. Based on the description one of of her mystical experiences, a famous work of scu0pptor is the Ecstasy of St. Teresa. You can go online and look at it. it is loaded with all kinds of sexual imagery. She describes her breast as being pierced by the spear of a mighty, handsome angel. Another major example is Dionysius or Pseud0-Dionysius, who calls God “Eros.” The likening of God to a supra-personal affectionate spouse is quite common throughout the mystical literature, found in St. Gertrude, Henry Suso, Hugh of St. Victor, Blosius, St. Benard, St. Teresa, St. John (as just mentioned), etc. For fun here, and in case you like classical music, and, well, even if you don’t, try listening, if you haven’t, to Carl Orff’s “Carmina Bruana” (“Songs of the Benedictines”). Several recorings are easily available on Youtube. You’ll see. Great work. Played trumpet in at a summer arts festival several years ago. Phew! What a piece!
Thanks for those examples on mysticism Hoghead for now I see where you were coming from on that.When you said imagery I was thinking more about physical imagery as in art. This even reminds me of the charismatic fad about Song of Solomon/Jesus bride, a few years back. Some of that to me seemed like having sexual fantasies with Jesus.
Hi again, Andrew,
First of all, homosexuality was not all taboo throughout the whole of the ancient world. It was actually praised and encouraged in Greco-Roman culture. Hence, Julius Caser was said to be the husband of every wife in Rome, and the wife of every husband in Rome. Secondly, one’s sexual orientation has much to do with how one finds and copes with the power structure in society. To make sense out of a case of closet homosexuality, you would have to know the psychodynamics of teh individual in question. What was the power structure of their family? How do they cope with attaining real personal power? How do their standards of beauty relate to sexual roles and body images? Remember, both sexes have beauty. You know, it has been said, somewhat tongue in cheek, that many macho guys are really closet homosexuals, in that many studies show males in our society find it far more captivating and spend far more time looking at half-clothed male athletes performing than they actually do in looking at “girlie mags.”
HI, again,again, again, Andrew,
It may well have been. And why not? Sex may well be a veiled quest for God. You seek deep connectedness with your sexual partner, which leads you to feel deep connectedness to the universe, which leads you to feel deep connectedness to God. You know, you got me gong about good, old “Carmina Bruana.” I’m gong to have to take a break k, go online, and listen to it again. Probably, I’ll air conduct along. Yes, I formally studied orchestral conducting. Well, some people sing along, others play air guitar. I air conduct. Great relaxation. Yes, I have actually conducted symphonic groups. Yes, just conducting can be a real erotic experience. It’s like making love. You and the orchestra have got to climax, reach orgasm, together and at the right time. No premature ejaculations. Take it slow , loads of foreplay, don’t rush. I’m deadly serious here. Good conducting is like good fornicating. Many great classical compositions are really sanctified erotica. But we are getting way, way off topic, sort of. Not completely, however, as I tend to view the Trinity in aesthetic terms. But that is another story itself.
I have read that some of the Greco Romans were so misogynist that it was actually a greater thing to have sex or love relationship with a man than a lowly woman. But as far as closet homos in certain societies I have a hard time believing it’s all a twisted psychosomatic search for power. Maybe for some but I just can’t see all of them being like that. Do you see it as a curse from God as St Paul did?
No, Andrew, I don’t see it as a curse at all. I think the biblical writers were unduly prejudiced here. I am PCUSA and therefore affirm the rights of gays to be in the pulpit. I champion sexual freedom. I firmly believe that is God’s way. I have a strong clinical-counseling educating and background, and I do not recognize gays and lesbians as having a mental-health problem. Neither does the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM-IV and V (“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual’) affirm alternative sexual lifestyles and no longer list these as mental-health problems.
I don’t think anyone is born homosexual or heterosexual. We all innately, genetically have sexual impulses. However, our sexual preferences are largely culturally determined. Also, sexuality more than just mere reproductive purposes. That’s why our sex drives are far more active than what would be necessary for mere reproduction. Sexuality also has a lot to do with social power and status. Also sexual encounters can be a source of spiritual enlightenment, part of teh quest for unity with God. That’s why the Christian mystical tradition I rich in erotic imagery.
Have you heard about the Dunedin Longitudinal Study? It is the biggest study in history on human development. It studied all the babies born in 1972-73 in the New Zealand city of Dunedin. These subjects were tested in every way imaginable and the study is still going. Imagine the data that has been uncovered so far and it is not finished. It is the greatest study ever undertaken and its findings are revolutionary and have been verified in other overseas studies too.
To cut to the chase, it proved that genetics alone is not enough to display a characteristic, but that environment and decisions also need to come into play. It’s as if genetics loads the gun, but environment and decisions pull the trigger.
For example, it proved that most violent offenders in society have a weak form of a certain gene, but what is important is that they also had to be exposed to violence in their upbringing. Those without the weakened form of that gene seem to remain the same whether they had a violent upbringing or not. They were resilient. Interestingly though, the weakened form of that gene plus a good environment resulted in a higher success in life compared to those who didn’t have the weakened form of this gene. Thus there are two kinds of people. Resilient people and non-resilient. And the environment whether negative or positive effected those with the weakened form of this gene for good and bad. And it logically goes on to say that society needs people who are resilient and also people who can change to adapt to the environment.
Now this wasn’t just for violent offenders. It turns out that there are weakened form of genes for addiction/drugs, schizophrenia, and so on. So genetics loaded the gun, but environment and decisions pull the trigger. I am only part way through looking at the findings in a 4 part doco about it, but to my mind this is likely how homosexual behavior works too.
If you can watch it, there is a doco called “Why am I”. It is fascinating. This is the link to it, but I suspect you will not have access to it unless you live in New Zealand.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/why-am-iHere is a promo of the study.
but it seems God made these rules, and allowed what he allowed. It doesn’t make sense to me that among other things he made it so that a percentage of animals (just like humans) would be homosexuals.
If you could somehow get access to the above documentary, it would be very helpful in this subject. Not the promo video, but the link above it.
Suffice to say that we all have genetic weaknesses and coupled with a certain environments which are often the result of our own decisions, we can pull the trigger on those genes. Further, these so-called weak genes that open up bad dispositions can actually also be a blessing in the right environment which too is often chosen by ourselves. Violence, homosexuality, schizophrenia, a whole raft of things are not dictated by genes alone.
And if our nature is fallen and our flesh nature is dictated to by genes, then still know that we are not completely without excuse because we still have free will and a conscience. But when a person goes over the line, then God does hand them over to that sin which results in a curse. And why does God allow that? Because we allow it. He respects our decisions even if they are wrong.
As for animals. We know that God is the head of Christ, and Christ head of the man, and man head of the woman. God also gave rule of man over nature and the animals right and Christ has rule over man and God over Christ. Let’s for argument sake say that Jesus Christ our head actually sinned. What hope would there be for mankind if our head was sin. If the vine was sin, then what about the branches? Does such authority and headship extend down to the animal kingdom? If so, then when mankind sinned, so it effected the animal kingdom too and nature itself changed when our own nature changed.
We read in scripture that when man is put right we see that animals are at peace too.
No, Andrew, I don’t see it as a curse at all. I think the biblical writers were unduly prejudiced here.
This explains to me why you believe in the Trinity. You have given yourself authority over the scripture to nullify that which you do not agree with.
I guess proving to you that scripture teaches that God is the Father and cannot be a Trinity would be a useless venture as you have the power to dismiss these scriptures. Would that be a correct assessment HH?
Hello, t8,
Your post here is a prime example of what I am trying to avoid and encourage others to avoid. Largely, you have come on with a personal attack against me. Let’s stick with t Trinity for the present. Yes, I hold teh Trinity is a biblically based doctrine. I am very sure of myself here, because I have carefully examined both Scripture and also the Trinitarian formulations. I have a doctorate in theology, and a large part of my research addressed matters directly related to the Trinity, especially in terms of the Holy Spirit. I have tried to share as much of my knowledge as I can, but I do find some members here are so busy wanting to vent their spleen and attack me personally that they overlook what I have to say. Occupational hazard. Any solid academic and teacher will tell you that the laity can be extremely intolerant and closed-minded once they latch onto an idea, and also that laity have often had little, if any, real education on complex matters such as the Trinity.
Next, we come to the issue of homosexuality. Clearly, the Bible states it is a sin. So the argument here is different from that of the Trinity. The continual nonsensical argument I am hearing on the Trinity is that it isn’t in the Bible. Knowing that to be way, way off, my goal is to correct that misconception. With homosexuality, the issue is different. Why and how did it get into the Bible? Largely, I approach Scripture from the standpoint f modern biblical scholarship. I’m very much imbued in the so =called Higher Criticism, for example. In fact, I initially thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies, though I eventually decided on theology. Having given a very painstaking study to the construction of Scripture , I have come to the conclusion that divinely inspired as the Bible may be, it is also teh product of a prescientific, sexist culture. It is not an either-or situation. Either God dictated all of it, or humans made it all up. It represents a divine-human interaction. Therefore, the prejudices of teh biblical writers do show through at times. A Prime example are the biblical laws. Yes, we really need to cherry pick with these. Do you follow all the heath laws? If so, you can’t eat pork. Do you follow all the clothing regulations? If so, you can’t wear clothing made of two different fabrics. Do you believe in slavery? If so, you will find it sanctified in Exod. 21. In fact, that is one rationale Jefferson Davis and the Old South used for sticking with slavery. Now, certainly we would not agree today that God wants slavery. A loving God does not condone anything remotely like that. The same holds with the taboos against women preaching and homosexuality. They simply represent prejudices, forms of sexual oppression, on the part of the biblical writers. Cherry picking is always risky business, but cherry pick we must.
Hello again, t8,
From the evidence I’ve seen, homosexuality, as are all other sexual preferences, are not genetically determined. they are a result of cultural conditioning and vary widely from culture to culture. One of the reasons why homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible is that this would clearly mark off, give an identity to the ancient Israelites. It’s a tribal thing. We’re the ancient Israelites and we’re not to be confused with the other cultures, and we know you can clearly see us, because we don’t practice homosexuality and we’re also the boys who don’t eat ham or have foreskins.
I’m not sure I agree with your concept of ‘fallen nature.” Taken in the traditional sense, it means we are born corrupt through and through. it is our nature to do evil and only evil. Now, I don’t buy that for a number of reasons. I don’t think tits biblical and I think if it is true, they we should go out and do all teh evil we can, be true to our natures. It’s bad to go against nature.
So you would be familiar with genetic disposition coupled with environment. If stats prove violence and other negative traits work this way, then it could well be the same for homosexuality. I wouldn’t rule out genetics totally because not all who are brought up in the same environment end up being homosexual.
Hello, t8,
Your post here is a prime example of what I am trying to avoid and encourage others to avoid. Largely, you have come on with a personal attack against me.
Attacking or judging you would mean that I have said or implied that you are not saved, or lack the spirit, or perhaps that you are are stupid or other such thing. But I have not said anything like this. I have merely articulated what you said yourself. You said:
No, Andrew, I don’t see it as a curse at all. I think the biblical writers were unduly prejudiced here. I am PCUSA and therefore affirm the rights of gays to be in the pulpit. I champion sexual freedom. I firmly believe that is God’s way.
And in response I said:
This explains to me why you believe in the Trinity. You have given yourself authority over the scripture to nullify that which you do not agree with.
So let’s compare. You are in disagreement to some degree with some of the biblical writers because as you say they are prejudiced. Therefore by that admission you have judged them to not be of the following standard:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Thus, I can deduce that you are actually the one who has judged, and I am merely pointing this out. And by pointing this out, you have judged me as judging you, when in actual fact what has taken place is a simple deduction from your own words which you have said in public and which I have articulated in public.
I am not trying to start an argument with you. I prefer to seek the truth and avoid argument. But sometimes I have to admit that people want to argue against me because of the truth that I speak and some accuse me of all kinds of things because they are upset. But the truth is paramount and I will speak it no matter the offense. Of course if truth offends I will only keep quiet if I deem it not necessary. But in matters of scripture, teaching, and the kingdom of God, I deem it necessary to speak out.
Remember I am not leveling an accusation against you, rather I am merely explaining what you publicly admitted yourself.
t8,
I believe everyone is homosexual to some point because it is a desire of the flesh but they find it so objectionable that they overcome without be consciously aware. There is possibly a genetic factor in the strength of the desire and the inability to suppress it in certain individuals but that can clearly be controlled by some. There is also most likely environment including psychological elements.
Hello, t8,
The genetic component fits into sexuality in that it creates a drive. But that’s it. It’s unspecified as to objects. Sexual preferences are culturally determined, which is why they can vary significantly from culture to culture. The society teaches what objects and occasions are or are not appropriate for sex. Persons coming from the seemingly the same environments often do not come from the “same” environment, by the way.
Hi, T8,
I don’t think you quite understand what I meant when I was talking bout the trinity. What I was saying is that the Trinity is rooted in Scripture. The question about homosexuality’s a different kind of question. Here, the issue isn’t whether it’s in Scripture , but whether one agrees with what Scripture has to say.
Hello, t8,
Well, then the question becomes: Why find them so objectionable? Also, are you saying you have deep-seated homosexual impulses you are continually struggling to keep repressed? If so , better see a therapist. Bad for your psychical economy to have to expend so much energy in your defense system. Also, if you don’t mind me asking, how much experience have you had in dealing with homosexuals?
I don’t think you quite understand what I meant when I was talking bout the trinity. What I was saying is that the Trinity is rooted in Scripture. The question about homosexuality’s a different kind of question. Here, the issue isn’t whether it’s in Scripture , but whether one agrees with what Scripture has to say.
I wasn’t confused. Your reply makes no sense to the point I make so I will make it again. You said:
No, Andrew, I don’t see it as a curse at all. I think the biblical writers were unduly prejudiced here. I am PCUSA and therefore affirm the rights of gays to be in the pulpit. I champion sexual freedom. I firmly believe that is God’s way.
I said:
This explains to me why you believe in the Trinity. You have given yourself authority over the scripture to nullify that which you do not agree with.
Please explain to me why my point is invalid in anyway. You say that the biblical writers were prejudice and I said that you have given yourself authority to judge the scripture as being right or wrong. Thus I conclude the reason you believe in the Trinity. You can simply ignore the verses that clearly state that there is one God the Father by saying they were prejudice if you want, and can support other verses that might be able to be swayed more easily toward your direction.
I stand by what I say here because it seems clear to me.
My view is that we take scripture as it is written. Sure we need to delve into it and look at different translations and the older manuscripts etc. However, we should IMO never conclude that biblical writers were prejudice sometimes and thus some things they wrote are not true. If we believe that, then we have given ourselves the power to discard any scripture we want and by doing that, we can almost prove anything we want from scripture. Like a photograph, sometimes its not what is in the shot or what is ignored that gives the truth.
While I can prove that you cannot demonstrate the Trinity using scripture, your allowance of discarding some scripture based on bias gives you the luxury of manipulating the outcome more toward your view. But if you are willing to hear all scripture, then I can prove to you that the Trinity is a false doctrine.
Regardless, we will not debate the Trinity here as this is not the topic to do so. But we are already in dialogue about the Trinity in other discussions, so I will see you there.
Well, then the question becomes: Why find them so objectionable? Also, are you saying you have deep-seated homosexual impulses you are continually struggling to keep repressed? If so , better see a therapist. Bad for your psychical economy to have to expend so much energy in your defense system. Also, if you don’t mind me asking, how much experience have you had in dealing with homosexuals?
lol. Where did this post come from. You have gone off the tracks here. Or was this meant for someone else? Why would you think I have deep seated homosexual feelings? The thought of it makes me ill. That is the truth. I am simply talking about it and am allowed to talk about it. If I talk about Adolph Hitler, that doesn’t make me a Nazi either. lol.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
