Jackson Free Press

Did anyone catch this in the CL today?

John Castellano, 28, address unavailable, reportedly drove himself to St. Dominic/Jackson Memorial Hospital about 2 a.m. Monday, entered the emergency room and announced he had mutilated himself with a large knife, Flowood Police Chief Johnny Dewitt said.

"He cut it off, completely off," the chief said.

As you can tell, the chief is completely flabbergasted.

Hospital officials contacted police, who discovered the incident occurred outside St. Paul Catholic Church on Mississippi 25 in Flowood.

Police said Castellano set up what appeared to be an altar in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary, according to police.

"They (police) found blood on the ground. Near the blood was his penis," he said.

It was then packaged and rushed to the hospital where vascular surgeons reattached it, according to police.

Isn't it always over some Virgin?

At least they were able to put it back on.

Is it just me, or does everyone else find self-castration just a teeny weeny bit too far to go for your faith?

Previous Commentsshow

Someone must read this and snicker with me. At least over the fact that the CL published an article with the word "penis" in it five times!!

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

Oye vey.

GLB

Jul 18 2006

Yes, GLB. This IS a good reason to become Jewish. :)

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

Ali, this article is just painful in so many ways -- I'm afraid I can't laugh. But I'm happy for you that you can. I can think of lots of jokes, but I don't have the heart to write them. And just to avoid confusion, I don't suffer from this man's --ailment. It's just tough to read, and to know what it must be like in his head.

GLB

Jul 18 2006

You know...you get all uppity about the whole "abortion" thing and then get SO UPSET when some man castrates his own sexual organs. I could almost get angry about it if it wasn't so funny that men see their penis as so damn "sacred" but MY body as something they feel free to pass legislation about. Sorry, GLB. But that just hit me wrong.

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

Or, maybe I should just say this. You know how you feel about your penis right now? Well, that's how I feel about my uterus.

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

Oh, I think you misunderstoof me. I really meant it when I said I'm happy you could laugh. I wasn't coming down on you at all. When I read the thing, I thought of lots of jokes, and I just didn't want to write them. That's all I meant. It's strictly my personal feelings. To be fair, I've never joked about abortion; I don't have the heart to joke about that either. But even that's not a judgement. I joke about horrible things all the time among my friends, just as a way of dealing with it. So I never make the mistake of thinkiing that a joke somehow implies that the issue is not being taken seriously. Sometimes it's just the opposite: the only ones who do take it seriously as the ones who laugh. So sorry if I sounded "uppity". I was just giving you my feelings about it.

GLB

Jul 18 2006

I joke about everything. The more disgusting the better. As you said, its usually just to 'get thru it'. Obviously, yes, this man has some mental health issues. But, he cut his penis off in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary in Flowood. How sacred is that? I mean, I've been to Flowood...its a nice town. But, its no Lourdes... Give me one damn chuckle.

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

yeah, great reason to become Jewish. You convert and then have to get snipped as an adult.

Kingfish

Jul 18 2006

Ali, I've chuckled at everthing you've said. I too was raised Catholic, sista. Sorry I was such a downer. I guess someone needs to get me drunk.

GLB

Jul 18 2006

Lorani Bobbit is somewhere near. Please, police find that heifer. She or somebody like her is somewhere near. I'm going to get me some iron drawer in case this is going around. If he did it himself, I can't understand why he didn't cut off something less important like his head.

Ray Carter

Jul 18 2006

GLB, I am wondering the thought process on this one. Can't wait until we know WHY. Was it guilt? Over what? Something involving sex? Makes me very curious.

emilyb

Jul 18 2006

You probably don't want to know. But, real quickly, when I was a teenager I was somehow slow to accept the concept of methaphor in literature. I somehow thought it was a modern invention, and didn't believe anyone who lived before 1800 used it. So, naturally, I didn't think there was any methaphor in the Bible. So I used to wonder, should I gouge my eye out if it causes me to sin? I never did anything serious in that regard, but I wonder if something like this was going though this guy's head. Anyway, I really, really didn't mean to bring this party down. So I hope that helps clear me up a bit.

GLB

Jul 18 2006

Emily-I'm going to take a wild stab here...but I'm guessing it had something to do with "sexual purity". Ray-why must you assume a WOMAN did it to him? Do I detect a little woman hatin' in you? You are TOTALLY GAY. :P

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

OOOOOPS... I thought you were aksing ME, Emilyb. Now I feel like a complete idiot. Someone please get me drunk.

GLB

Jul 18 2006

HAAAAAAAAAA! Okay, no. This Baptist chick ALWAYS needs Catholic explaination.

emilyb

Jul 18 2006

GLB-what is all this talk of drunkeness? I thought you were the sweet tea drinker? Did some woman defile you?

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

I am a tea drinker. But there's a first time for everything. I think a woman could only improve me. At least that's what my mom keeps telling me.

GLB

Jul 18 2006

Ali, you should be ashame of yourself. I hope you're not thrown off this blog for saying this. My love, affection, and attraction for women only emits like air to life, like oxygen to water, like infants to mothers, like gas to a cars, et al. And I'm aways ready and poised to prove it. What about my joke of cutting off a head instead? Now, I'm going to start playing dirty. All I needed was somebody to start the game of hitting below the belt. Sho Nuff. Who the man?

Ray Carter

Jul 18 2006

Well, Em, as a Catholic girl I dont' even think that I could explain it. Unless he was proving his fidelty to the Virgin Mary. And, just typing that made me feel dirty.

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

Also, Ali, I thought you were my people. I'm crestfallen as only you could have done. I'll need a few years to build up the courage to post here again. Men don't generally go around cutting their things off. I know of 2 cases where a woman did it though. I have no hate for women at all. The build up of love and sometimes animosity are great launching pads. Know what I mean? However, my feelings are so very hurt that I'm not talking to you any more. Like my granddaughter told me this weekend, "I ain't your friend anymore." Sho Nuff.

Ray Carter

Jul 18 2006

Aw Ray-You know I love you. Although, I do LOVE the fact that your granddaughter told you she wasn't your friend anymore. That is SO CUTE! You must have told her she couldnt' do something she wanted to do. Us womens are manipulative like that. ;)

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

I'm not Ludicris's friend anymore.

emilyb

Jul 18 2006

I think cutting off the other head would have done him more good.

Ironghost

Jul 18 2006

Or else he misinterpreted the meaning of Jesus's lines about "if your right hand causes you to sin, gouge it out. It's better to be maimed than to enter eternal damnation." First century Judeans often used exaggerated dramatics to make a point, even in cases where we modern Westerners would be more literal in our explanation of what we mean. Different cultures have different communication styles.

Philip

Jul 18 2006

So, we obviously have a small sect of first century Judeans loose in Flowood. Interesting. I wonder if the Flowoodians know that.

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

We do have some freaky deaky things happen in Flowood. Y'all remember the peeping Tom guy at the gas station? I know there were some who wanted HIS manhood taken away, and he finally got arrrested.

emilyb

Jul 18 2006

Interesting. Taylor's scholarship and eloquence blaze in his discussions of Augustine and other early Christians. Writing in the fourth century, Augustine jumped through hoops to justify Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus speaks well of "eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." Augustine -- "a rhetorician before he was a saint," Taylor points out -- interpreted this as an allegory for priestly celibacy, much as Paul had eased the gentiles into accepting Christianity, an offshoot of Judaism, by requiring of them only a "circumcision of the heart," not actual foreskin-hacking. Taylor proposes that the literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12 is just as likely, given that Jesus' teaching would have appealed most to eunuch slaves, surely the meekest of the blessed meek. But politically, the church fathers had to distance the new religion from the still-thriving pagan cults involving self-castration, which many early Christians, taking Jesus' words literally, practiced too. Taylor gleefully ruffles feathers by identifying Jesus' "radical hostility to heterosexual marriage and reproduction": Among other things, Christ blessed the barren and specifically promised everlasting life to those who forsook their families for him. So, Taylor argues, according to the Gospels, Jesus actually deplored Christian family values. Did he encourage gruesome self-sterilization?

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

I'm just relieved that the poor kid's fear of sex and women resulted in him mutilating only himself, and not taking out his issues on the women around him. I'd rather have him cut off his own wanker, than blaming women for causing him to think lustful thoughts. As bizarre men of the church have been wont to do over the past couple of millennia.

kate

Jul 18 2006

Ali:So, we obviously have a small sect of first century Judeans loose in Flowood. Philip: More accurately would be "we obviously have a small sect of turn-of-the-third millenium Americans who impose modern-day rules of connotative word interpretation upon first century Judean speeches loose in Flowood. In simpler language, some of these people take the "read the Bible like you would a newspaper" approach - which leads to some bizarre interpretations of the Bible.

Philip

Jul 18 2006

NOTE: My post Jul 18, 06 | 1:29 pm and by extention, all other posts building from this post. I am NOT saying the guy actually cut off his penis for this reason. The article says nothing about this. This is merely speculation on my part - speculation as to possible reasons for his actions. Therefore, any hearsay you may have heard about the guy' actual motivations based on posts from this thread is - until further details are available - INSUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED.

Philip

Jul 18 2006

That's a big topic. Here's a very brief sktech of what I think of that. But it's lacking in detail. And, of course, anyone can read the Gospels for themselves and see what they think. Jesus' whole ministry was about directing people towards God. He wanted them to desire God for his own sake. This is esentailly what the Sermon on the Mount is all about: if you desire God, then laws designed to mitigate your bad choices are not necessary.They don't cease to be true, they just cease to be relevant. You don't need a speed limit if you never choose to speed. His ministry was not principally about how we live our daily lives, it was about what we choose to live for. So things that involve daily life were just not addressed directly all that much. So, for example, he completely avoided all politics, I think because he didn't consider politics relevant to what he was doing. 'My kingdom is not of this world". Similarly, I think he generally supported the traditional teachings about marriage and family, he just wasn't focused on that so he didn't teach directly on it all that much. Everything was meant to point right back the central issue for him: God loves you, and wants you to know it. So seek him with all your heart. I'm deliberately avoiding point-by-point discussion of this, because it would bog down quickly. This is just what I think his overarching ideas were. But, like I said, I don't put myself forward as an authority. Jesus speaks much more effectively for himself. In modern Christendom, there IS a fucntion of religion that is essentailly about our daily lives. Basically, religion is used as a means to secure traditional roles, and thereby to secure society. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it also isn't specifically Christian This is especailly true if shunning those who are non-traditional is justified with Jesus' teaching. Because, as Taylor points out, following Jesus in his lifetime was hardly conducive to supporting the welfare of traditional society. So I think Jesus supported all the traditonal roles, but that's not prinicpally what he was doing here. "I've come not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it".

GLB

Jul 18 2006

I have no doubt that a woman drove this poor devil to do such a thing. And does it really matter then that the scalpel was not in her hand? Surely the emotional abuse some harpie inflicted was enough to drive this man to such a desperate end. When girls are mean to me, I just go into the fetal position and sob uncontrollably. Obviously, this feller took it hard.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 18 2006

When girls are mean to me, I just go into the fetal position and sob uncontrollably. This explains last week. I thought you just stubbed your toe, pansy. ;) I actually am always really interested when someone does something extremely self-harmful for religion. I like some of the parts of that Salon article only because its speaking to "Western" manhood and its history. The main point being that western men are very centered on their penis. Think this point is woefully supported by this action...and other comments made my males on this thread.

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

Brian, you're likely a prophet. Hopefully, we will learn the truth of the matter.

Ray Carter

Jul 18 2006

Look, just for the record, I was worried about what is happening inside this guy that caused him to do this. The act that it was his p**** is not strictly relevant. I worry about what causes women to self-mutilate and starve themselves too. Sheesh.

GLB

Jul 18 2006

Perhaps this illustrates why we should lead with our mind first then our heart, and lastly our penis. If you do it in the reverse, you might get screwed everytime and cut off your thang. With some it probably won't matter how you lead. So, you might as well let the foolish little fellow go first then run on. For me, I can't imagine anything devastating enough to separate me from my best friend. Lord help the sad fellow.

Ray Carter

Jul 18 2006

most of us guys set up altars in front of our penises.....not in front of the Virgin Mary. Maybe they could use it as advertisment... Come to Flowood..Eat,,Drink,,,See Mary and cutoff your penis.....

ATLExile

Jul 18 2006

hey GLB, for what it's worth, I felt your very first response was right on the money. I happen to think this isn't a funny topic at all. I wouldn't want others making this kind of light hearted humor about me if I had a bad mental illness and hurt myself in this way. Not to be a killjoy, just sayin.

Izzy

Jul 18 2006

and I do think Ali has interesting poitns about religion and self-abuse and also maleness & religion. That fascinates me to no end. Why is ok for god in the Christian tradition to be called a rock, a bird, a father and a son but when ya call god a woman or a daughter or a mother -- look out!

Izzy

Jul 18 2006

I know Laurel, but I find other things funny that I know would be hurtful if the people invovled knew I was laughing. So I'd be a hypocrite if I tried to come down on these guys for laughing about it, especally if, like Ali said, it just part of dealing with the insanity of life. I had a good friend who called himself the "Equal Opportinity Offender". And, man, was he ever. But it didn't mean he wasn't an honorable person. Not by a long shot. I'm not calling you a hypocrite either, of course, since I know you are just saying how it strikes you too. So maybe you are I are just on the same page with this.

GLB

Jul 18 2006

Laurel -- about the God queston. Some of that may be innocent enough. God is called those first more masculine things in the scriptural traditon, and is not (as often) called those other things. So it might just involve fidelity to scriptural traditon as much as anything else. However, for a different view of what that scriptural traditon is, and how it realtes to women, check this out http://www.friktech.com/rel/women2.htm A friend of mine wrote this. I tend to agree with most of it, but my knowledge is not nearly as extensive as his.

GLB

Jul 18 2006

The bible is full of teachings about wisdom, balance and judgment. I don't see how a good or full view of the bible or any religion would cause a person to do this. I can see how mental illness, devastation, and a overwhelming sense of loneliness or rejection could cause this. Self-esteem, self-worth, love for self, even arrogance, is better than this kind of despair. Somebody or someone likely failed this poor young men somewhere along the road of development and life. I would also like to know whether some kind of drugs were involved. While in law school, we had a Mississippi classmate to show up at school one Saturday totally naked and looking crazed. Fortunately, we Mississippi fellows saw him first, threw a sheet around him, and took him to the hospital. He had all kinds of drugs in his system and was devastated by the rejection of a woman who didn't want him. I do not see how being a male or receiving any teachings about maleness would encourage one to do this. No one could teach me any sh!t like this. I would escape. I will attempt to discuss this situation tomorrow at our wednesday bible study to get other male's perspective on this.

Ray Carter

Jul 18 2006

Laurel-its fine if you don't think its funny. I'm used to offending people. I think one of the main problems in this country is people being offended too easily. But, because I sometimes (note: very rarely) get offended I know that line can be arbitrary. All in all, I'm a satirist...so, if you don't like that...you might get offended from time to time if you read my stuff. :) GLB-The point I was making about males fixating on their penis was in DIRECT relation to that article stating that years ago, when men castrated themselves for religious purposes, they went after their own testicles. I was making a point about the "western" view of manhood as being more penis-centered. So therefore, when a man chose to castrate himself, if he were a "western" male, he would choose his penis. THAT is what I was saying. Now, in regard to this man being mentally ill...WELL OF COURSE HE IS. But, technically *I* am mentally ill and I'm not running around cutting off my clitoris...and WHY do you think that is? Because I stopped being Catholic...that's why. :P Anyone up for a discussion about illogical conclusions?

Lori G

Jul 18 2006

I think they need to call Frank Black in on this one. ;-)

pikersam

Jul 18 2006

Oh. I hadn't actually thought of any of that. Sorry. I was just reacting to the part about "males on this thread" and saying that I wasn't really fixated on anyone's p****. But I have no problem with you expounding that thesis. I'm really not sure what to say about that, so I won't.

GLB

Jul 18 2006

For a detailed description of self-mutilation: http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/self-mutilation.jsp As for people being offended by God being referred to as a female, it has more to do with fear of sacrilege than tradition. Masculine terms are used for God in the Bible, so that is what Christians stick with.

LatashaWillis

Jul 19 2006

If Catholic have so much guilt why do they sin so frequently and skillfully then? I never noticed any quilt in my Catholic friends. Unless you're counting hiding the sins. Should I ever decide to go wild sinning, I'm only looking for Catholics to do it with.

Ray Carter

Jul 19 2006

"As for people being offended by God being referred to as a female, it has more to do with fear of sacrilege than tradition. Masculine terms are used for God in the Bible, so that is what Christians stick with." I think you're right L.W. when I said scriptural tradition before, what I meant was the Bible. I guess I should have just said that. But I think you said it better than I did anyway. So thanks.

GLB

Jul 19 2006

I don't know, L. W., I think that while your argument about why Christians are holding to masculine definitions of God has some merit, I also think it is kind of a cop out (not by you, but by those Christians). Christian texts have been refined and defined by very real human minds and hands over the past 2000 years. So there is the element of social & political groups selecting what they want. For this reason I challege Christians to respond to CURRENT social injusticies & rethink their devotion to scriptures. How does one respond to scripture and respect scripture and yet still see the reality in front of their face? My favorite example of this is a couple I know where the woman has a high paying job, supports the family, and her husband has one after another of sort of hobbyish "businesses" which don't make money. Meanwhile her salary supports a full time housekeeper/babysitter as well as her husband's "businesses". But talking to her one day she mentioned her pastor's belief that the man should be in charge, and she was fine with that. She supported that. This really confused me. She is living out her reality as the woman in the driver's seat of her family, at least economically, yet at church and in her ideology she is comfortable with the "man being in charge." I think Christians have a lot of thinking and study to do if they are to be fair to reality and still hold fast to their tradition. If they are to live past such contradictions and have real integrity.

Izzy

Jul 19 2006

That took a lot of balls to do that. :)

golden eagle

Jul 19 2006

I don't buy the notion that keeping god masculine is necessary because it 'adheres to scripture.' Because, well, those scriptures were written by men. God can be a rock, a light, a dove and all manner of items, but it's somehow offensive to refer to god in the feminine. That's just a crock.

kate

Jul 19 2006

The scriptures were written by men under the direction or influence of God. Therefore, if you believe that, it doesn't matter what they as men personally felt. By the way, most theologians agree that God is neither male or female...so...I've never understood that whole argument.

James Hester

Jul 19 2006

Well, it goes to translation and there's tons of etymology involved with gendered pronoun and all that crap. If God can only be a man, then all the scripture written to men must not apply to women ;)

emilyb

Jul 19 2006

Thanks, Golden Eagle. I realize this topic is at times of a sensitive nature. Emily, that's an interesting point. I don't take this subject lightly, obviously. Nor do intend disrespect to those of the Christian faith. It may very well be that the Bible is too far gone to become a text of equal value to both women and men. But I don't want to believe that, both because I find value in it and also because it's influence is so stron gin the world. I don't even know whether to call myself a Christian (ironic as the word happens to be my middle name!) There are so many definitions, many very different from one another. But I'm drawn to this issue, as it is the biggest obstacle to me of joining a Christian congregation. My faith in God is very strong in fact I pray pretty much all day long to God. But when I step inside a church the language of maleness permeates so strongly. It stops me dead in my tracks.

Izzy

Jul 19 2006

Laurel, I really recommend you check you the link I posted earlier. http://www.friktech.com/rel/women2.htm I think it might be helpful to you. Just to summarize, here are some of the conclusion given in this paper: "God at creation set up an egalitarian standing between men and women (Gen 1). Due to various superstitions and fears, this was put down in favor of patriarchy. Jesus' intent in this area was to right the wrong which had occurred in a superstitious culture and which had been passed down via the rabbis. We find that women in the apostolic era were treated with equality and had similar responsibilities as the men in the church, engaging in public prayer, prophecy, and teaching, and being apostles, Servants, and possibly Overseers. Women were respected equally with men. Unfortunately, this conflicts directly with modern practice in many denominations and other groups. We strongly urge that freedom of women be reinstated and that the entering of women into the church leadership be permitted and recognized."

GLB

Jul 19 2006

wow, interesting stuff. I will definitely check out that link. Thanks, GLB!

Izzy

Jul 19 2006

Laurel asked some great questions here regarding Christianity. What is in charge? I take that to mean in charge of protecting the family; making sure the man does all he can to earn recompense to financially support or help support the family; setting good, strong, and righteous standards for living and making decisions in the household; handling or getting handled all matters of repairs to the house; helping and accepting helf from the other spouse in all matters concerning the family; having sense enough to allow whichever person most capable of leading or being in charge on a case by case or matter by matter basis to be in charge, and so on. Why would any sane and lucid person demand to lead when he or she knows they're incapable or ill-equipped to do so? And why would the other spouse just go along with this crap when clearly it's failing and is wrong. The person honestly and obviously most equipped to lead should lead or mostly lead regardless of gender or sex. I will let wisdom, balance, and judgment trump almost anything I read in any book. Shouldn't the question of what is right or best be asked then dealt with or acted on accordingly? If the man is too dumb, lazy, or incapable to lead the family, he should let the better person lead or learn to lead. My experiences have shown me that most women I know would have no problem with the man leading if he knew how or learned how to do it. But again what is leading? I situations where wisdom, balance and judgment offer no solution or inadequate solutions, I'd then look elsewhere including the bible for guidance. Human beings wrote the bible and all other books so why would we think errors couldn't have been made? There are lots of wisdom, teachings, and knowledge contained within the pages of the bible, but not all knowledge, teachings, and knowledge are found there. No preacher, teacher or theologian or anyone else can tell me anything differenty that I will accept.

Ray Carter

Jul 19 2006

Ali, I have to say, your wicked satirical streak does get the discussion going! :-)

Izzy

Jul 19 2006

Laurel, I agree about the language of maleness stopping me dead in your tracks. I find that I just can't say "Our Father, who art in heaven" another time in my life. I said it for the first 40, so I'm going to spend the 2nd 40 praying to "Our Mother, who art with us".

kate

Jul 19 2006

If God exists, I believe he is most assuredly both feminine and masculine, and also most assuredly neither male or female. I will still pray 'Out Father, who art in Heaven" because God is masculine. I will still mediaite on Jesus' nurturing love for Jerusalem because God is feminine.

GLB

Jul 19 2006

GLB, no offense to your devotion, but where is the woman in your equation? I find it kind of ironic that she is absent. Not only absent, but her supposed feminine qualitites represented by Jesus (a male on earth) as a nurturer. I think this point may be something very difficult for men to understand because they grow up with their gender (male) and the "generic" gender (male) as one and the same. For example, the word "mankind." So if you are always "inside" the generic gender or dominant gender, it can feel very natural, as if of course we include women in "mankind" or "God the Father." If you grow up outside of the "generic" paradigm it feels very different. It's almost too daunting. Supposedly you are part of the gang, part of the whole, yet you NEVER see yourself represented. You NEVER see God the Mother or God the Daughter. It is a hard pill to swallow.

Izzy

Jul 19 2006

Jesus referred to God as his Father. If it's good enough for Him, it's good enough for me.

James Hester

Jul 19 2006

As for the "gender of God" issue I'm inclined to say God is beyond gender. As far as I'm concerned, gender is only relavent for reproductive purposes. Of course some behaviors and mannerisms do tend to fall fairly sharply along gender lines, but that doesn't render the behaviors themselves (totally aside from the person who expressed them) male or female. (Yes, there's the nature vs nurture debate, but thats neight here nor there for now). Didn't Jesus say something about gathering souls and sheltering them like a bird gathers her young and protects them (that's commonly said to be a feminine trait)? I think the big problem is grammatical - there is no "divine pronoun" that reveals part of the nature's deity (i.e., actually, God is neither "he" nor "she" but "___".

Philip

Jul 19 2006

I had this discussion with the daughter of one of our much-loved Mississippians, who also was a Baptist minister, about the gender and my hang-ups. She understood as well, and I learned from that conversation that ALL of us are going to be surprised on that day all our questions are answered. Laurel and Kate, I actually pray for discernment in this area and have found it both helpful and satisfying. I can't tell you the number of times I've literally felt a sense of calm when I simply ask God, "Help me find you through this man/woman's words. Help me find the message you want me to know today" It's easy for someone who is more religious than spiritual to confuse man's words with God himself, and that applies to the gender issue and beyond. I'll stop now before I get too spiritual on us all ;)

emilyb

Jul 19 2006

Posting problems have been fixed. Ali, feel free to buy me a drink next time you see me. ;-)

kaust

Jul 19 2006

Emily, I hear you. But when I find that have to re-write about 80% of the liturgy in my head in order to make it through a service, it kind of loses its appeal for me. I can find god through many different people, or at least I can try. I agree with that. It's just that I've found that church actually *creates barriers* between me and my god, with its relentless use of the masculine pronoun. And I don't think that's the feeling I'm supposed to be getting from church.

kate

Jul 19 2006

Emily: It's easy for someone who is more religious than spiritual to confuse man's words with God himself Philip:FRAME IT! Better yet, make a Bumper Sticker of it (put it right next to your one about "well-behaved women )

Philip

Jul 19 2006

kate I tried that with the Common Book of Prayer at ST. Andrews.....It was just to hard, besides didn't I read that the word for God or references to God in Genesis are in a Greek term originally that referred to both sexes or designated Dual gender. Mark? GLB? Am I dreaming or is this the case?

ATLExile

Jul 19 2006

I believe that Jesus used "Father" as a convience. After all, if the three are equal (God, JC, and Holy Spirit) and one, what's with calling him "Father"? I think the reality would be God is more than our concepts can permit us to think of him as. Another possibility is that most of his actions described seem to be of the Fatherly type. I don't see a "Holy Mother" raining wrath down on Sodom and Gomorrah (Well, if it were my mom they'd have been nuked right off: she's neither calm, cool, or collected...). So perhaps it's become something we all can use as a common referent.

Ironghost

Jul 19 2006

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html Here's something that offers a different perspective. Granted the guy is well known in apologetics circles, to the point where even the secularists feel they have to address his concerns seriously (and thus tends to be rather conservative theologically). But even so, it does show how one can remain an conservative orthodox christian yet still have at least a fairly open attitude toward women (even in church functions). It is thought provoking, if nothing else.

Philip

Jul 19 2006

My take on women in the church has always been pragmatic: I'm not telling God I ignored anyone who obviously was called to work in the church. :) ATL: I think you're dreaming. :) I can't find it in either of my concordances.

Ironghost

Jul 19 2006

Ironghost, a mama god can kick some butt just as surely as a papa god. There are plenty of godesses of death and destruction and even war. People have understood for millenia the fundamental connection between birth and death, and female goddesses have represented both.

kate

Jul 19 2006

ALTexile, I don't know the answer to that question. I have a friend who reads Hebrew, and I'll ask him. Laurel, of course you are right in that I don't know what that feels like. But I'm not sure quite what to do about it. The text is what it is. That doesn't mean nothing should or can be done. And of course ultimately its between you and God. I pay atention to studies such as the one my friend did (that I posted in the link) precisely because he is doing a textual investigation, NOT a textual revision. Revisionism just for the sake of satisfying modern concerns, for any reason, doesn't really impress me very much. But, in any case, I think this issue is just between you and God, and therefore not really my business. I can only hope you and others with the smane struggle (Kate) get what you need.

GLB

Jul 19 2006

GLB-But why should we have to "struggle" to get what we need from a religion in which you get to partake with no apparent struggles at all? I don't think God would want me to go to church and "struggle". I think IT/HE/SHe wants a church where everyone and everything is celebrated equally.

Lori G

Jul 19 2006

I'm saying almost exactly what Laurel is saying up there...Why must it always be the WOMAN who struggles to fit the mold the man has created?

Lori G

Jul 19 2006

Well, it seems silly to me to debate the gender of God, except insofar as it related to the patriarchal contempt for women that almost all churches display. To me, the more interesting question is the relationship between sexual energy and religious feeling. Why is Christianity so obsessed with sexuality? After all, Jesus himself paid almost no attention to sexuality at all. The proper roles of men and women, which types of sex are acceptable and which are not--none of these issues were important to Jesus at all. They are very important to Christianity. Whole libraries have been filled with discussion of this issue, but here is my take. Christianity derives in psychological energy from sublimating lust. Lust is villified and redirected into religious feeling, which is in tune with Christianity's denial of this world. (This world is a corrupt illusion to be escaped.) There is good reason to think that Jesus "opposed" heterosexual marriage for just this reason--certainly, this was a huge issue in the early Christian church. So, when this man mutilated himself, he was acting within the ethical system Christianity created for him. Of course, he was mentally ill. But his action is only an exagerration of the sexual self-loathing at the very heart of Christianity. Especially Southern Christianity.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 19 2006

And of course this sexual self-loathing goes a long way toward explaining why most churches are mysoginist. Female sexuality must controlled, because males cannot control themselves. I am endlessly befuddled by this central male fear in Western civilization--the fear of the rapacious female. It crops up everywhere. At the moment, I am thinking of a relatively trivial example: Dracula. Lucy is a "bad girl" whose sexuality is unleashed by Dracula. She becomes monstrous and deranged. More seriously, you have Mary Magdelane. We certainly not have an "independent" (i.e. sexually available) female who was so close to Jesus. She must have been a whore, i.e. monstrous.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 19 2006

I struggle every day of my life. I've never met a religious person who didn't. It may be easier to participate in the institution of religion as a male, but not in the religious experience of God. You might be interested in the paper I referred Laurel too as well, Ali. It has some interesting points. Maybe the one Philip posted has other stuff to say too: I haven't had time to check that out. Brain, interesting questions. I may try to put some thoughts down about that later, but I've gotta go for now.

GLB

Jul 19 2006

Well, if controlled lust will surely send one to hell then I will surely get there some day. I have juxtaposed living with it, and without it; and I'll take living with it any day. However, I realized this is a personal decision.

Ray Carter

Jul 19 2006

Ali, just to be clear, I don't mind struggling to understand god. What I do mind is struggling with what feel like to me to be artificial barriers between me and god that are created by the church. And, those barriers were created for the reasons that Brian cites above.

kate

Jul 19 2006

One quick thought though, in your line of thinking Brian. I believe the primary energy behind a lot of the current conflict between the West and Political Islam is exactly this: the control of female sexuality.

GLB

Jul 19 2006

GLB, for what it's worth, I think almost NONE of the conflict between West and "Political" Islam (a very dubious term) has anything to do with controlling female sexuality.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 19 2006

GLB & Kate-I think I wasn't saying what I wanted to say well. I'm going to have to think about it and try to say it in a different way. It wasn't "struggling" to know God that I was thinking about. Let me sit on it and see if I can find better terms.

Lori G

Jul 19 2006

Ali, I think I know which struggles you don't think are worth it. Everyone should struggle to understand god and life and all that. But, I don't think that I should have to struggle against a human created institution that seems bent on removing half of the human race from its picture of god. The people I know with the deepest faith are 'fearless.' They are truly open to everyone, and don't need boundaries and rules to make them feel secure. Because of their faith in god, they automatically leave anxiety behind, and so don't need limits on themselves or others to feel secure. All the misogyny in the church just seems like a bunch of men fearful they'll be upstaged by their women, so they gotta keep 'em down. {please note - I realize that was a statement full of generalization and hyperbole, but I'm trying to make a point.}

kate

Jul 19 2006

At Word of Faith Church we have male and female preachers. I don't view either any differently than the other. As far as I'm concerned, neither is more powerful or more worthy or more knowing than the other one is. In my bible study classes there are men and women playing equal roles, none greater than the other. I like it like this. I wouldn't attend a church or bible class where it is taught or believed that men are superior to women or vice versa. This defies all the sense I have learned over the years, and I'm not a weak and insecure man who needs lies to feel better. I refuse to shackle myself down with stupid gender or race wars. (Except for that other one). You can't be honest yet still believe one gender is innately, divinely, or otherwise superior to the other. If I'm superior to women then why have so many women out-performed me in school, card games, and damn near everything else, even when I tried to win. As far as I'm concerned about the bible or religion, he means he or she, and she means she or he. I say this knowing there are differences between us, and boy, I like the differences.

Ray Carter

Jul 19 2006

Brain: I agree Political Islam is a dubious term -- it's tough to find good ones. I still don't have to to get into this much, but I guess you and I disagree on this point. There is one point of clarification though. I wasn't referring only to the military confllict, I was referring to the cultural conflict as well.

GLB

Jul 19 2006

Kate, my concern is that for the most part your statement is entirely accurate, and is not an example of overgeneralization or hyperbole at all. One of the reasons I abandoned orthodox Christianity, and certainly the reason I decided not to dedicate the rest of my life to study of religious texts, was because I realized that it's all patriarchal, and there is no way to remove patriarchy from the religion while leaving the religion intact. We can refer to God as Sophia and celebrate the Virgin Mary all we like, but we can't take the machismo out of the cosmology itself. Big tough God creates human beings with spines, they have the gall to act like they do have spines, so big tough God gives 'em a whuppin', then gets so mad he sends his son down and gives him a whuppin', too. In the Last Days, he'll give us all a whuppin' except for the ones who recognize he's The Man and fall in line. That's the "biblical" worldview all these people burning rainbow flags and tearing up Qur'ans are screaming about: A drunk, abusive father in the sky who rains down eternal torment on the just and unjust alike, demanding absolute, mindless obedience, which is not just right but the very most right thing in the entire universe, upon which all systems of morality should be based. Darby Ray wrote a book, Deceiving the Devil, on the abusive implications of atonement soteriology--the belief that Jesus can be a whipping boy for the rest of us, the belief that pacifying the Almighty Father's anger with innocent blood is noble, appropriate, and reinforces faith in God's goodness. But the rest of orthodox Christian theology is predicated on the very same ideas. It's madness. "Getting saved" means pacifying the abusive father in the sky with contrite submission so he maybe won't decide to whimsically torture you for all eternity. That is the essence of orthodox Christian faith, and I see no way of rescuing it from that. You pretty much have to start over from scratch, taking the parts that are useful and either rejecting or rewriting the rest. Apologies to friends reading this who are orthodox Christians. I don't mean this as a slam on your faith. But I have to validate Kate's concerns here, and there's no way of doing that euphemistically. This is legitimately and honestly my experience of orthodox Christianity. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jul 19 2006

Tom, I do think that's a valid view. The way I see it, the things that brought the wrath of God were things where men/women were trying to BE God. From what I've read in the Bible was the surest way to piss off God is to make some rules and try to be him. Think of the egos of the kings who then had a downfall, etc. Then Jesus came and said, "Hey y'all. Please let me break it down for you like this. Y'all just have had it all wrong." And that's how I view others who use the Bible to justify ignorance. Trying to be God. I don't think they are the majority; I think they are just the loudest.

emilyb

Jul 19 2006

Brian: I think I agree with most of what you say about Jesus and Christianity. However, I think there is a difference between lust and sexuality, and also a difference between sublimation and repression. Repressed lust or sexuality is typically not good, and is unpredictable. Sublimated sexuality can be used very productively, and I think it is used this way by most healthy people to some extent. I think all these things tie into what was happening with Jesus and what has happened with Christianity. Sorry I'm being so vague, but a lengthy discussion would be --- lengthy. But I guess I bascially agree with you anyway about this.

GLB

Jul 19 2006

Thanks GLB, and I do think it's a good point that everyone sublimates sexuality to some extent and that sublimating sexuality is not always a bad thing. As Nietzsche wrote, "All great thinkers had semen in their blood." In other words, they never got laid. Of course, he only said that because he was TERRIFIED of women, but I digress. But if you agree with me, there's no point in debating. You know I'm trying to get someone to be OUTRAGED at the suggestion that Christianity is based on sexual loathing. Anyone?

Brian C Johnson

Jul 19 2006

Well, I guess I don't think that Christianity is BASED on sexual loathing. I think there are a lot of negative things in the history and doctine of Christianity that are rooted in sexual repression, so I agree with you that far, but I don't think it is THE foundation of Christianity.

GLB

Jul 19 2006

I just want to say how much I am enjoying this discussion, with such varying viewpoints from Emily, Kate, Ray, Tom, GLB, Brian and others. It's not everyday I get into this kind of topic and I am just thankful that it is happening with such civility and grace. There are many things to think about. I know I will keep on thinking on all this...

Izzy

Jul 20 2006

GLB, I don't think sexual repression is THE foundation of christianity, either. But, I do think it plays a hyoooge part in various *churches* today. Us womenfolk are apparently Very Scary for certain men.

kate

Jul 20 2006

Thanks Tom. I'm worried she didn't get it though.

Ray Carter

Jul 20 2006

Ray, to you specifically I want to say how glad I was to read your post concerning your church, the shared leadership between women and men, and your personal commitment to this kind of gender equality at the level of teaching & preaching.

Izzy

Jul 20 2006

OK, I shouldn't have said Christianity was based on sexual loathing, but I do think that sexual loathing is at the very heart of most Christian experience. The distinction may seem trivial, but I am saying that Christianity as an emotional experience is inextricably entangled with sexual loathing. Now there are moments of compassion and philos, etc. But there is a reason why Christians--particularly of the evangelical variety, and the fact that this man was Catholic does not really disqualify him from what I mean by that description--are so comfortable with the language of recovery. Our president was only born again so that he could be born again from alcohol. I call this the psychology of restoration. The old "regime" is cast away in a clean break so there can be a new, "clean" beginning. This is the language of sexual paranoia applied to the "lust" of alcoholism. Christians turns away from the debased material world for communion with a higher power. The mental language of "debasement" is sex. Anyone want to nibble?

Brian C Johnson

Jul 20 2006

Thanks Laurel. One of my college buddies lost a good and talented wife due to caveman ideas about women. He held a very honorable job that he lost due to those sick-in-the-head ways. He married a woman smarter than him, a thing he knew from the outset. Despite her obvious greater talents with money, he wanted to make the financial decisions of the family because he was the man. We were shocked he had these ideas and we didn't detect them during 4 years of college. Ultimately they got divorced for a multitude of reasons. He has now married a woman smarter than the first one. I hope he learned something from the first marriage, otherwise - I see a repeat.

Ray Carter

Jul 20 2006

Brian, I don't know any Christians like the ones you speak of above. All the ones I know are trying to get all they can. And it's not always from their girlfriends or wives either. Bab, bad, bad. Sin, sin, sin. I would be scared of those kinds of Christians who just abstain for no good reasons. No wonder so many of them are crazy. Likewise, I have no idea what you mean by "The mental language of debasement is sex." All I know is that everytime someone brings up sex I raise my hand ready to vote in favor of it. On the otherhand, I accept the argument that sex is not everything. I further understand that if it came down to a life-ending choice of sex or food, most people would choose food. However, some fool might just ask, how long could I live without the food?

Ray Carter

Jul 20 2006

If you ask me there is a strange mental distortion going on in our culture around sex/reproduction. This is seen within Christianity but also in the larger culture. I think that there are VERY good reasons to approach the kinds of sex which can create a new life with extreme care. So here I am talking sexual intercourse specifically, and also other related acts in which the formation of a life is going to be a strong risk. In the case of these acts I think careful careful planning & understanding of bodies & birth control is crucial to feeling sane & sanctified. What I think is that these acts might ought to be differentiated from another group of sexual behaviors, which I could call non-life creating sexual acts. In this group I'd place many things including oral sex, masturbation and mutual masturbation. What I think is that these acts should be encouraged and celebrated freely. You see, they don't create the kind of consequences that the first class do. I guess there are certainly emotional consequences and also STD issues to discuss but in general (especially w/masturbation) I see this as a much less stress-inducing group of behaviors. I think that people in general are encouraged by media to be super sexual and encouraged by the church and by religions to be asexual. I think there's confusion & chaos. What is wrong with feeling sexual? It adds to life. Yet to be sexual freely and not face up to the consequences of what may happen is idiotic in my view. Also on a side note, what is the deal with masturbation? I read a book about it (Sex For One) and the author had 2 art exhibitions in New York City. The first had her drawings of erotic scenes between couples - it was a smash. The second was full of images portraying solo masturbation. Guess what? Everyone was scandalized and she had to close the show.

Izzy

Jul 20 2006

Brian, I guess I do still differ with you on the centrality of that theme. There are certainly those who have sexual issues and are Christian, but I'm not sure I accept the direct link between sexual loathing and redemption theology. I also think that one can be a disciple of Jesus and be very healthy sexually. That is, I don't think those things are incompatible. I do grant that , again, there is a lot of sexual dysfunction in the history and practice of the church, but that is not quite the same thing. There is an interesting essay called "We have no right to happiness" by C. S. Lewis, that discusses some sexual issues. Of course it's just his opinion, but he was an essentailly orthodox christian. So it might be worth reading. One more thing. Sexual dysfunciton is endemic to our whole society. So some of what we see in the churches is possibly a cross-fertilization (no pun intended) from the rest of society, and not necesarily the other way around.

GLB

Jul 20 2006

GLB, I'm with you on that last statement, i.e., our whole society, though I think it's relevant to examine Christianity as a major source of and venue for the issues at hand.

Izzy

Jul 20 2006

No problem, Laurel. You're right too, it's better to try to stick to the topic at hand.

GLB

Jul 20 2006

Ray, I had no doubt that you would vote that way, and of course, we are in the same voting bloc on the question. As for Christians cheating, that is like alcoholics falling off the wagon--they LOVE it! Because then not only do you get the white-hot pleasure of transgression but also the more lasting pleasure of horrible remorse. And yes, that is a pleasure. It is like inverse lust, and I fully believe that most people commit adultery to pursue repentance as much as to pursue sex. There are the lusts of the body and there are the lusts of conscience. The latter is no more a moral impulse than the former. Laurel, I am fully with you on masturbation, and Christian churches' general opposition to it gives away the game. Part of this is the obvious subordination of sex to reproduction; if you are going to have orgasms, they better be directed toward reproduction. That is ultimately a tool of social control, but this, in my opinion, is a strategic manifestation of a deeper impulse in Christianity, which is to oppose anything in this world that is rooted in this world. Let's get down to nuts and bolts here (no tittering please). This guy obviously mutilated his sex as a religious act. I mean, the feller did this right next to the "Virgin" Mary. (Talk about sexual loathing. For one thing, God will not put his mystical organ into a "fallen" woman. For a woman to be "sprititually" pure, she must be a virgin. What is up with that?) I assume that he was tortured by sex in some way, or is the symbolism of his act not plain? So he proved himself to the Virgin Mary. Yes?

Brian C Johnson

Jul 20 2006

These are very good comments. I'm impressed. That dude who said in another column thay Emily and Laurel don't know anything is dumb. That Laurel is deep. And it's why I like musicians. It seems lots of young girls are figuring out what Laurel just stated above based on the things I've been hearing. And it's scaring the crap out of some parents because many parents want their sons and daughters, especially daughters, to be afraid of sex until they get 21 and leave the house married. I thought women were scared to talk about masturbation after President Clinton fired one for talking blatantly about it. I guess a Christian man like Clinton was offended by anyone talking about or performing sex acts beyond the bedroom or oval office. He's a fine Christian man. All I know is I was told that if you do that masterbating (that's what we called it) you'll go blind or have unwanted hair grow on the inside of the sinful hand used causing everyone to know you had been abusing your yourself. I needed normal hands to work the fields so I kept my hands out of my pants. We did have lots of boys wearing glasses at my school but I wasn't one of them.

Ray Carter

Jul 20 2006

I doubt the Virgin Mary is impressed, to be honest.

Ironghost

Jul 20 2006

I guess we really don't know why the guy did what he did, and may never know. If I had to guess, I'd guess it's related to a confusion about Jesus' use of methaphor ("if you eye causes you to sin, gouge it out") combined with him trying to deal with some perceived sexual sin. Of course, it probably is much deeper than that. To say that this is just sexual is like saying that aneorexia is just about wanting to be thin -- both are manifesttions of much deeper problems. Brian, I think your characterizations of Christians are a form of stereotyping. That is, you have made some observations that are true in some cases, but your observations are not nearly general enough or fundamental enough to really characterize Christians as a group. (I'm not using "stereotyping" in the pejorative sense here. I mean it only as a means of characterizing the process)

GLB

Jul 20 2006

Yeah, I think one thing stopping healthy sexual development in young folks is the very lack of dialog. Like you say, Ray, the parents tend to say just avoid it. They think if they talk about it they are condoning "everything" a child might do. They themselves may also be uncomfortable with their own sexual life. It's a societal discomfort with the topics, just seems "unseemly" or "taboo" but it is so wrong. It ought to be more common in discussions so folks can get a handle on it, get to know it & then they'll have power to make good choices for themselves.There is so much more I could say about girls/young women & sex but that's it's own topic.

Izzy

Jul 20 2006

GLB are you a pastor or preacher?

Ray Carter

Jul 20 2006

Don't hold back, Laurel. I like talking about Catholic guilt although I'm yet to have witnessed any. At least any that curtailed future activity.

Ray Carter

Jul 20 2006

"Yeah, I think one thing stopping healthy sexual development in young folks is the very lack of dialog. Like you say, Ray, the parents tend to say just avoid it. They think if they talk about it they are condoning "everything" a child might do. They themselves may also be uncomfortable with their own sexual life." - Laurel Good point. You know, parents are encouraged via nightly PSAs to talk to their kids about drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol but not sex. Very strange. The few PSAs I've seen regarding sex have often been about abstinence-only... My question: how can you discuss abstaining from sex without first discussing sex? Maybe Fleming can answer this question since he's a huge promoter of abstinence-only education. Without doubt, this whole crazy protest has reminded me how much we need better and stronger sex-ed in our schools. I'm fine with them encouraging abstinence but you have to teach the basics of sex too! Education never hurt a soul!

kaust

Jul 20 2006

That's it, Knol. It's this taboo topic. So if you are young you are either a "virgin" or a "whore" you know what I mean? It's a disservice to youngsters trying to figure it out, esp. as their hormones are going bananas & there's a lot of peer pressure to hook up or have a boyfriend/girlfriend. It's sad to see the consequences of uninformed teens. I think sex ed ought to be very thorough and candid. I wonder who makes the call on those programs in MS? I know Rep. Fleming has posted on this before...just curious if it is state funding, national or ?? anyone know?

Izzy

Jul 20 2006

When I say thorough and candid that includes real info on consequences, too.

Izzy

Jul 20 2006

I don't know any parents who talked to their children about sex. I didn't talk to my son. My parents didn't talk to me. My schools didn't teach it either. I think, but don't know for sure, that my mother talked to my sisters about it. Three sisters made it out of high school without getting pregnant and three didn't. One of my growing fears is that my granddaughter who prefers me over grandmother and many other women in the family is going to ask me about sex one day. I plan to promptly send her on to her mother, grandmother, aunts, and any other woman I can find to replace me on the subject. I think I can talk to my grandsons about it. Perhaps I'll tell the boys what a few old manish and short-on-teaching men told me about sex, "It shold is good, and you better try to get all you can."

Ray Carter

Jul 20 2006

Ray: No, I'm not a pastor or preacher. I don't go to any church right now, and I am uncertain of the existence of God. But I used to be Catholic, and then Church of Christ. And I still pray to God and follow Jesus' teachings. I'm kind of a hopeful semi-believer, like the guy who told Jesus "I believe, help my unbelief!". Although I'm not sure I have his humility, unfortunately. My reasons for doubt have little to do with any rejection of the faith. I feel no anger or enmity towards either the Catholic Church or the Church of Christ. I just have intellictual difficulties with God's existence.

GLB

Jul 20 2006

GLB, you remind me of a point in my life when I was in a confirmation class. I think I was 12. I began to listen to my pastor's comments in earnest as I realized this was something serious, something important. Then I began to see some serious inconsistencies with what he was saying -- points of contention or confusion to me. So I brought them up, asked him about it. His response? "You certainly ask a lot of questions!!!" Basically he wanted me to simmer down & not ask any more questions. And that's when I began my withdrawal from the church. To me it seemed he was hiding something -- maybe hiding the fact that he himself had not worked out the contraditions. The doubts. The real concerns.

Izzy

Jul 20 2006

And Ray, I'm not sure you oughta pass the buck if your granddaughter asks you a question. Because if she trusts you then you might get through to her. Still, please think a bit on this--are you gonna tell a granddaughter don't do anything and tell a grandson "Get as much as you can" ?? Ray this double standard has to be broken into pieces. It is just as much a boy's responsibility to pay attention to consequences (i.e. a baby) as it is a girls. So teach all youth the same thing--the facts, the consequences, and how to make it through young adulthood so that you have fun but still have the future you want in front of you!

Izzy

Jul 20 2006

Laurel, when I was in confirmation class in Catholic Church, I had some questions too. So I asked the priest. He picked up a Bible and said something like "you know what I use this for? I use it to beat boys who ask insolent quetsions" I chose not to get confirmed. (By the way, that man is very atypical for Catholic priests; most priests I know are wonderful men. But that is what he said)

GLB

Jul 20 2006

GLB, do you even think you have the intellectual capacity to figure of the mysteries of God and creation? If you do then why haven't you answered all questions already or erased all doubt? If you don't believe you have the capacity to do this then why do you persist in leaning toward your own understanding? I have the same questions to some degree, and that explains why I attend church, pray, and attempt to live like Jesus as best I can. I often find myself questioning many things I read in the bible and hear preachers say and preach. My so-called intellect won't let me blindly accept giving 10% to a preacher who can do anything he wishes with the money and not account for it. I have a problem with turning the other cheek over and over again, too. I also have a problem elevating another mere man beyond the normal capabilities of other men. I'm not speaking of Jesus here, but I do have a problem accepting Jesus and God as separate entities and then as the same entity. However, since I believe leaning to my own understanding is a bad understanding I look beyond me and substitute faith as often as I can.

Ray Carter

Jul 20 2006

As for the don't talk about sex, an old poster (not in the sense of chronological age, I assure you) named Nia told me on a thread that this thing about not talking about "immorality" (sex and drug abuse) in public is actually a relatively recent phenomenon in our culture. It started in the 1800's. There are lots of things that seem "Christian" that are, in fact, deeply engrained cultural attitudes that eventually some preacher or theologian decides ought to be "codified" as proper religious behavior. Quick Thought: Even if all the sexual practices mentione in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is a sin - that blatantly begs the question as to whether sexual sins are more horrible sins than refusing to "love your neighbor as you love yourself".

Philip

Jul 20 2006

I was joking, Laurel. I certainly will not employ a double standard. I don't believe in living a lie. I can't stand a phonies or two-faced persons.

Ray Carter

Jul 20 2006

Good points, Ray. For the sake of staying topical, and not focusing the conversation on my issues, I won't go too much into it all. But you make good points. I guess I'll just say this, since this aspect of it is a bit more general. I don't think it's possible to choose what you believe. You can choose whether or not to place faith in someone or something, but you can't choose what you believe. Rather, you becomes convinced of things (or unconvinced) by the weight of the evidence. You gather inforamtion, and somewhere inside there is a scale that determines what it all adds up to. Sometimes that scale reaches a tipping point, and you change a belief. But I don't think it's a choice. So, for example, if I told you you needed to believe Elvis was alive in order to be saved, could you do that? You could lie to me and say you do, and maybe lie to yourself and dupe yourself into accepting it (albeit in a fundametally dishonest way), but those aren't the same as believing. I think you'd only believe if you somehow learned enough to become convinced that it was true. So I guess I'm just not convinced right now, for whatever reason. But I really do appreciate your concern. And of course I'd appreciate your prayers. I interpret concern for my spiritual well-being as a kind of love, and I am humbled by it. Thanks.

GLB

Jul 20 2006

whups, Ray, I didn't get it. Fact is, society very often teaches that double standard but I'm glad to know that YOU don't. On the mystery thread, I don't think that asking questions and being at peace with certain ineffable mysteries of God are mutually exclusive propositions.

Izzy

Jul 20 2006

I like your question Phillip about whether certain sins are worse than others. I used to go to a church where the minister acted as if he thought his only task was to talk badly about gays and compel them to change their lifestyle. However, he was married, and the biggest whoremonger I've ever met or heard of in my life. He was/is very dishonest and dishonorable in business dealings. Apparently, he thought his actions weren't as great or sinful (depending on what you believe)as those of homosexuals. I was tempted many time to rise from my seat during sermons and say "pastor, you're full of shit, and walk out." After a short while I couldn't ake it any more and left. I was actually very angry by the time I finally left because I was well aware of many of his indiscretions as legal counsel.

Ray Carter

Jul 20 2006

I agree, Laurel. KLB, a friend and I concluded that while we still have questions, since we don't know of anything better, we're sticking to what we've been taught about God and creation.

Ray Carter

Jul 20 2006

Ironghost is funny. GLB, I found that my 'intellectual' problems with the existence of god stem from an inadequate definition of what god is. Basically, if you view god as some sort of cosmic vending machine (correct change will get you the treat you ask for), then it doesn't make alot of sense. But, if you start to realize that god really is way beyond our intellectual ability to define, and start to let god be really, really big, way beyond anything you can wrap your head around, then the existence of god makes more sense. In a kind of confusing way. At least, that's what I've found. I also find that reading non-christian attempts at explaining god to be very helpful. You start to see god from different angles, and so get glimpses of different aspects. At least, that's what works for me.

kate

Jul 20 2006

Kate, I agree with everything you said. I think if I were to subscribe to a religion or force myself to admit a singularity of origin (beyond what physics is heading towards), it would be heavily influenced by many religions and beliefs. Zen Buddhism and the very nature of the Buddhist "nothing" allowed me to better fathom the Christian God I once believed in. It made more sense being able to step outside of all the dogma (which truly doesn't explain much about existence, chaos, origin, etc) and experience from a different perspective (or lack thereof). After reading quite a few books on Zen Buddhism, I actually feel as though I can understand the vastness, everything, and nothing that the Christian God is supposed to be and that our minds and universe are... The alpha and omega makes more sense. The idea of nothingness and everything existing at once within the Judeo-Christian God makes more sense once I managed to shed some Western thoughts on spirituality, religion, and dogma. Still, while I'm better able to wrap my mind around the Judeo-Christian God, I can't fathom a "knowing" god that could seem so careless, nonchalant, and/or violent as the "Good Book" teaches. If I were to subscribe to a religion other than Buddhism, it would probably be Judaism at this point because most Jews I know are more open to G_d and the idea that they know little-to-nothing about G_d and its mechanics.... Most I know are far more mystical in their interpretation and rarely attempt to pigeonhole their G_d. Of course, I'm generalizing the Jews I know and not speaking for the entire faith/religion.

kaust

Jul 20 2006

Kate I have experienced a similar trajectory...my explorations into Hindu and Buddhist practices gave me more of a vocabulary for spiritual growth and spiritual practices. This in turn has moved me back towards Jesus and this history/practices of the Christian traditions.

Izzy

Jul 20 2006

I love you guys. Knol, as well you know (and Kate too) I agree very much with what you have said. I was a very angry "recovering" Catholic until I found Buddhism. And, it wans't so much that I totally ascribe to that...but more that reading and researching gave me a much larger picture in which to situate my faith. A much larger realm in which to experience spirituality. I think so many people feel so empty and just a general lack of connection to very rigid religions because they leave no room for wonder, and beauty, and just being "open" to the world and what might happen. I actually think they stomp out a lot of the "joy" that life brings. This makes me sad. It also makes me want to beat dogmatically religious people about the face and neck. Thank all you guys for your comments. They really have been totally great.

Lori G

Jul 20 2006

Ali, I think you nailed it... Rigid religions spoiled by human dogma remove the great mysticism that is a god or universal being. It becomes too physical and detached from "the spirit" that they become nearly void of spirituality and filled with rules and regulations. In essence, they remove the god while attempting to appease it with their interpretation of its wants and needs. But, why would an infinite and omnipresent being have wants and needs especially so centered on universal specks of carbon like humans? Truly, most religions are egotistical in that regard. If there is a god, it is without doubt as amazing and infinitely wonderful and curious as the very universe it created or exists within... It can hardly be reduced to mega-churches, books, protest signs, scriptures, soundbites, legislation, condemnation, war-mongering, judgement, etc. We can barely explain the Cosmos... What makes theologians, priests, rabbis, preachers, spiritual leaders and specifically zealots think they can reduce a god to quotes and blurbs and somehow tie all that to the human experience? It's impossible and painful to watch from my seat in this world. I think this is where Buddhism taught me that questioning and believing can be healthy but can be dangerously unhealthy if allowed to become obsessessive or full of doubt and/or knowing. It is about now and being and that can't be easily reduced because now and being are infinite, inexplicable, and completely mystical; it simply has to be experienced, consumed, and passed on without much processing -- mostly feeling and releasing. To me, being and now (hopefully eliminating perceived space and time) are the closest you can get to the universe and/or a god. Off to sleep these sinus meds off. Namaste. ;-)

kaust

Jul 21 2006

Everyone, thanks for all the insights into your own thinking about these things. Like I said before, I interpret any concern for my spiritual well-being as a kind of love, and I appreciate that. I won't add much, except to say that I feel a resonance within myself with lots of the things you are saying, but maybe I approach them from a different place. I've never looked much into Buddhism, for example, but I recognize the pulse of Buddism in the heartbeat of my communion with God. Hope that doesn't sound too hokey.

GLB

Jul 21 2006

nope, not hokey at all. the heart beat, the pulse of god in my mind beats the same in every person. the way we look at it may be different but the source is the same.

Izzy

Jul 21 2006

I don't know, L. W., I think that while your argument about why Christians are holding to masculine definitions of God has some merit, I also think it is kind of a cop out (not by you, but by those Christians). Laurel, I think it has more to do with fear than a cop-out. There are some Christians in the Western world who think God will strike them down with a lightening bolt if they make a mistake, so they rather err on the side of caution. I don't mind seeing God as male. I like men. A lot. :-) Ahem...anyway, I misplaced my Hebrew-Greek Bible, so I'll have to do some digging to find out more about the pronouns used in the original texts. Or else he misinterpreted the meaning of Jesus's lines about "if your right hand causes you to sin, gouge it out. It's better to be maimed than to enter eternal damnation." I think this could be the case. I remember an episode of Little House on the Prairie when Laura's mother had a scratch on her leg that got infected and made her feverish and stuff, and since she couldn't call for help, she almost tried cut off her leg with a hot kitchen knife. She read the same scripture aloud before her failed attempt. Emily: It's easy for someone who is more religious than spiritual to confuse man's words with God himself Philip:FRAME IT! Better yet, make a Bumper Sticker of it (put it right next to your one about "well-behaved women ) I didn't create a bumper sticker, but I did make something similar last summer. Ironically, this was about a month before I switched my membership to a non-denominational church.

LatashaWillis

Jul 21 2006

"Laurel, I think it has more to do with fear than a cop-out. There are some Christians in the Western world who think God will strike them down with a lightening bolt if they make a mistake, so they rather err on the side of caution." You are a perceptive woman, L.W. Deceptive men everywhere, beware of L.W.! {:)

GLB

Jul 21 2006

There are lots of things that seem "Christian" that are, in fact, deeply engrained cultural attitudes that eventually some preacher or theologian decides ought to be "codified" as proper religious behavior. Couldn't agree more, Philip. That's why I don't just listen to a preacher and go home assuming everything he or she said is gospel truth. I check the Bible myself to see how much of what he or she says is based on scripture. Still, while I'm better able to wrap my mind around the Judeo-Christian God, I can't fathom a "knowing" god that could seem so careless, nonchalant, and/or violent as the "Good Book" teaches. Knol, the "Good Book" I read doesn't give me that impression. I see God as a daddy whose lap I can crawl into and tell all my troubles to, someone who will keep secrets and carry all my baggage with His fingertip. Sometimes, He'll send me into the world's boxing ring to toughen me up for a future battle, but after that round is over, He's right there with a clean towel, a cool glass of water and a hug. He turns every tear into a ray of sunshine. Of course, that doesn't even scratch the surface since supernatural experiences can be difficult to put into words. I didn't just go by what someone else tells me about God. I sought to know Him for myself. Sorry for getting all mushy. It's hard not to... :-D

LatashaWillis

Jul 21 2006

Deceptive men everywhere, beware of L.W.! LOL! I think that's why I'm still single.

LatashaWillis

Jul 21 2006

LW, how could you watch Little House on the Prairie? I hated it. It was all so boring, and people had too many real life problems. I still can't hardly look at the actor who played John boy. When I see him I want to jump out a window. I know it was a good family show but I wanted to see action, comedy, and no real life experiences. It was too painful for me to watch. Thank God that most of us believe in something beyond ourselves. Imagine a world where no one does. Imagine a world where very few believed in a higher loving, forgiving, restoring, chastising, and annihilating authority or God. Would that be the present situation? Imagine a world where no one believed in a higher authority or the power of the government to set standards and to punish.

Ray Carter

Jul 21 2006

LW, how could you watch Little House on the Prairie? I hated it. It was all so boring, and people had too many real life problems. I still can't hardly look at the actor who played John boy. Umm, Ray, John Boy was on the Waltons. Anyway, I watched Little House when I was a kid because I loved stories about female heroines (Heidi, Pollyanna, Wonder Woman). My mom still watches it on TV Land, and now that I look at it, I don't see how I handled that much drama. I can't even handle a lot of Lifetime - like one or two movies a month. How someone can sit and watch that much drama in one weekend is beyond me.

LatashaWillis

Jul 21 2006

Sorry. I did confuse them. Little House on the Prairie had Little Joe Cartright (Micheal Landon) and Melissa Gilbert, right? That show wasn't quite as bad as the Waltons. LW, it's better to be single than wind up with an abusive crazy man. My wife has regretted for years that she wasn't able to have children. One of my church friends with lots of crazy children tells me often to tell the wife she should never stop thanking God she doesn't have any. He wishes he didn't have any. Your Knight in shining armour is on his way.

Ray Carter

Jul 21 2006

I decided to look for whatever I can on what the ancient texts say about the gender of God. I found a pretty good explanation on a forum I belong to: ...the argument of gender of a non-corporeal being is quite interesting. Throughout my short term in this realm, I have been taught to consider God as masculine. Our language pushes this identity through its Germanic roots (correct me if I am wrong, but there are two names used in German for God, Gott and der Herr, both of which are masculine). The churches I grew up in (all-male leadership) promoted it. It wasn't until I came up against a professor at the college I attended that I had even thought otherwise. Of course, this professor claimed that God was a woman. I thought he was absolutely nuts. Five of the students in this class started a petition to remove the professor on grounds of insanity. But as I started re-reading the Old Testament, I found that God has many characteristics that are both masculine and feminine, as do most humans. Suffice it to say, I believe that God is God. Period. Not male, not female, and with no need to be either. We are delving into the deep realm of the nature of the supernatural. Be duly admonished that our simplistic, finite brains have in no imaginable way the ability to understand the true nature of God...

LatashaWillis

Jul 22 2006

Oh yeah, here's some more info for those who like to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_gender

LatashaWillis

Jul 22 2006

L.W. -- thanks for the thoughts and the link to wikipedia. What I read there was news to me, especially relating to gender in the first century and in Hebrew and Greek. Much different than now. I always suspected English has a certain male bias but now I know for sure. It is always interesting to go back to the source for these things. There is more I want to learn, much more. Thanks again....

Izzy

Jul 26 2006

You're welcome. Bottom line is, God is too big of an entity to completely define with a human language. We just do the best we can with what we have.

LatashaWillis

Aug 3 2006