tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post5984946135920387530..comments2024-03-28T00:23:01.632-04:00Comments on Lem's Levity: Reconciling Spirituality and SexualityTrooper Yorkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01978703998566102194noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-41460240291634168222013-07-22T23:55:21.763-04:002013-07-22T23:55:21.763-04:00Mitch:
Seriously, you are claiming Mary was alrea...Mitch:<br /><br />Seriously, you are claiming Mary was already pregnant, and knew it, before Gabriel came to her? With whom? Who wa the baby?Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-48589231144788293142013-07-22T21:42:18.225-04:002013-07-22T21:42:18.225-04:00Sorry Mitch, I didn't read closely enough. I ...Sorry Mitch, I didn't read closely enough. I guess the key word there was mutant. Well, interesting idea anyway.<br /><br />But you would apparently reject the conclusion that since Jesus did not have a human father that the entirety of his body was made from Mary's body, that Jesus, the new Adam, is not bone of the bones, flesh of the flesh of Mary, the new Eve.Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-91309155073822736322013-07-22T21:30:06.716-04:002013-07-22T21:30:06.716-04:00Two things:
1) EBL, figures of speech, popular ph...Two things:<br /><br />1) EBL, figures of speech, popular phrases, etc., don't count, even if their origins are from the time when "spirituality" did. People still say "bless you" when you sneeze, though the idea of you expelling bad spirits never entered their minds. I still yell "Jesus!" when I stub my toe, and I'm an atheist. Doesn't mean a thing beyond "Ouch!"<br /><br />2) Bender, Father Fox and I are two sides of the same coin, hopefully never far apart in thought, deed, or distance. Plus, Meade's all-new-and-improved obnoxious routine made it so that "please stop" stuff never got fully implemented, so why stay a lurker?<br /><br />Now, that said - <a href="http://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/2013/07/nobody-move-nobody-get-hurt-whats-fun.html" rel="nofollow">who wants to kick ass?</a>The Crack Emceehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08366101526773588864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-3521214370179870362013-07-22T21:07:21.863-04:002013-07-22T21:07:21.863-04:00Yeats shows us how to wed spirituality with sexual...Yeats shows us how to wed spirituality with sexuality. He married a medium. The woman shared his interest in the spirit world and could, she claimed, commune with the dead. While under a trance, would be possessed by those spirits who wished to communicate with Yeats. Those spirits would tell Yeats to take afternoon naps and have sex more often with his wife.......So there you have it. In order to wed spirituality and sexuality it's best to find a happy medium. If she's into s & m,you can strike a happy medium.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07837540030934495651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-63776164497878905762013-07-22T20:23:28.794-04:002013-07-22T20:23:28.794-04:00I was just thinking this weekend. "Wow, the o...I was just thinking this weekend. "Wow, the only thing missing from Comment Home is Father Fox."<br /><br />ExcellentBircheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00045640752795693223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-63098046303405718792013-07-22T20:23:25.091-04:002013-07-22T20:23:25.091-04:00So Jesus was never a real human being. More specif...<i>So Jesus was never a real human being. More specifically, he never shared our common humanity. He was never one of us.</i><br /><br />I don't see how you get that from "spontaneous mutation". As you pointed out implicitly from the original question, where does the Y chromosome come from? Is the grace of God an actual physical sperm? Seems a blasphemous suggestion. Someone else's? Pure Arianism! Was there a metaphysical construct intertwined continuously with Mary's maternal DNA, a genetic golem given motive power by the divine spark? Ludicrous! <br /><br /><br />It doesn't seem Monophysitical to say that the Christ had a Y chromosome, and it had to come from somewhere. No, Jesus was a man, with the usual complement of chromosomes in the usual arrangement. <br /><br />So much for the flesh. As for mind and soul and all that - The Son of God who was one person with the Son of Man, two natures, one person - that gets out of science and into the mad mystic world of Mystery.<br /><br />Come to that, everyone agrees that Christ was tempted - how does a man without the capacity for sin know temptation? And if you say something about Christ not being a man, the gospelist John might want to have words with you, possibly starting with the phrase "Son of Man", and the Church Fathers might again start that muttering about Monophysitism.Mitch H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01630047498946143646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-37963539880383610532013-07-22T20:01:52.289-04:002013-07-22T20:01:52.289-04:00And if Jesus never shared our humanity, then His C...And if Jesus never shared our humanity, then His Crucifixion and Resurrection were something wholly unique to Him, and not something which applies to us.Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-12555965388900060142013-07-22T19:58:50.876-04:002013-07-22T19:58:50.876-04:00I'd say by imaginative interpretation of scrip...<i>I'd say by imaginative interpretation of scripture that he was a divinely inspired radiation-induced mutation that spontaneously turned an egg into a masculine zygote</i><br /><br />So Jesus was never a real human being. More specifically, he never shared our common humanity. He was never one of us.Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-90205379082014469702013-07-22T19:56:46.410-04:002013-07-22T19:56:46.410-04:00DNA?
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a ne...DNA?<br /><br /><i>Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new.</i><br /><br />I'd say by imaginative interpretation of scripture that he was a divinely inspired radiation-induced mutation that spontaneously turned an egg into a masculine zygote.Mitch H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01630047498946143646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-12452775599120585892013-07-22T19:51:04.860-04:002013-07-22T19:51:04.860-04:00Whose DNA does Jesus have?Whose DNA does Jesus have?Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-32592494278837912013-07-22T19:46:13.370-04:002013-07-22T19:46:13.370-04:00About Jesus being married --
He is. He is the Br...About Jesus being married --<br /><br />He is. He is the Bridegroom. THE Bridegroom. His Holy Spouse is the Church. And by their spousal union, they have children. And the life that these children enjoy is one of eternal life.Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-39971611886686595882013-07-22T19:42:20.585-04:002013-07-22T19:42:20.585-04:00I wouldn't like to be the younger brother of J...I wouldn't like to be the younger brother of Jesus. Sibling rivalry would be a mortal sin. But, in a metaphoric sense, we are the half brothers of Jesus. We share his mortality and physical pain, but the spirituality of his nature is apprehended rather than shared. It's not part of our DNA the way it is with Jesus.......Yeats said that the god of love has pitched his tent in a place of excrement. That's the way it goes. The most sublime pleasure we can feel in life is to some extent an inelegant and base act. There's something awkward about the union of sensuality and spirituality, but it exists.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07837540030934495651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-35525188108862814312013-07-22T19:42:07.543-04:002013-07-22T19:42:07.543-04:00Really? Can you point to any passage of Scripture ...<i>Really? Can you point to any passage of Scripture where anyone choosing celibacy was deemed to have sinned by doing so?</i><br /><br />Oh, I can't believe I forgot this: Genesis 38:8-10 -<br /><br />Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”<br />But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. <br />What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.<br /><br />Despite the modern construction "onanism", the sin was in refusing to be fruitful, and denying his brother's wife a child. Well, that and refusing a religious duty bound up in family law and fertility. It's certainly a back-assed selfish sort of celibacy, having more in common with those men who get vasectomies without their wife's permission than a true religious vocation, I'll grant you.Mitch H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01630047498946143646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-58786098298553141872013-07-22T19:35:26.841-04:002013-07-22T19:35:26.841-04:00No-one is saying that a wife owes her husband sex ...<i>No-one is saying that a wife owes her husband sex on demand, but ever?</i><br /><br />What is sex -- or what should it be? Especially marital sex? Merely satiating base urges? Just recreational f******? Or an act of love?<br /><br />The answer to all things, including relations between a husband and wife, should be love.<br /><br />Love does not demand that spouses have sex, although it can be a sign of it. That said, if a person has taken a vow of virginity, then that should be disclosed prior to the marriage, not afterward so that any spouse who does not want a chaste and virginal marriage can go find someone else.Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-24334505975959601862013-07-22T19:33:23.835-04:002013-07-22T19:33:23.835-04:00Really? Can you point to any passage of Scripture ...<i>Really? Can you point to any passage of Scripture where anyone choosing celibacy was deemed to have sinned by doing so?</i><br /><br />You mean in the Old Testament, since we can hardly back-apply new rules unless we take Bender's backward arrow of grace theory to heart. And I can't think of any vows of celibacy in the Old Testament. Admittedly, I'm not exactly a master of scripture. Hmm, I see in a Catholic apology, it's noted that some of the old prophets, notably Jeremiah were commanded to not take wives. See Jeremiah 16. Which, viewed in context, was part and parcel of a prophesy of destruction and desolation: He was rescinding his commandment of fruitfulness, in the context of casting out the chosen from their promised land. It is *not* a priestly call, but rather part of a malediction.<br /><br /><i> "If somebody could point me to any evidence of first-century Judean vows of virginity, I'd like to see it. Who knows, I'm not particularly familiar with the various Essene practices, maybe there's something there?"<br /><br />Indeed there is.</i><br /><br />Argh. That's cryptic - but I see the references in the current Wiki page on the Essenes. Are you saying that Mary or Mary's family were Essenes? There's a lot of commonality - esp. John's baptism thing, and the communalism and so forth - but I though this conceit of continuity between the Essenes and the Christians was controversial among believers?<br /><br /><i>But meanwhile, you have yet to explain Mary's answer to the Archangel. If Mary was planning to consummate her marriage with Joseph, why would she be so surprised and "troubled" to hear--from God (via his messenger) that she would conceive?</i><br /><br />On the plain face of the passage, she takes it to mean she's already with child, and thus is shamed before her affianced.<br /><br />Now, please, if you would explain Matthew 1:25 in a way which is not standing plain meaning on its head, which clearly states in every translation some variant on "didn't consummate their marriage *until* she gave birth to a son".Mitch H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01630047498946143646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-18966051111023528892013-07-22T19:19:29.963-04:002013-07-22T19:19:29.963-04:00Lord knows I'm no theologian or even high prie...Lord knows I'm no theologian or even high priest but this I know: <br /><br />It's a sin to act all donut holier than thou.Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117933390338651739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-45676575836366047492013-07-22T19:01:24.562-04:002013-07-22T19:01:24.562-04:00The Amish are spiritual too...I mean religious!<a href="http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2013/07/film-as-metaphor.html" rel="nofollow">The Amish are spiritual too...I mean religious!</a>Evi L. Bloggerladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00371362907839227149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-53071222738387486232013-07-22T19:00:26.323-04:002013-07-22T19:00:26.323-04:00Eileen, well put. Eileen, well put. Paddy Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442537362540160512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-58915764350947872942013-07-22T18:59:46.279-04:002013-07-22T18:59:46.279-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paddy Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442537362540160512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-86534731572217478522013-07-22T18:58:18.177-04:002013-07-22T18:58:18.177-04:00That some of the disciples were married is mention...That some of the disciples were married is mentioned in asides, as if it's not important. Peter, for instance, was married, as he had a mother-in-law which generally implies a wife. Paddy Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442537362540160512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-87691102130054164752013-07-22T18:56:48.174-04:002013-07-22T18:56:48.174-04:00"a regular popish plot"
And me, a radic..."a regular popish plot"<br /><br />And me, a radical protestant, enabled it. <br /><br />Couple of Prod thoughts. One, we shouldn't forget that NT conversations are really very Jewish, so unless otherwise mentioned those should be the assumptions. <br /><br />Which means that Jesus being married would have been his assumed state. There's nothing that would have been a problem had that been introduced in the earliest narratives. But it's not, and his not being married is a counter to the prevailing culture, adding a theological problem where there wasn't already one. <br /><br />Nowadays, when we're more used to unmarried priests, the tendency is to want to hunt down the wife or mistress that Jesus was hiding, as if the Church would have had reason to that. <br /><br />More succinctly, it wouldn't have been a big deal if Jesus was married, but because the narrative points to him not being married, there's reason to assume that really was the case, and like many devout men of his time there's no reason to assume he was sexually active in other ways. Which isn't a denial of sexuality, it's putting it into a context of a higher vision or passion. <br /><br />More Protestant of me is my view of Mary. There's a theological reason to argue for her perpetual virginity and it relates to perceptions of sexuality that bear on our topic. Why would Mary need to stay a virgin in theological terms? Because Mary was assumed to be free from taint as well. Sexuality is taint? Even for a presumably married woman? <br /><br />That this developed in the early church does not mean its not without theological adaptation of the original narrative. It's pointing towards a different view of sexuality than what would have been common in Jewish theology. And, for me at least, there's no reason to add complexity to the greek definitions by expanding what a 'brother' or 'sister' could be. That we also have the significant influence of Jacob (who we call James, even though James is not in the Greek), whose significance comes in part from his close connection to Jesus is another indicator. <br /><br />I can appreciate and understand the traditional arguments for Mary, but they're not particularly convincing to me. But, again, that's yet another reason why I'm not a Catholic even though I appreciate a lot of Catholic thought and people. Paddy Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442537362540160512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-80459790861029819042013-07-22T18:48:24.329-04:002013-07-22T18:48:24.329-04:00"If somebody could point me to any evidence o..."If somebody could point me to any evidence of first-century Judean vows of virginity, I'd like to see it."<br /><br />I would too. Three ways of aquiring a wife according to the Mishnah Kiddushin: money, a contract, and sexual intercourse. Only one of the three conditions was necessary to effect a binding marriage. Sexual intercourse.Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117933390338651739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-33850131308877978962013-07-22T18:34:41.927-04:002013-07-22T18:34:41.927-04:00Ok thank you father.
I will go with my usual answ...Ok thank you father.<br /><br />I will go with my usual answer. Enough to make you fat but not enough to make you puke.<br /><br />Sausage and pepper heroes tonight!Trooper Yorkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978703998566102194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-26520937412657033372013-07-22T18:32:23.691-04:002013-07-22T18:32:23.691-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-717986195212622043.post-48261623403669022792013-07-22T18:31:21.022-04:002013-07-22T18:31:21.022-04:00Trooper:
(Smiling.)
I think you know the answer...Trooper:<br /><br />(Smiling.) <br /><br />I think you know the answer, or can figure it out. I'm not going to give you a number.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.com