tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post5098472720509634889..comments2023-10-31T07:23:17.922-04:00Comments on The Theos Project: Basic InstinctJonathan Erdmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-68141619853413398652008-09-01T14:56:00.000-04:002008-09-01T14:56:00.000-04:00I'll blog about this, when I feel like bloggin...I'll blog about this, when I feel like blogging again. But I wanted to put it out there because it's relevant to this discussion we've been having. <BR/><BR/>Don't know how many of you have seen the Vagina Monologues. If you ever get a chance, go see the show. It's amazing. And it is very relevant to what we've been talking about. And man, if the Vagina Monologues don't make you a feminist, I don't know what will!<BR/><BR/>These links are to the 10th anniversary show of the Vagina Monologues, which was held in New Orleans (which is known as being fertile & feminine). I recommend watching Eve Ensler's monologue. She wrote the Vagina Monologues...the first 5 minutes of what she says is the way every show starts. And then in the last 3 minutes she talks about New Orleans in particular.<BR/><BR/>Then I recommend watching are "My Vagina was my Village" (about a Bosnian woman being raped). Also, "My Short Skirt" is relevant.<BR/><BR/>I'm curious to hear what you have to say, and how you think it relates to what we've been talking about.<BR/><BR/>Sorry I don't know how to embed or actually link.<BR/><BR/>http://v10.vday.org/anniversary-events/arena/videotamie mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273116686980623819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-72225743911953880802008-08-31T12:17:00.000-04:002008-08-31T12:17:00.000-04:00K,As I have said before, I'm not sure how the "new...K,<BR/><BR/>As I have said before, I'm not sure how the "new creation" thing works. All I'm suggesting is that I see a very defeatist attitude (and I have personally lived a rather defeatist life, in the past) on the part of many Christians. I think the very short article you linked to bears witness to that fact.<BR/><BR/>Here's a few clips (emphasis added):<BR/><BR/><I>The sin of Adam and Eve, he argued, has been passed down intact to every member of the human race, transmitted through semen in the act of sexual intercourse. While Augustine did not condemn sex as such, he did condemn lust which was made manifest in males by an erection of the penis, a phenomenon which continues to amaze, delight, startle, and occasionally embarrass all men.<BR/><BR/>Augustine argued that erections were the physical expression of the sin of lust (libido) which came about after Adam's sin of disobedience in the Garden of Eden. Erections, and spontaneous sexual desire associated with them, were the proof and penalty of original sin. They were contrary to man's pre-lapsarian nature, to Adam's lustless state before the Fall, and therefore were to be associated with sin.<BR/><BR/>Because erections occurred apart from the will of the owner, Augustine argued they therefore occurred against the will of the owner and thus naturally involved shame: "A man by his very nature is ashamed of sexual desire" (De Civitate Dei, 14.17). The proof of this, Augustine believed, is the practice of covering the genitals and of not performing the act of sexual intercourse in public view (Confessions, 8.5).<BR/><BR/><B>Of considerable concern for Augustine was the fact that he and all men could exercise no control over their own penises.</B> Erections might come and go without the man having much to do with it. A heterosexual male, however, was more prone to get an unwilled erection when in the presence of women. <B>Women naturally and unwittingly provoked this physical reaction in the male. The man, in effect, loses full control over himself, and whatever his mental and spiritual aspirations may be, in the presence of sexually attractive females he is reduced to baser thoughts and physical urges.</B><BR/><BR/>Under these circumstances, his power is effectively usurped by the woman. Herein resides the fundamental threat posed by women to all heterosexual men. Unable to control their own bodies (a result of Adam's disobedience), men seek instead to control the bodies of women.</I><BR/><BR/>I think that Augustine brings up some legitimate discussion points; however, to suggest that a "Saint" (as Paul would describe them) is at the mercy of their base, lustful desires is nowhere to be found in the writings of Paul. As I said, the vision for the Christian life is optimistic and victorious.<BR/><BR/>Original Sin is a doctrine that has merit; however, if the doctrine is used to promote defeatism, then I think it is at odds with the Apostle Paul's vision for the Christian life.<BR/><BR/>To answer your question, I'm not sure how it all "works" in regards to lust; but I don't view lusts as inherently wrong, either. The concern for Paul is <I>porneia</I>, which is translated in various ways. The NIV translates it as "sexual immorality," which is yet another unfortunate translation by the NIV folks. "Sexual immorality" implies that one has violated a moral standard. I don't know that this is Paul's point. He seems more concerned--not about lust, per say--but about lust gaining a grip on a person's soul and controlling their perception of the world. So, the danger of pornography might be that one becomes warped in their perspective such that they begin to view the women they come into contact with in the real world as sexual objects for their own gratification, and not as people to be respected, loved, and learned from. But this is not a charge against sexual desire or even lust, per say; rather, it takes sexuality to a more subjective realm. The question is not about lust or desire but about how I am orienting my mind to myself and to those around me. If my perspective becomes dominated by sexual desire, then this becomes my defining characteristic and it "taints" everything I do.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, it is not just Christian circles that promote forms of sexual defeatism; various sectors of the American media also portrays men as primarily driven by lust and sexual desire, particularly younger men in high school or college.<BR/><BR/>I hope that helps to "flesh out" the issue!Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-87613223366178997212008-08-31T11:54:00.000-04:002008-08-31T11:54:00.000-04:00p.s. Jon, I think you should read some Capon. Li...p.s. Jon, I think you should read some Capon. Like, maybe, the book _Between Noon and Three_. It gets weird at the end, but for the first 3/4 I think you'd find it rather relevant & compelling.tamie mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273116686980623819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-71701852213256607422008-08-31T11:16:00.000-04:002008-08-31T11:16:00.000-04:00On the contrary, a scotch on the rocks would make ...On the contrary, a scotch on the rocks would make me more agreeable. Well, maybe not a scotch. But, rather, an Irish. Give me a Jameson on the rocks and we'll be telling stories about the old country in no time.tamie mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273116686980623819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-49626564352111614932008-08-31T11:07:00.000-04:002008-08-31T11:07:00.000-04:00Erdman, you said:"We don't have to be controlled b...Erdman, you said:<BR/><BR/>"We don't have to be controlled by our depravity any longer. We are "new creations" who "reckon themselves dead to sin." Something has fundamentally changed such that we don't have to succumb to lust just because we see a lustful image."<BR/><BR/>I asked (maybe earlier in this thread) if you believe that Christians have been magically transformed, and briefly you agreed that it's so. How might this magical transformation work with respect to lust and succumbing thereto? <BR/><BR/>On a related note, <A HREF="http://witcombe.sbc.edu/davincicode/original-sin.html" REL="nofollow"><B>here's a stimulating item</B></A> entitled "St. Augustine's Penis and Original Sin."john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-57343329294008075202008-08-31T08:53:00.000-04:002008-08-31T08:53:00.000-04:00Tamie,Are you suggesting that your answer would va...Tamie,<BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that your answer would vary based on what you are drinking???? That beer makes you more agreeable??? <BR/><BR/>Perhaps a scotch on the rocks might make you more argumentative?Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-27465751876728907262008-08-31T03:07:00.000-04:002008-08-31T03:07:00.000-04:00Jon. If we were sitting over beer in some place q...Jon. If we were sitting over beer in some place quiet I would just nod, at what you've said. And I would say, "yes, it is definitely possible to set ourselves up for failure. Our expectations and interpretations of ourselves--the myths we tell ourselves about this cosmos we inhabit--they determine how we live it." Y'know?<BR/><BR/>And then we would keep on drinking our beer.tamie mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273116686980623819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-63709248956394976482008-08-30T22:30:00.001-04:002008-08-30T22:30:00.001-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-42947472571298048802008-08-30T22:30:00.000-04:002008-08-30T22:30:00.000-04:00Ken......I don't mean this as a jab...I'm actually...Ken...<BR/><BR/>...I don't mean this as a jab...I'm actually just trying to understand where you're coming from...you said...<BR/><BR/><I>One last question/note. Just because some painter seeking to portray something from the Bible using nudes does not necessarily make what they did "ok".</I><BR/><BR/>Have you studies art or art history? Do you have some idea of what art is really about? Especially historically, outside of our current context of what "art" means to us? I mean...I hear your comment about "does not necessarily make what they did 'ok'", and it crosses my mind that maybe you are interpreting the painting through an exclusively religious (and evangelical) standpoint, without really having studied painting on its own grounds, and thus without the rich history of the relationship between theology and art. Like I said, I don't mean it as a jab. Seriously, I don't. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. If you end up answering that you have in fact studied art, espeically in depth, then my next question is: "what is art to you?"<BR/><BR/>:)Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-42013349856793191152008-08-30T15:00:00.000-04:002008-08-30T15:00:00.000-04:00Incidentally, I'm reminded of James Dobson's famou...Incidentally, I'm reminded of James Dobson's famous "for a man, any breast will do" statement.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-76668677134092360132008-08-30T14:59:00.000-04:002008-08-30T14:59:00.000-04:00Tamie,Yes. My point was not to say that the female...Tamie,<BR/><BR/>Yes. My point was not to say that the female breast was <I>absolutely</I> sexualized in American culture; just that in relation to other cultures, the breast is extremely sexualized. Agreed.<BR/><BR/>Commenting on the idea that looking at porn and nudity necessarily leads men to lust.....I think this perspective may have some link to the doctrine of Total Depravity and the Calvinist spin-off groups (and other religious groups) that tend to see the worst in human nature as normative. This goes back to what I was saying about how our culture influences our <I>perception</I> of ourselves: if you are a part of a religious (or non-religious) group/culture that treats you like a lustful animal, then chances are that is the way you will perceive yourself.<BR/><BR/>I am finding more and more interest in this line of thinking, because often conservative American Christians tend to think that if we expose ourselves to nudity, violence, etc. that we will necessarily become controlled by our base sexual/violent impulses. And while I think it is true that what we see and meditate on influences us, there isn't a one-to-one correlation (watch porn and you'll be lustfull). Where it gets really interesting is to start to read the Apostle Paul: his vision is so optimistic. We don't have to be controlled by our depravity any longer. We are "new crations" who "reckon themselves dead to sin." Something has fundamentally changed such that we don't have to succumb to lust just because we see a lustful image.<BR/><BR/>Maybe some Christian groups/cultures have conditioned themselves for failure: if I see a boob, then I will lust.<BR/><BR/>Is it possible to condition ourselves to fail????Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-59380011781835376142008-08-30T13:57:00.000-04:002008-08-30T13:57:00.000-04:00Last night I had a conversation with some good fri...Last night I had a conversation with some good friends, some male, some female. We started talking about this whole question of art/nudity/porn/etc. They all thought that it was ridiculous to think that all men are attracted to pornography, and that all men fall into "lust" just because they see nudity. I bring this up to respond to what Ken said a while back, questioning the possibility of whether men can look at nudity without falling into sin. Yes, I think many many men are perfectly capable of this act.<BR/><BR/>Jon, you mentioned that in our culture the female breast seems to be exclusively sexualized, but I disagree, even within our culture. I know lots of nursing mamas, and they nurse in public, without shame, because in fact the *purpose* of breasts are for nursing. Of course breasts are *extremely* sexualized in our culture. I just wanted to point out that they're not exclusively so.<BR/><BR/>Jon, I think that's a good point about our sexuality being culturally defined. And I think, referring to something Ktismatics said a while back, that repression tends to instigate much higher levels of sexism. And, to pick up on what Jon said recently--I think that a culture obsessed with law is a culture obsessed with repression.<BR/><BR/>I super-agree with you when you say that if there is real, substantive change, then sexual rules become irrelevant. Precisely. You don't need the rule if you are truly embodying love.tamie mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273116686980623819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-72599628933200890332008-08-30T00:18:00.000-04:002008-08-30T00:18:00.000-04:00Phew, not having regular internet access can be fr...Phew, not having regular internet access can be frustrating, including falling behind in comments on boards such as this.<BR/><BR/>Given the many points and questions, maybe all forms of sin in some way are culturally defined as well as personally. The danger with this is control. Who determines what is sin and what is not?<BR/><BR/>For example, there is a culture in Africa that views anger as the chief of sins. Sex outside of marriage doesn't even enter their radar as being even remotely wrong. In fact, a woman that has not lost her virginity (to her uncle by the way) before being married is borderline morally wrong... <I>in their culture</I>. So if sex before marriage is not wrong according to that culture, what is the Christian reaching out to them to say to that particular issue. "Oh its ok" just doesn't line up with Scripture.<BR/><BR/>We must be careful not to relativize sin according to culture and personal values. Otherwise moral standards would eventually spiral out of control (is this not what we see happening in America?).<BR/><BR/>I would also ask this, thinking theologically; what significance might the Garden story of Genesis 3 say about nudity and "covering up?" Perhaps being clothed has greater theological significance than simple cultural preference.<BR/><BR/>One last question/note. Just because some painter seeking to portray something from the Bible using nudes does not necessarily make what they did "ok".Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00417377845348501025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-86915937715305588282008-08-29T12:01:00.000-04:002008-08-29T12:01:00.000-04:00Since we're getting all personal on this comment s...Since we're getting all personal on this comment section, I just thought I'd share a bit of how <I>I</I> try to live, in terms of norms and morality and etc.<BR/><BR/>For the last four years I've worked as an Episcopal chaplain with college students. I quit my job about a month ago. There were several imposed boundaries that were part of the job....like, not drinking with underage students. And all kinds of keeping-up-appearances stuff, that drove me crazy. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I was hanging out with a friend & former student the other day, and I was lamenting living by imposed standards (I don't have to right now, but I'll probably be in spiritual leadership again...) and he said that actually my personal standards are way higher than the external rules people try to make spiritual leaders live by. The conventional wisdom is that you should impose these rules like--don't have sex in X,Y, and Z contexts. Don't shoot heroin with 7-year-olds. That kind of thing. But you can't really legislate whether a leader is being respectful or compassionate or fair. There are so many ways to follow the rules and still be a jerk.<BR/><BR/>My personal standards are thus: how can I treat the person in front of me as a divine and profoundly worthwhile creature? What is the most loving thing I can do for this person? Also....how can I treat the people who make my clothes & farm my food as divine and profoundly worthwhile creatures? How can I live in such a way toward both the American soldiers in Iraq and the Iraqi civilians? That stuff gets me into the realm of the systemic, and away from keeping my morality private and personal. Because if I'm being a kind person, but still participating in our bullshit system of exploiting the whole world so that we can have cheap clothes....then I'm still very, very morally suspect.<BR/><BR/>I am not bringing this up to show how hip and groovy I am. Maybe you do not think I am hip and groovy, anyway, to try to live this way. Maybe it seems too "subjective" or something. But I am bringing it up to point out that it is possible to try to live without external rules....and that actually, ironically, it can lead to a much stricter--in a way--standard of relating to others.<BR/><BR/>Of course, in the process I notice that certain actions seem to consistently violate the living-in-love-toward-others thing. For example, I notice that there seems to be no place in my ethic for shooting heroin with children, or torturing puppies. So I guess you could say that I have rules. But almost nothing is hard and fast. Lying, murder--these things are acceptable in certain contexts. If there ever seemed to be an appropriate place in my "system" for torturing puppies, I'd re-evaluate. Anyway, the point is that it feels to me like my rules have come from a different place, you know?<BR/><BR/>(And again, I don't say this to show how I'm morally superior--but just to show that people *are* trying to live this way.)<BR/><BR/>How does this play out in terms of sexual morality? Well, in a certain way it makes it so much trickier. I can't just refer to the rulebook to decide when and with whom I'll have sex. Or if I'll view porn, or "lust" or whatever. I have to ask myself: what kind of a human being do I want to become? Does doing this help me become that kind of human being? What is the most loving thing to do? Etc etc. (Frankly, the rulebook would be easier, and less tiring much of the time.)<BR/><BR/>I've done away with the "don't have sex before marriage" stuff and the "don't be gay" stuff. I just don't see the point. And after all, just because you're not sleeping with your girlfriend (or your gay partner) doesn't mean you're not an asshole. I think God cares a lot about whether we're assholes...God also cares about our sexual conduct, but in a *why*-are-you-doing-this kind of way, not a *what*-are-you-doing kind of way.<BR/><BR/>I feel like I'll have more to say in a bit, but I have to go right now.tamie mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273116686980623819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-73500445060574998932008-08-29T10:34:00.000-04:002008-08-29T10:34:00.000-04:00As I suggested previously: How we define ourselves...As I suggested previously: How we define ourselves sexually depends on our culture. If this is true, then perhaps we need to take a closer look at the "Christian" cultures that we are a part of.<BR/><BR/>Tamie, I thought you made a few interesting observations along this line:<BR/><BR/><I>What do we think that Jesus meant when he said that if a man even looks at a woman he's committed lust. Why is it a problem to wish that you could have sex with someone, or to think about having sex with someone, or to feel desire in the presence of someone? It seems to me that Christians--and many other folks--have a huge hang-up with desire. Desire feels scary, taboo, dangerous. Why is this? Of course, it's one thing to feel desire; it's another thing to constantly engage objectifying fantasies, or to try to manipulate people for our purposes. But to feel the desire, the attraction....why is this so scary to us?</I><BR/><BR/>I question whether or not we should take what Jesus says as a prohibition of lust. The passage you cite is embedded in the Sermon on the Mount. In that homily, Jesus goes to the heart of many issues; his point is to cut through legalism. Sure, you might not be in bed w/ your neighbors wife, but if you want her really really bad, then what's the difference??? Remember, Jesus is speaking to a culture of people who were religiously obsessed with laws. <BR/><BR/>Recent scholarship (cf. New Perspective), of course, suggests that this form of legalism was misinterpreted by the Reformers as a being a legalism <I>for salvation</I>; when, on the contrary, the laws were a form of expression of obedience for those who were already a part of the covenant people <I>by the grace and faithfulness of God</I>....but that's all a side note....the point is that the culture Jesus interacted with was obsessed with law.<BR/><BR/>I see Jesus as saying this: if you want to allow your life to be dominated by law, then don't forget that the law also regulates "covetousness."<BR/><BR/>But Jesus (I think) came to fulfill the law (which is clear to most Christians) and to set us free from living up to law....and this is where it gets far less clear, because we all have rules that we set up for ourselves and others. But that takes me back to my first point: that such rules are a big part of how we define and express ourselves sexually.<BR/><BR/>What if we were meant to transcend law? And go beyond rules and norms?<BR/><BR/>Tamie: <I>But to respond to your other comment....a wise man once said to me, "that which is resisted, persists." I wonder if it's the running away from desire that's creating the problem (whereas we think it's the solution). Another wise man I know (Michael Franti) sings "Don't fear the nighttime because the monsters know that you're divine." In another song he sings, "And One truth I learned in life: you want to scare away the vampires, you simply guide them into the light."</I><BR/><BR/>What if the point is not to try to control behavior via rules, but to live as a "new creation" and to simply interpret our selves as "dead to sin"? What if the point is "light" and new birth?<BR/><BR/>If there is real, substantive change, then sexual rules and norms become irrelevant, right? And maybe we become less restricted by what people around us and our culture says about who we are sexually.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-41614560326944668112008-08-29T10:21:00.000-04:002008-08-29T10:21:00.000-04:00Thanks. The comments have been very thought provok...Thanks. The comments have been very thought provoking.<BR/><BR/>Ken asked the question <I>can a man not look at any kind of nudity without falling into sin?</I><BR/><BR/>One of the things that has come through that I think is significant is how relative "lust" and "desire" is.<BR/><BR/>Earlier in this thread, Ktismatics commented on how desire is culturally bound: <I>Arguably the most sexist societies in the world insist that their women be covered from head to toe in order to avoid inflaming male lust. I used to live near a beach where topless sunbathing was the norm for both sexes, young and old alike, and I don't think lust was running any higher there than on beaches where women keep their tops on -- except perhaps among Americans and others who weren't used to it.</I><BR/><BR/>In so-called "primitive" cultures, the female breast is not an exclusively sexual organ. In American society it seems to be that way. Why? I'm not sure it's possible to know the whole reason. For some reason, it has become a very sexualized female organ.<BR/><BR/>Why does the author(s) of the Song of Songs get so excited about the neck (1:10; 4:4, 9; 7:4). Having a neck like an ivory tower really doesn't do much for me.<BR/><BR/>The point is that our sexuality is bound up with the culture we inhabit. Sexuality is defined socially. How we define ourselves sexually depends (in large part) on our culture.<BR/><BR/>I grew up kind of assuming that my sexuality was a personal matter; an issue of "self control" for which I was responsible. Accountability was there to help me "confront my sin," to heap shame on me when I "failed," and/or to "encourage" me to live according to "correct" Christian sexual morals and ethics.<BR/><BR/>What I found by observing my life and the life of others is that the more pre-occupied one was with their "sin" and "failure," the more often they typically failed.<BR/><BR/>As you know, I've been experimenting with freedom in my life. So, I got to a point where I said, essentially, "To hell with it! I'm going to do what I want, regardless of sexual norms and morality!" My thought was to rely solely on what was inside of me and not to worry about living up to standards or norms. An interesting thing happened: nothing much. That is, nothing much really changed. So, what was I worried about?Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-23156713319850113802008-08-28T23:19:00.000-04:002008-08-28T23:19:00.000-04:001 Cor. 7...oops...:)1 Cor. 7...oops...<BR/>:)Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-37792046944020284112008-08-28T23:18:00.000-04:002008-08-28T23:18:00.000-04:00crystal...lol maybe what i said reminded you of 1 ...crystal...lol maybe what i said reminded you of 1 Cor. 1 b/c the context of the conversation is sex? lol...<BR/><BR/>tamie...thanks...i like silence, actually :) and you're welcome. and yes...that little comment and my experience of "metanoia" did/does in fact involve a lifetime, really!<BR/><BR/>shalom,<BR/><BR/>jasonJason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-55060812672900006232008-08-28T22:59:00.000-04:002008-08-28T22:59:00.000-04:00Those psycho killers will get you every time. What...Those psycho killers will get you every time. <BR/><BR/>What if the question of instinct can be brought over to X-Men 3 where the Phoenix (Gene) is completely taken over by her dark side (instinct alone), loses control, and then in turn is destroyed to keep her from destroying everything around her. It seems to me that she could have been saved, if she just could have gotten control. She turned into a monster because of her lack of boundaries with herself.crystalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02471067070639653906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-9879064267898110712008-08-28T22:57:00.000-04:002008-08-28T22:57:00.000-04:00Jason. Wow. After your explanation I feel like I...Jason. Wow. After your explanation I feel like I understand your poem a lot better, of course. And thank you for sharing it.<BR/><BR/>There is so much packed in to what you've written. A lifetime, really, I imagine. I don't have much to say, but know that my silence doesn't indicate indifference. <BR/><BR/>Thank you.tamie mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273116686980623819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-40666799764926314222008-08-28T22:55:00.000-04:002008-08-28T22:55:00.000-04:00Hey Crystal. Totally up to you. Depends on wheth...Hey Crystal. Totally up to you. Depends on whether you want to keep having that particular conversation. I am fine either way.tamie mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273116686980623819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-74401025380613403462008-08-28T22:48:00.000-04:002008-08-28T22:48:00.000-04:00Tamie, I know I left you hangin' on responding to ...Tamie, <BR/><BR/>I know I left you hangin' on responding to the last post. I just can't keep up with you people! I can respond if you would still like me to, otherwise I'm going to let the matter drop. Let me know...crystalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02471067070639653906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-57142327543372040112008-08-28T22:43:00.000-04:002008-08-28T22:43:00.000-04:00Jason, That's beautiful. Amen, brother! What you j...Jason, <BR/><BR/>That's beautiful. Amen, brother! <BR/>What you just wrote reminded me of 1 Cor 7, esp vs 5, although I can't remember exactly why. <BR/><BR/>Being angry w/ God and trusting Him; such very strong opposites when in comes to dealing with yourself and monsters. Good to hear you and Him are staying close.crystalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02471067070639653906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-78951477779211867852008-08-28T20:52:00.000-04:002008-08-28T20:52:00.000-04:00tamie...on you speaking generally...gotcha :)metan...tamie...<BR/><BR/>on you speaking generally...gotcha :)<BR/><BR/>metanoia and monsters? well...my poem was about my metanoia. especially a recent experience with it. too personal? well, jesus is personal, so personal is ok...i think. <BR/><BR/>i was reading a book called <I>The Shack</I>. its a very mainstream evangelical book, i think. but lately i've been trying to practice letting go of such hang-ups (not just that one, but hang-ups in general) and just listen to the message that i feel is coming to me through...whatever God's messages are coming to me through. <BR/><BR/>so, yeah, i was reading that book. don't want to give too much away, but basically a guy with whom i can identify experiences great pain and tragedy. he comes face to face with God, and in a very real and honest way, expresses his anger at God both for not preventing the tragedy (not "taking care of so and so") and, so: "if you couldn't take care of [so and so], then why would you take care of me?" and the character said this to God with clinched fists b/c he was angry at God. and didn't even realize till after he said that that his fists had been clinched.<BR/><BR/>ok, so what? well, i had no idea i was angry at God, lol. but at that moment...well, hang on. part of the background context of the book...God has at that point of the book already demonstrated his loving and tender demeanor. i was like: "i can recognize that about God" (like, from experience). so i was identifying with the main character and with this depiction of God when the book got to this point wehre the main character expressed his anger with God. <BR/><BR/>well, what happened next would not have been possible without the love, but i realized that i was also myself angry with God and didn't think that God would take care of me. i had no idea before that that i was either angry at God or that i didn't think He would take care of me.<BR/><BR/>i started crying a little. i continued to cry. soon i had to put the book down. soon i was blowing my nose and wiping tears and went right through two napkins that were handy. got up to throw those in my little bedroom trash can. thought i was done. no. anther "wave" of emotion. it kept coming. soon i was slouched or bowed or something or other on the floor "like a floating goldfish," just plain old weeping uncontrollably. went through another paper towell. thought i was done a couple more times, but no. my cousin was sleeping in the room next door, and i was trying to be quiet. i hope i didn't wake him. anyway, it kept coming, like in waves, but very very powerful waves...tender Tsunami's, if you will :) <BR/><BR/>anyway, the waters were healing. what i was crying about...i still don't fully understand what happened. but at bottom i knew even while it was happening that whatever was going on had at root to do with my having distanced myself from God, and i was experiencing grief...grief in light of God's overwhelming love...that i had no reason to be angry at God, really, but that i had been pushing Him away because of my lack of anger...and because of my lack of trust (didn't believe He would take care of me). <BR/><BR/>now what do i mean "pushing Him away"? i mean my actions. things i was doing that were...where i had been ignoring God's tender voice through the conscience. lots of things, but that's probably what they all have in common. well, maybe not, but that's a biggie.<BR/><BR/>so anyway i don't remember exactly where i was in my story, but that's basically what happened. that's one major instance of what i mean when i say "metanoia." ahh...yeah...that's what we are talking about. metanoia. at the same time that i realized that i was angry at God and didn't trust Him, i was being cleansed of my anger and lack of trust. God was healing me, and i was "seeing beyond" my anger and lack of trust (and faith). seeing beyond my small little dark place to a bigger that i'm so used to, to a place where funky things happen like waters dousing napalm out and fires burning away blackened crystals and death of self being life-giving.<BR/><BR/>oh that reminds me. i fasted recently, and it left me wondering: "why is it so hard for me to give up my self will!?" and part of what was ringing in my mind during the waves of emotion was: "oh, now i see why it was so hard for me to let go of my self will!" it was very relieving, but like i said i was grieving....i was being cleansed but i was also grieving all that time that i had spent w/o God, who loves me so much. i was "seeing beyond"...metanoia :)<BR/><BR/>i guess in this instance too the "monsters" would be my anger and my lack of trust. and they were kind of monsters too. sort of lurking around in the dark corners of my soul, but i couldn't really find them. sort of mythical, if you will, not pinpointable. but yet although i couldn't find them, i defended myself from them as best i could...by avoiding them (mostly)! metanoia?...in the light of God's love...i "saw beyond" my big hairy monsters.<BR/><BR/>:))Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-69967877318274501532008-08-28T17:23:00.000-04:002008-08-28T17:23:00.000-04:00hey jason....i didn't mean you specifically. i re...hey jason....i didn't mean you specifically. i really can't speak to your desires or monsters. i was speaking generally, using your comments as a springboard.<BR/><BR/>you're right. i don't want to be viewed only as a sexual object. actually, i don't want to be viewed as a sexual object at all. i'd like to be approached as a sexual subject, and i'd like my sexuality to be wrapped into every other part of who i am.<BR/><BR/>how would you define metanoia? i know what the word means, but how do you see that manifesting in your life? perhaps that's too personal of a question for a public forum....so, how do you see metanoia working in a situation where one has "monsters" that need to be brought to light? and how would you define those monsters?tamie mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273116686980623819noreply@blogger.com