in search of ? a contemplative post

i feel it. as i read more and more about judaic thinking, principles, the torah. my soul revels in the compassion for g-d, for humanity, that flies from each word.

In stark contrast to Christian dogma -- where marriage is seen as a concession to the weakness of the flesh, and celibacy is extolled as a virtue -- the Torah accords matrimony an exalted and holy position.

what a difference this makes! such a difference ... i will not elaborate much further at this point, but just say that my soul feels liberated at the underlying sentiment of the torah wrt marriage and sexuality. repression has no place in the torah. in fact, it commands healthy sexual intimacy for all married couples. one removes the villainous tinge from sex and sexuality when one promotes open healthy expression as natural and necessary, rather than a grotesque manifestation of human weakness.

think on it. how many rabbi's are sexual predators? and how many so-called catholic men of the cloth are sexual predators or deviants? and how does a man, a celibate man who has no family experience whatever, possess the experience and knowledge and wisdom to guide his laiety in matters of family living, child rearing, marital strife? what counsel could such a repressed, oppressed and sheltered man provide an average person?

and now, in my convoluted thought pattern, this takes me to the issue of jesus. the being whom christians call the 'christ' .... the messiah. i have done, and continue to do, some reading on the divinity of jesus. on his message. the notion of jesus as divine does, when one delves into the facts of the matter, seem at odds with various prophecies that existed regarding the messiah. ie - one of many small seemingly insignificant details - jesus, not being joseph's biological son according the gospels, does not then descend from the davidic line, then does he? puzzling.

when it logically causes one to call prophecies into question. is not the word of g-d constant and unchanging for all time? and does it not evoke confusion, to think of g-d in a human form? and ... on top of all this consider the social dynamics of the time. the followers which jesus picked did not follow the laws of their faith - had a diminished experiential knowledge and understanding than, say, your average judean jew would have possessed. and ... at the risk of superimposing 21st century values upon an ancient society, i want to ask - what of all the families that jesus basically encouraged his followers to abandon? i wonder ... its suspect. so many things just don't add up.

so ... that's some of it. i can say now that i don't believe in the divinity of jesus ... that he is the messiah. that's not to say he was not an important figure in judaic thinking ... just that calling him a 'son of g-d (man)' does not imply his divinity - it imples a titled traditionally bestowed upon ancient sages/rabbis - a title of respect, a title which honours a man for his wisdom in interpreting the law of g-d.

and ... well, given that jesus appeared himself sort of conflicted about the torah, i think it would even be a stretch to call him 'son of g-d (man).' one must remember, that to the jewish diaspora of his time, jesus seemed as revolutionary and extreme as, say, osama to the mainstream muslims. a charismatic, maverick outspoken individual who aspires to lead a revolution against the status quo and who represents manipulative disrespect for the law of g-d.

God and religion ~ the jury's out

yep. i can safely say that here. i dunno. honestly. what the fuck do i regard as fact? what the fuck do i regard as fiction? years and years of blind, merciless and cruel ::exclusionary:: indoctrination have left a gaping burn hole on my heart. on my soul. along with suspicion. and defiance of the existing self-delegated authorities. and then … the JC figure pops into my head.
i’m thinking of JC. a maverick of his era, for sure. shunned, in fact, condemned, by the religious authorities of that time for heresy, blaspheming. not married, in an era which expected, required even, men his age to marry. and he kept companionship with several other males. what. what. what, would we think of such an individual by today’s standards? would we think he’s gay? and … does it matter? and … does JC matter? i mean, in the grande scheme of things?
does it frighten us to apply contemporary standards to ancient biblical times? does it assist us in advancing our goals? i have awareness that i’ve used “US” here. only for convenience, really. i don’t consider myself part of that US. but, the old paradigm, seared into one’s being, ain’t so easy to erase from this self. at any rate, what of applying today’s standards to societies that existed millenia ago? if this makes mohammed a pedophile, then surely, it must also make joseph and god himself one, too. for … mary was but a child, by today’s standards - barely old enough to give consent to any sexual union - be it with another human or with the holy spirit. and now back to my comparison of societal standards … does it make JC gay?
and this leads to a very interesting thought that catholicism - i keep myself closed in the catholic box here because that’s the paradigm i know very well - has based itself upon sexual repression. one only need look to the horrific abuse at mount cashel school for boys in the maritimes to face the ugliness of catholicism’s dirty little secrets. dirty. that’s a word i think of when i think catholic. manipulation. of the power dynamic. oppressive. in its subjugation. of the flesh. of humanity. this subjugation of sexuality. this repression of a most powerful and most beautiful primordial behaviour. don’t you think its twisted? sick? DYSFUNCTIONAL? i wonder … did JC intended for his ‘church’ to erect itself in this manner? did he intend for his institution to grow to such largess as currently? and with such carnage?
of the world today. of so-called christians today. what would JC think? what would he feel? if he could see? see into the reality of human existence? and the hypocrisy of christianity. christians who burned joan of arc at the stake. and then several hundred years later canonized her to sainthood. hypocrisy. hearts filled with hatred. all in the name of JC. what would he think? would he give a free express pass thru heaven’s pearly gates, to all those mothers who abandoned their dying, AIDS-ravaged sons? would he give out special edition halos to all those who exclude others in his name? would men who rape little boys receive an exemption from condemnation because they wear a roman collar?
i wonder. i wonder. that’s all. i guess that makes me a heretic, then?

thinking about religion

ok. so, first post about this stuff. i’m trying something new. religion. theism. its shaped my person. the child i was once. the woman i’ve become. i don’t subscribe to a religion, really. in my mind the jury’s out on this god thing.
furthermore i think all those out there who pad their own egos and self interest in the name of their god are just as guilty as those they condemn as sinners, blasphemers and fallen angels. case in point - the vatican. just some other types of politicians. exploiting the belief system of the masses to forward their own political and personal agendas.
ok. that’s all i’m gonna say for a first post.
oh wait. one more thing. i wonder why is it forbidden to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? what is it that god does not want us to know? that’s where i’m at with religion and belief in god.