tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post101915782993013905..comments2024-02-22T22:14:28.796-06:00Comments on The Wild Reed: The Many Manifestations of God’s Loving EmbraceMichael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-61940862327496654702012-07-23T19:37:18.647-05:002012-07-23T19:37:18.647-05:00To my mind what Michael has to say about "pen...To my mind what Michael has to say about "penis display" sounds about right. After all, communal nudity of one sort or another has been an important part of heterosexual male bonding since the dawn of civilisation.Faith and Fatherlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04064247477101955875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-57075611981214731762007-08-25T05:50:00.000-05:002007-08-25T05:50:00.000-05:00I'd like to comment on "rick's" comment, which I f...I'd like to comment on "rick's" comment, which I find far more valid and profound than his honest, but brief, comments make.<BR/><BR/>Judaism does not have an obsession over sexuality, it has an obsession over "contamination." Leviticus is devoted to nearly nothing else.<BR/><BR/>As a tribal people, the Hebrews, like most tribes, had their priests who divined the tribe's survival codes. If read from that perspective, all the anally-retentive, hyper-scrupulous purity rituals and contamination avoidance makes sense, and why a tribal people might think menses and feces and semen "contaminate" the individual and the tribe. It's neurotically obsessive for its time, but let's cut them a little slack. They are primitives.<BR/><BR/>But as Hebrews evolve and interface with other communities, their understanding of irrational primitive codes does not fade, but becomes fixed. It was this narrow-thinking fixity to primitive codes that Jesus repeatedly denounces: "It's not what goes in a man, but what comes out." When he speaks of his flesh and blood as "real life," he is trading on the dietary laws that prohibit rare meat (which has it's life still in it). Clearly, Jesus is trying to get his audience to see the silliness of their primitive and irrational dietary laws as no longer serving any good purpose but control and disputes and clannishness, but most of his audience finds this "teaching difficult," and abandon Jesus. (N.B. The Bread of Life Discourse has many other purposes, not merely the one I've just cited.)<BR/><BR/>The reason I cite this Discourse is it is paradigmatic of the "problem" within the J-C-I triumvirate, remaining even after one leaves direct association. In the hands of Saint Paul, what Jesus is trying to overcome, he takes in the opposite direction: all flesh is hostile to god, not just the contaminants of Leviticus (see, Rom 1-7). That exactly opposite of Jesus' message. Worse, it exacerbates the tension and extends it, by making the entire person, and especially his sexual organs, the personification of sin. Jude goes so far as to claim human flesh "contaminates" their clothing!<BR/><BR/>Mind you, these are primitives. But rather than "progress" and "enlightenment," especially upon contact with civilization, such as Rome and Greece, these absurd abnegations should have been laughably comic. Instead, they become paradigmatic -- in direct contradiction of Jesus. And since it is highly probable that Jesus was gay (see, the "beloved" apostle references throughout), clearly butt-fucking, already practiced in Greece and Rome for centuries, would have been welcomed enlightenment from primitive tribal customs.<BR/><BR/>Why this is important is because Saint Paul (Saul of Tarsus) never saw Jesus in the flesh and retains not only his Jewish prejudices from the Levitical Code, he makes ALL behavior involving the FLESH sinful, not merely the "contamination" ones. This is REGRESS, not progress. And it contradicts the Gospel. But because of this perverse anthropology of Paul's, it has "infected" all who come in contact with it. Indeed, the true contamination is Paul's perverse anthropology, and exceptionally perverse view of all sexuality, especially same-sex eroticism. That such perversion itself might generate perverse reactions such as sexual indulgence without emotional accompaniment should surprise no one! The "taboo" has been broken, but it's gone bonkers. Rather than romantic intimacy, which one assumes would be the liberated recovery, men and women have eviscerated human sexual intimacy to "sex as commodity." One "has sex," these days, not with emotional involvement, not with satisfaction, but merely for self-gratification, or if lucky, mutual self-gratification. The lack of emotional involvement would have been incomprehensible in Greco-Roman societies, but after millennia of repression, it has become commonplace. Indeed, prophets of modernity (psychologists) encourage it. No hedonist from antiquity would have divorced intimacy, sexuality, and emotional factors; they're integral to our flourishing. To segregate these factors only leaves one with less-than-fulfilling "sex." Because it is ONLY "sex." That might work for irrational and unemotive animals that are motivated by instinct alone, but humans' instincts INCLUDE their rational, emotive, and appetitive mental lives along with their physiological drives. Humans could eat perfectly nutritious pellets to satisfy their hunger, just as our pets, but our reason, emotions, and appetites prefer a little flavor, a nice presentation, a lot of spice, and served with a little indulgence. Maybe accompanied by wine and liquors.<BR/><BR/>Many gays and straights are treating the human erotic impulses as "sex," just as our pets' kibble, as if that could possible satisfy. Rather than "liberate" ourselves to enjoy the fullness of erotic intimacy, many have become compulsive sex-a-holics. That they've become this myopic, one understand briefly, following liberation, but to persist in it becomes self-fulfilling, because it ain't fulfilling. It's "just sex." That's why it's "just sex." Most human populations want more than "just sex." Oh, that want sex, but WITH intimacy and emotional involvement. <BR/><BR/>So, we can understand the reaction against Pauline repression, but authentic hedonists, including Epicurus, who authored the hedonist principle, would never find "just sex" pleasurable, much less pleasant. They'd regard it as woefully deficient. I'm not denying an occasional orgy might be fun, but serial, anonymous, emotionless "just sex" would have been repugnant to homophiles in antiquity. "Getting it on," not merely "getting off."<BR/><BR/>But look at what the J-C-I thinking produces in reaction, or in conformity -- both defective exponentially. That is why, generally, gays bond as a couple. Tricking is not merely tiresome, it's banal. Worse, its lack of satisfaction only leads to more of it as compensation for its deficiencies, in a vicious circle jerk of devalued, diminished, and unfulfilling serial sex.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-21546864371931822892007-08-25T04:46:00.000-05:002007-08-25T04:46:00.000-05:00Beautiful observations with fabulous visuals. But ...Beautiful observations with fabulous visuals. But I'm afraid the Judeo-Christo-Islamic nexus are barriers to the very loving embrace you extol. On a direct experience, Mother Teresa came to Saint Paul's parish here in San Francisco to operate and AIDS hospice in one of the parish's unused buildings. Upon arrival, she reproached the parishioners for spending any money on carpet and paint and personally yanked up the carpet in front of stunned observers. Needless to say, the hospice never came into operation. When John Paul II visited in 1988, his visit to the Mission Dolores Basilica caused an uproar. The Pope kissed an AIDS baby and held it up in his arms (captured on a Time cover), but then refused to even countenance the dozens of men with AIDS the archbishop had brought for pastoral care. The shunning was so upsetting, the archbishop, the nation's first CHRISTIAN to have an AIDS ministry, took early retirement (many Catholics believe he was pressured to retire for his active support of AIDS victims). The Image of Embrace that you lovingly draw has to be through OUR hands, because God's Warriors seem to focus on sheep and goats, saved and unsaved, chosen or unchosen, sinner or saint, and dividing one from the other cannot be divine, and if division is the motif, and Jesus certain used it, as did Saint Paul, as have their followers, then the Judeo-Christo-Islamic god cannot be the true god. That god is a tribal god, not a god of unconditional love and benevolence. And witnessing two "pillars" of saintliness, I saw more demonic energies than loving ones. Indeed, only the blind zealot could have missed it. It took its toll in both attendance and affiliation. I knew Kevin who once headed Dignity and admired his efforts as he and many of his fellow Saint Ignatius Prep friends were all part of an inner circle. But I gave him my Saint Jude medal, the saint of lost causes. We can read into the Gospel different meanings, as any good Catholic knows, but what one cannot read "out" of the Gospel is <B>division.</B> Even the beauty of James' and John's epistles, the closest to a divine message, still divides. "If you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors . . . so speak to act as those who are judged by the law of liberty, for judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment" (Jas 2:8-13). One almost feels the Law of Love, and it fills most of this extraordinary epistle, until the fifth chapter, when a stereotypical indictment of wealth is given. And to end on a gravely mistaken juxtaposition of urging patience in trial and suffering, "as the endurance of Job, you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful" (5:11). I am quite sure James overlooked Job 1:6-22, where Yahweh encourages Satan to torment his righteous servant Job to show Satan just how faithful his servant will be. How is this divinely encouraged torture not sadistic? Apologists insist that the allegory is not meant to show Yahweh as the actual agent of evil, rather we're to understand that loyalty is rewarded. How? Job is loyal and faithful already. Indeed, Yahweh states to Satan, "Very well, all that [Job] has is in your power; only do not stretch out your hand against him" (Jb 1:12). Torment Job, but don't kill him. This allegory does not support a deity who stands <I>against</I> the evil of universal suffering, it illustrates a perverse deity that promotes it. We're not even addressing the issue of why a god would permit suffering, we're asking why a god promotes it? When Job's cries for a hearing for justice are finally given heed, none of his questions are answered. All Job knows at the end is that the innocent suffer, but not without apparent reason: But with divine encouragement. James' appeal to this wisdom literature and its sadistic message of a perverse deity promoting the evil of suffering for the deity's satisfaction, has to jar even the simplest reader. But not if one sees this deity's agents (JPII, MT, and Evangelicals) behavior; they are living this allegory.<BR/><BR/>Give me the embrace of true romantic love and authentic <B>universal</B> benevolence.Jesus and Paul limit benevolence to the <I>sheep,</I> and exclude the goats. What again did James write about partiality?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-71017238218113113112007-08-19T09:11:00.000-05:002007-08-19T09:11:00.000-05:00This is a beautiful and thoughtful post, Michael. ...This is a beautiful and thoughtful post, Michael. <BR/><BR/>Terry Nelson's comment is interesting. <BR/><BR/>He says: "I'm sure there are similar stories of other gay couples, living together in fidelity, who are sexually active, while living quiet, well ordered, virtuous lives as well."<BR/> <BR/>If this is the case, what can be the purpose of trying to change their sexual practice?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-43512239638422690692007-08-17T13:25:00.000-05:002007-08-17T13:25:00.000-05:00rick: Courage was not established to reach out to ...rick: Courage was not established to reach out to heterosexuals. It was established to help Catholics struggling with SSA to actually live what the faith they claim to be members of actually teaches.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Bayly: I'm not sure what you think you are trying to accomplish with your insinuations about Terry Nelson's sexuality: A subject which you know absolutely nothing about. I'm disappointed that you would stoop so low.Cathy_of_Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795566831031491371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-29633998073222597932007-08-17T13:05:00.000-05:002007-08-17T13:05:00.000-05:00A link to the stats would be nice, if such a link ...A link to the stats would be nice, if such a link exists.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if there are vast differences in promiscuous behaviors among young adults who are hetero vs. those who aren't?<BR/><BR/>My guess is probably not (young/youth being the operative phrase), but I don't have the statistics, and I can't be bothered to look into them right now.<BR/><BR/>All the middle aged gay people I know, who are out and not selfhating, are in long term, monogamous partnerships. And I know quite a few. <BR/><BR/>If GLTBs are more prone to relationship jump (which, when compared with divorce rates, common law marriages, etc.) - I would expect to see a somewhat similar pattern of behavior among GLTBs as in the hetero popluation - even without the convention of marriage being available to them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-54907455915259611292007-08-16T21:48:00.000-05:002007-08-16T21:48:00.000-05:00Peggy, what are you talking about? Since when did...Peggy, what are you talking about? Since when did the CDC start surveying young gay men about their sex lives and what they’re looking for (or not looking for) in terms of a relationship?<BR/><BR/>Rick, I agree with your observation. It’s also confirmed in Thomas Stevenson’s book where one of the oldest witnesses interviewed says: “Being in relationship wasn’t as easy to do [back] then as it is now. People today are looking for a relationship. I see it with the young people. They pair off more and that’s a good thing.”<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-83365113543481172372007-08-16T21:27:00.000-05:002007-08-16T21:27:00.000-05:00"Most young men who are gay today are not looking ..."Most young men who are gay today are not looking for a "hedonistic gay culture." They're looking for life partner (spouse). They are not prone to one-night stands and sex clubs."<BR/><BR/>Rick,<BR/><BR/>Your statement doesn't jibe with CDC statistics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-40570665107698865962007-08-16T20:08:00.000-05:002007-08-16T20:08:00.000-05:00You are a nice man. Obviously we disagree on thes...You are a nice man. Obviously we disagree on these matters. Thanks for linking to my discussion on this subject.<BR/><BR/>My clarification about the priest not being gay comes from the fact I know him and know he is not gay - although some folks think that embracing a gay man is a gay act. (I know - kind of narrow, huh?) It also comes from the fact that many people like to label priests in the Courage ministry as gay, and often it is their peers who cast the suspicion. That's all.<BR/><BR/>The song "Come To Me" was first made by Patti Austin. I like it too.<BR/><BR/>Chastity and celibacy does not mean a person must live alone, without intimacy. Genital intimacy is prohibited of course. I know two men who have lived together for 30 years, 28 of those years lived in chastity. One is a devout Catholic, the other a nominal Christian. Early on in the reltionship, the Catholic man, who espoused much of what you covered in the post, felt he could no longer betray his conscience. he was prepared to leave the reltionship until his partner told him he would consent to live in continence. They stayed together.<BR/><BR/>Neither are promiscuous and both have said their love for one another became deeper, less threatened by outside influences, etc.. Naturally their gay friends thought they were nuts and they lost mny of them. They continue to live together quietly, with deep affection and loyalty towards one another. They cared for both of their ageing parents until they died, and said it was the most rewarding experiences of their lives.<BR/><BR/>I know that is an isolated experience, but people do this stuff. I have a straight, childless married couple who have lived similarly - which I imagine many people think is disordered as well. I don't however.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure there are similar stories of other gay couples, living together in fidelity, who are sexually active, while living quiet, well ordered, virtuous lives as well.<BR/><BR/>God bless you.<BR/><BR/>TerryTerry Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09819523933502820341noreply@blogger.com