Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Sex and Purity

It's called "love-making" not "a loss of purity."
Read an interesting article by a Christian woman, Rachel Held Evans.  The article is here, and questions whether or not Christians idolize virginity.

Short Answer: Yes, they do.

Long Answer: I understand that for Rachel Held Evans, being a woman, she would naturally write from a woman's perspective.  Well and fine.  And the "purity" that is enforced by implication or pledge on young women is a crass control that demeans and degrades the oceanic and beautiful force that is womanhood.  Such pledges do exactly what one of the writer's described as pinning her name and vagina to the corkboard.  In other words, it gave power of control over natural desires to a capricious ideology that, from its Sumero-Babylonian inception, has been viciously patriarchal and violent toward women.

The original 'sin', in my opinion, was sex.  And since that time of natural, idyllic knowing, the implacable father-figure of Judeo-Christianity has loomed like a grinning and twisted cosmic gynecologist over the lives and sexual impulses of women.  Its outrageous, sickening, and infuriating.

A woman is a beautiful creature.  That beauty is not diminished or damaged if she sleeps with, has sex with, fucks, or copulates with 1 man, 3 men, or 25 men.  Each consenting sexual act *is* an act of purity *because* the very nature of sexual contact is the co-mingling of complimentary energies: masculine and feminine (taken from my heterosexual perspective simply because I don't feel like going through the permutations of other sexual orientations).

And from the man's side of the spectrum, the implication that a man has spoiled, violated, or made a woman unclean by penetrating her is a massive insult that, were we in the kind of warrior culture that I really appreciate, would warrant the death of the one making such insulting declarations.  In other words, if I were to take a woman to my bed, experience her fully for the first time in her life, I would not be taking anything from her.  Instead, I would be giving my own complimentary sexual energy in an amazing moment of time.  And if anyone insulted me or my woman by saying she is now "impure," I would want to literally kill that person.

So when it comes the the Christian notion of "purity," what is actually being said is that women are whole and pure only until a man penetrates her.  At that point, she is less than pure, or "dirty."  More than that, the implication for the man is that, instead of bringing and offering his life-energy, his strength and power to penetrate her like he penetrates the world, he is bringing the woman filth, and thereby dirtying her.

Such a perspective on the natural co-creative capacity of human beings is nothing less than insulting, and the bronze-age, oppressive ideology that brought it about really ought to be killed as mercilessly and efficiently as possible.  Eat, drink, and be merry.  Have sex as freely as you feel comfortable with.  Fulfill your needs responsibly, lovingly, and unconditionally.  Enjoy the power of sexual energy, of sexual intercourse, of widespread flirtation because by doing anything less, you deny your humanity, your very core.  And *that* is, sadly, a loss of purity.  It's not the act of sex that makes people impure.  It is a misappropriation of human nature, sexual energy, and sexual communion that is a blight on men and women; denying natural human interaction is an "impurity," not the other way around, as religion would have people believe.

What are your thoughts?

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Dawkins Criticized by Higgs

Professor Emeritus, Richard Dawkins
Professor Peter Higgs
Apparently Professor Peter Higgs has described Richard Dawkins as concentrating "his attacks on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists" (Source). 

I've seen this accusation before regarding, well, really any atheist who fervently lays out his or her reasons for disbelief. It's not a new accusation, and it most likely won't go away in the forseeable future. The implication seems, to me, to be: by picking on fundamentalists, Dawkins et al. are purposefully taking aim on the weaker expressions of religious belief. That if the popular atheists and non-believers of today would go after theologians who have been rarified by more liberal indoctrination, the case against supernaturalism, on the whole, wouldn't be so easy to pick apart.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

I Disbelieve: Part 3

At 20 years old, I applied for and was accepted into a local bible college.  I was slated to begin studying at the beginning of September 1994 but due to some difficult life-circumstances, I had to delay my start-of-study date until January 1995.

In the meanwhile, I furnished myself with theology books by H.A. Ironside, cassette tapes by John Hagee, whatever fiction or theology I could find by C.S. Lewis, and any theology primer I could scrabble together from used book stores, the local library, and the church bookshelves.


Saturday, December 1, 2012

My Reason for the Season

A small departure from my "I Disbelieve" series (which, I assure you, is going to see part 3 soon).

During the Christmas season there's a lot of propaganda floating about the web, and cluttering the city streets.  People are trying to plug their tried and worn traditional values: Christmas should be about Jesus, Jesus is the reason for the season, Take the 'X' out of Christmas, Take back Christmas, blah-dee-blah-dee-blah...

We're not that far removed from our senses that we can't simply enjoy the holidays, are we?  I suppose I'm not supposed to use that word, either: holiday.  Doesn't matter that its Christian derivation equals 'holy day,' so the faith-heads can take it easy.  And for the pre-Christian in all of us, the use of 'holly' made for a smooth transition to 'holly day' or 'holiday' and everyone was happy.  Go light another yule log, or something.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

I Disbelieve: Part 2

Leaving aside the  issue of jargon, or as I quickly came to call it, "Christian-ese," I pressed on to bigger and better things.  It seemed to me that so much of the Christian life was to be experienced.  That was an obstacle to me that I decided I had to get past: much of my life up to that point was lived deflecting first-hand experience because, psychologically, it meant being vulnerable to disappointments and pains that I wasn't prepared to endure.

Surving a broken home, I was entirely unequipped to wrestle with the realities and responsibilities that came with what I perceived, at that time, as being a functioning family of believers sharing a common experience.  And most pointedly, opening myself up to the experience of a perfect relationship with a perfect Father was a completely alien concept to my mind: how could I even begin to appreciate such an experience when my biological father and I got along so poorly?

Saturday, November 3, 2012

I Disbelieve: Part 1

I became a Christian at the age of 18.  Life before that was a hodge-podge of classes in New Age ideas, transcendental meditation, dabbles into demonology, and a few brief but dull bursts into the Anglican church.

I recall being about 8 years old and asking my dad to take me to church.  He was obliging, even gave me my first bible and had me baptised.  But after teaching myself how to spell more compicated words by using the hymnal, I decided that, well, maybe church wasn't for me.  I was bored.  And at the ripe age of 8, I declined further attendence.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Where I Stand On Issues of Religious Belief

There is a slight ambiguity to the intention behind Saint Cynic.  On the one hand, I write in such a way as to support certain religious notions, while on the other, I reject a good number of religious ideas.  This has led to the occasional question about my personal point of view on the matter of religion.

Until now, I've hesitated to simply have it out.  There are a few solid reasons for that, but I won't get into them.  Suffice it to say that my social life was not secure enough to handle the backlash that would come from being honest on this matter.  That has recently changed, however, so I don't mind to step out and be clearer on this issue.