On Sexuality and Spirituallity...

[sirguessalot]

My intentions for this thread are more towards an impression

from a synthesis of my own ongoing studies and practices and observations

rather than any sort of dogmatic set of laws and rules

but not in the form of a long drawn out lecture

but rather, a small primer to evoke collaboration

and a way of stirring the embers of our souls

...cuz i prefer to draw out detail via interaction and interest

so...consider it an offering of bread in a temple, if you will

and a doodling in this here electric sand

feel free to join in or comment

:B)

i'll start with a problem i've come to understand

which is a common lack of a valid and useful distinction in contemporary doctrines

whether it is by ignorance or avoidance or something else

we too often seem to avoid talking about spiritual doctrines and practices in terms of sexuallity

as if they are somehow not related

or simply not valid

imo, this cannot be farther from the truth

and a huge misconception that is most likely another major underlying cause

(to go with my thread on "Looking Beyond a Monochromatic Faith")

for modern society's many struggles and fragmentations of the soul

:huh:

ok...to see if i can get a ball rolling...

one of the simplest way i've come to understand this valid and useful distinction of "spiritual sexuality"

is by looking at love itself as having masculine and feminine ways about them

the masculine aspect of love (eros), being that which thrusts, drives, climbs, reaches, struggles, tries, acts

the feminine aspect of love (agape), being that be that which surrenders, gives up, fails, falls, stops, ceases

eros ascends and reaches for heaven, perfection, purity and safety

agape drops and descends all the way to hell and suffering and darkness

and regardless of what specific word or label a preacher or minister or teacher might use to describe their idea of the perfect love

this simple distinction of action and non-action is typically the most obvious, in spite of the claims

and in a multitude of ways, too (as both eros and agape rise and fall in their own spectrum)

most blatant these days...is whenever a doctrine seems overly focused on getting stuff from God

which is also typically associated with obsession with father-figures and brotherhoods

and accomplishment, success, attainment, victory, winning, and saving people, yada yada yada

i think that the most spiritual damage is done in people's lives

when men (and women) pawn off this masculine erotic lovedrive as agape

regardless of whether the context is religion or science or something else

this, in fact, seems more like any classic notion of "anti-christ"

as in...the extreme archetypical one who seeks only heaven

and became more and more unbalanced and afraid of that flaming sword

and so his hell simply gets deeper and deeper and hotter and hotter the closer he gets to "God"

but, in a general sense...

we are naturally consciously interested in eros before we are interested in agape

but once we finally realize agape, and it becomes our habitual first step

the value of eros is redeemed, because free-will (agape) finally precedes action

when the enmity transforms into romance, once again

ok...

what i am wondering

are things like:

does anyone resonate with this?

and/or has something to contribute?

doctrinally, practically, experientially, whateva?

or...is anyone interested in hearing more about the idea?

perhaps, in another voice or style besides what ive used here?

doctrinally, practically, experientially, whateva?

or...does anyone think i should shut the heck up b4 i attract devil spirits and/or cause delusion?

or...?

Edited April 7, 2006 by sirguessalot

[year2027]

God first

Beloved Tood

God loves all of us

I more one am interested but I like to set back and watch for a while before I add anything

And its devil spirits come hell we can just throw them a ball to run after

while we learn and grow in spiritual sex truths that are out there

so I will be watching

with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy

[allan w.]

I would say Sir Guess that you are probably right as far as describing the differentiating charecteristics of the 'love bug', however , you have left out one of the important definitives of your adjectiveness and that is the 'final destination' or purpose of the spectrometer.

First I will ask a question..which of the two is more powerful ? Which one would 'win out' at the end of the day ?

I believe the masculine is purposed to eventually bring us to the (feminine)(if you like).

New heaven and earth definitely sounds 'agape'.

[sirguessalot]

haha...too funny, Roy. yes, indeed. let's throw em a ball to chase. what a useful image.

and very glad to see ya around.

hi Allan,

thanks for joining in

however , you have left out one of the important definitives of your adjectiveness and that is the 'final destination' or purpose of the spectrometer.

well...i'm not really exactly sure what you mean by all this.

but it sounds like you want to know what the purpose for the ideas on that other thread is

if so..i would say the purpose is the same ole usual thing

...for greater wisdom, discernment, knowledge, etc...

depending on the intention of whom you believe developed the tool, i suppose

although...as a tool, a large part of its purpose also comes from the purposes/intents of the tool user

in which case, i couldnt possibly answer the question

although...i bet there is a wide spectrum of purposes possible

First I will ask a question..which of the two is more powerful?

Which one would 'win out' at the end of the day?

that's like asking "which is more powerful, air or a sword?"

does air care if a sword slices it in half?

does the sword care if the air parts easily?

i would say that if both loves are in play

both win at the end of the day

but if only one love is in play

both lose at the end of the day

although ultimately,

there is no end of the day that is not also the beginning of another

of course,

in eros, we may not always like that idea

because we will prefer some sort of clear-cut happy ending

but in agape, we cant help but love it...because we have no choice but to accept what is

and much like you said...the masculine is purposed to eventually bring us to the feminine

which is if/when the masculine lovedrive finally realizes the limitations of activity-alone

and so sits down, shuts up, and is no longer deathly afraid of the radical stillness and silence it finds

and is no longer afraid of losing...it also wins

and if so...again, much like you said...heaven and earth will never be same

Edited April 8, 2006 by sirguessalot

[markomalley]

Todd,

You may get some tremendous insight from this document. It discusses in great detail the relationship between eros and agape.

[sirguessalot]

thanks for that link, Mark

in spite of it having the typical wordiness that comes with varying degrees of exclusivities and orthodoxies and whatnot..i can read past that

...and still reading, but here is a snippet that reads well alongside this thread

In philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions have often been radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them: descending, oblative love—agape—would be typically Christian, while on the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love —eros—would be typical of non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture. Were this antithesis to be taken to extremes, the essence of Christianity would be detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life. Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34).

Edited April 8, 2006 by sirguessalot

[sirguessalot]

...thinking more about that last line in that quote from the catholic article:

"On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. "

the way it is written, this line actually doesn't go with what ive written on this thread

or with what ive come to understand about the ascending and descending currents of love

to give (in the usual sense) is an act, which is more along the lines of being in eros.

to receive is a non-active surrendering, which is more along the lines of being in agape

even agape, as a verb, is a useful paradox...to actively rest in some degree of nonactivity

which has a lot to do with observation and feeling as forms of reception

of course, one could also say that being in a state of surrender...one is also automatically giving

....simply by not withholding and being an open space in which all things flow through freely

(but i dont think this is exactly what the author of that article meant by "give")

i dunno, i guess its a matter of semantics,

and i know there is that ongoing dispute over the official origins and meanings of agape,

which is no surprise, considering the often conflicting and contradictory ways it is used in and out of the Bible and other literature and cultural histories

Edited April 8, 2006 by sirguessalot

[allan w.]

When I asked "which one is more powerful, which one would win at the end of the day" I was thinking more along the lines of which one would a man or woman be prepared to die for, to cross thousands of miles of ocean for. To dedicate their life to a pursuant of one thereof, therefore ?

[sirguessalot]

When I asked "which one is more powerful, which one would win at the end of the day" I was thinking more along the lines of which one would a man or woman be prepared to die for, to cross thousands of miles of ocean for. To dedicate their life to a pursuant of one thereof, therefore ?

hm

i suppose the most direct way to answer that would be to ask that man or woman, allan

[TheInvisibleDan]

When I asked "which one is more powerful, which one would win at the end of the day" I was thinking more along the lines of which one would a man or woman be prepared to die for, to cross thousands of miles of ocean for. To dedicate their life to a pursuant of one thereof, therefore ?

To become as One - as man and woman was one in the Garden, before their spirit/soul (?)

became divided.

And now conciliated through Isu into one new person, "neither male nor female" (interestingly enough),

but "as angels in heaven", who neither marry or are given in marriage. It is they who are "accounted worthy" of the Kingdom of Heaven, in inherit that Eon to come.

Once again, the place and role of eunuchs in ancient Christianity (the Aramaic word "eunuch" and "faithful" are even the same) -comes to mind.

Danny

[markomalley]

thanks for that link, Mark

in spite of it having the typical wordiness that comes with varying degrees of exclusivities and orthodoxies and whatnot..i can read past that

...and still reading, but here is a snippet that reads well alongside this thread

I think the relationship explained between eros and agape within the document is fascinating and very revealing. In paragraph 7, this relationship between eros, being a 'giving' love, and agape, being a 'receiving' love, explains a lot. And that one without the other is not complete for the person.

Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34).

Edited April 9, 2006 by markomalley

[markomalley]

To become as One - as man and woman was one in the Garden, before their spirit/soul (?)

became divided.

And now conciliated through Isu into one new person, "neither male nor female" (interestingly enough),

but "as angels in heaven", who neither marry or are given in marriage. It is they who are "accounted worthy" of the Kingdom of Heaven, in inherit that Eon to come.

Once again, the place and role of eunuchs in ancient Christianity (the Aramaic word "eunuch" and "faithful" are even the same) -comes to mind.

Danny

One thing I'd keep in mind, Danny, is that much of what is set up here in this physical plane of existence is a figure, a shadow of what is to come for God's people.

We can see that the marriage relationship is but a shadow of our relationship to God. Have you pondered the relationship in light of St. Paul's exposition in Eph 5:21ff, particularly in light of Rev 19? And then meld in the Song of Songs. The deuterocanoncial book "Wisdom of Solomon" is also tremendously rich in this regard.

Looking at this in the light of sexuality, the intense physical pleasure received from sex is the "reward" feeling from the total 'giving' of one's self to his partner. The result of the complete physical and spiritual union between the two.

There is an inseparable connection between the physical and the spiritual in this light.

Actions taken to manifest this physical 'reward' feeling without the corresponding spiritual connection become a dangerous counterfeit. Rather than a "giving," it becomes a "taking."

That is the reason why adultery is considered such a grievous sin in scripture. Seeking after 'taking' rather than 'giving' -- I am not getting what I want, so I'll go elsewhere to get it.

(And, believe it or not, this is not OFF TOPIC, that is why I am so opposed to the Word-Faith theology, including that which is taught by twi...)

[Xena]

So ... it's impossible to give love, and keep on giving love, without receiving love back? I thought Agape was unconditional.

Or is it just the Eros kind of love that's gotta get something back?

[sirguessalot]

a tad wee hour ramble...

to be in agape, in some domain

is to be receptive to whatever is happening in the domain

to be in agape is to be in a state of reception

agape IS that state of reception

perhaps it could be said that all eros happens within that ultimate radical field of agape

the state of agape that exists prior to, during, and after all levels of eros

and just as we can be in eros in a spectrum of ways

we can be in agape in a spectrum of ways

and we can cycle through levels of activity and rest

in all our many ways of our being

and this feminine agape i speak of is not to be confused with stopping

or putting on the breaks...which is simply another form of eros,

but a simple falling into what is

like the rain falls into the world

to whatever depth and degree that we are in a state of unconditional love and acceptance for all things

one could say that we are in agape

Edited April 10, 2006 by sirguessalot

[Xena]

Beautiful.

So ... can Agape ever be inappropriate? Can it be applied wrongly? Can we be fooled into thinking we are doing/living/dreaming/believing/acting out Agape, because it's the right thing to do, when it's not ... or when we're not?

And - is Eros smaller than Agape? Does it have to be? X

[sirguessalot]

can Agape ever be inappropriate? Can it be applied wrongly? Can we be fooled into thinking we are doing/living/dreaming/believing/acting out Agape, because it's the right thing to do, when it's not ... or when we're not?

And - is Eros smaller than Agape? Does it have to be?

dang, x...i'm not very sure how to respond to those interesting questions

i would say that being in agape can never be inappropriate, or applied wrongly

and yes, i think we can be (and typically are) fooled into thinking agape is something we do, dream, believe, or otherwise act out

it is the most radically neutral state of being there is

and is already always presently possible

perhaps, the only thing that can "go wrong" with agape

is being in eros without a sense of it

and in one sense, being infinite, agape is larger than all the finite motions of eros put together

to the point of being immeasureable

and for the strictly masculine mind...

the vast freedom from being in agape can even seem as terrifying as the devil himself

like fish in a vast ocean of agape

we typically don't realize how wet we already always are

In paragraph 7, this relationship between eros, being a 'giving' love, and agape, being a 'receiving' love, explains a lot.

hm...the way it seems to read, paragraph 7 has them described opposite of the way you just credited it for explaining a lot, Mark.

[sirguessalot]

reminds me of that old story of the man who was seeking God

but it wasnt until he exhausted himself with all his activity and journeys

that he finally sat down and shut up and found that he had already been in agape all along

reminds me of that great contemplative prayer:

be still and know that I am God

be still and know that I am

be still and know

be still

be

eros seeks agape, in all its many ways

but agape just is, in all its many ways

[Xena]

And your old man story is what I have seen so many times with women in labor. They take the childbirth classes and read the books and watch the birth videos (all good preparation), and then they attempt to implement these techniques when the pangs of birthing begin. And they work so so so hard, and do the very best they can. Women are noble in childbirth. But it is only when they get to the point where the animal-noises come and the outloud prayers and the inevitable words, "I can't do this anymore" --- THAT'S WHEN they give up control and we see a new life. Baby poop and all !!!!!!!!

[George Aar]

Xena,

Sounds like your experiences with childbirth were a tad different than those in the Aar household.

I remember taking all those classes and trying to assist wifey when she was in labor.

I saw her having a difficult time so I put my vast "learning" into action. "Do you want to change your breathing pattern, honey?" NO! "Oh, how about an ice chip?" SHUT UP YOU A-HOLE!"

"Yes dear" - and I went back to sleep...

[sirguessalot]

for anyone interested,

heerz a small composition of thoughts on all this

by way of a simple playful model of what i think the spectrum of eros might look like from the top

and in a very general sense

notice how the higher the eros, the greater the span of desire

- clear eros - seeks union with/via agape and awareness itself, and seeks it in terms of universal cause

- purple eros - seeks union with/via visionary and creative logic, and seeks it in terms of greater possibility

- blue eros - seeks union with/via merging of all knowledge, and seeks it in terms of all modes of learning

- green eros - seeks union with/via compassion, and seeks it in terms of all living things

- yellow eros - seeks union with/via reason, and seeks it in terms of the tried, proven and tested

- orange eros - seeks union with/via sex, and seeks it in terms of family, group and friends

- red eros - seeks union with/via food, and seeks it in terms of self and sustenance and health

- brown eros - general unconscious evolutionary impulse to seek, to leap, to spark, to manifest

to be in agape on each of these levels

is to inconditionally accept whatever state or degree of success each of these levels may be in

agape is to feel, see, taste, touch, listen, and otherwise sense and know the nature of that level of eros

and to simply witness whatever eros is doing...without flinching, without RE-action to shadows and taboos

agape is a radical judging...one that is without a sense of condemnation for failures and weaknesses

we really only have free-will on each level

to the depth and degree we can act from a free place of agape on that level

to put it in the great triune terms:

1) the initial erotic ascension would be the father-like, the causer, and the initiator of all levels of desire..to the highest

2) the grace that surrounds and expands to hold it all...is the mother-like of all...the comforter...the receiver

3) the result of this union is the "son of adam," which is a new kind of eros that is free to act from a place of being in agape

to be "wise as serpents" is the process of ascending this entire scale from the bottommost

and to be "harmless as doves" is to descend this entire scale from the uppermost down through each and every level

in this sense, perhaps "our Father which is in heaven"

is that highest kind of desire...which is the desire for agape

Edited April 13, 2006 by sirguessalot

[CM]

kind of a love to love thing...

eros a progreessive being

agape a progressive being

one pushes and the other too

sort of pushing each other along

which one is God?

both...lol....

just cause it may not be seen

that's the way it is

thanks for that and Life

which i could never repay

nor did you require it

don't know really what color i'm in

haha....just enjoying the ride i think

[sirguessalot]

here i am

in the wee hours

sitting with that thread..."what does it take to change your mind?"

and i cant help but notice how that title just sits there like a white hot jewel of holy wisdom

...sizzling little candle in the dark

"what does it take to change your mind?"

sits there like a toy koan, a divine riddle, "duh moment" divine

like forgotten mommas milk for the bones of our soul

simply holy for having that subtlest shift backwards in punctuation

its the punctuation that makes it a sacred thing

not the actual words

which makes any good question into a sacred question

and a perfect example of how eros starts at red and learns to climb the spectrum

and how our "original masculine duty" is never to forget how to keep lifting this "baby serpent" higher

lest it become a "big old bad red dragon"...and the cause of most angry and violent suffering and death

simply by asking higher and higher questions

we lift ourselves with higher and higher eros

so...

i hope you dont mind if i bleed on the pages a bit

with this little rant...

its amazing how deep the first level of eros goes

lets see if i can compare the biblical myth to this map a bit more

i would even go as far as to use language from the Corinth letter can call it "the first manifestation"

..."word of wisdom," simply for being a question rather than an answer

in other words...wise words

which, if you think about it

is quite an ordinary everyday thing

which is what makes it divine

tho there sure can be hell to pay when we forget this one

it is perhaps the first and oldest lesson there ever was in any one's life

the one ephesus should never forget

which is to never stop asking better and braver questions

which is like a star saying to tongue of fire..."never forget to love as light loves and always be ready and willing to leap off into the darkness"

child's play, really

not even that..but baby play

not speech, but crying

the second manifestation comes through wisdom

which is why its called word of knowledge, i suppose

...it comes to the depth and degree we have actually leapt and landed

we somehow asked a thing until we found AN answer

though we may not have the true interpretation

...that comes last

and so wisdom continues to unfold from there

as does knowledge

and so on, and so on

faith manifests THROUGH this tree...this body...of wisdom and knowledge

..which is confidence, and science, what has been proven in a peer-to-peer environments

to the depth and degree that we have shared our questions and answers

greater healing, obviously, follows good science...good faith...good wisdom...

better ways to be born

better ways to live

better ways to die

then greater miracles come THROUGH that

then greater predictions

greater maps

greater languages

greater music and art and holier writ

these things simply come through each other

and agape is what experiences each of them

at each level

agape is the texture of our subjective self

i think this kinda thing also serves as a good example of how underestimated that first lesson is

because all along, being the firstborn spirit of each of us

that first lesson is always the oldest brother

blood red king

oldest eros

our deepest grandest canyons

when our highest levels of eros are still just scratches in the dirt

picture this

like a rose budding

each level of eros opens up within each other

the quality of our "red" is always our own personal base

the original scar

the shape of our original mortal wound

question is...is this little lamb covered in his own blood?

or the blood of another?

and by blood, i mean...who has suffered for our own unanswered questions?

more later...

[TheInvisibleDan]

Sir Guess,

Very cool thoughts on the progressive 'nature' (for lack of a better word at the moment)

of the "manifestations".

You have such a gift for words.

Danny

[sirguessalot]

to help shift perspectives a bit

and help keep from leading into more monochromatic holes

i want to play out an example

and how there a useful range of ways we can see the spectrum of things

1) each human being has a variety of aspects...morals, perspectives, agility, social skills, self-awareness, etc...and EACH of these lines unfold along a spectrum, giving each of us many different "branches" of various lengths. And depending on the model you find/use...some have named over 10 different aspects.

2) each of us also has an overall depth and span and weight in the universe...which would not be a single color or anything like that, but what dominant traits comes out of the composition of the whole picture of all our aspects. We become works of art with many striking features and contrasts...and no one on earth could possibly be monochrome, though we may see ourselves and others that way. and some may actually get close.

3) every circle of people is a also combination of its many "works of art"...but now we are talking about flowers in fields, and observing patterns in the greater complexities

4) there are ever greater circles of circles...which gives us super patterns and in super complexities...oh my

5) and keeping in mind, how in each of these distinctions...the seasons and tides come and go...and each aspect is also engaged in a play of eros and agape...

its no wonder the wisest men found some kind of new kind of peace in calling "the truth" a mystery that never sleeps...we will never know all the laws of God

don't know really what color i'm in

haha....just enjoying the ride i think

amen, brother clay

Very cool thoughts on the progressive 'nature' (for lack of a better word at the moment)

of the "manifestations".

You have such a gift for words.

thanks Danny

reminds me of something

how there is nature, Nature, and NATURE

...depending on how we use it