tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post9129337257033692669..comments2023-10-05T06:20:40.173-04:00Comments on Quaker Pagan Reflections: Cat's Spiritual Journey, Part VI: A Letter and a KissCat C-B (and/or Peter B)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10002916434676859262noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-20812920115677459672007-09-05T16:05:00.000-04:002007-09-05T16:05:00.000-04:00Regarding the issue of life-force and spirit.The E...Regarding the issue of life-force and spirit.<BR/><BR/>The Eastern Orthodox Christians make a distinction between God's essence and God's energies. It seems to me (as a panentheist) that what Marshall refers to as "blind life-force" is what the Orthodox call God's energies - surely these are as much part of God as the essence? In Islam, they say that God is "closer to me than my jugular vein" - surely, then, God is in Nature too? (Though in Judaism, the Shekhinah appears to be in nature.) And I think, in discerning the difference between one set of symbols for describing the ineffable and another, it's a case of "by their fruits ye shall know them". Does it affirm life & love & ethical behaviour? If so, good. If it doesn't, think again. It seems to me that everyone in this discussion is trying their darndest to be ethical and to affirm life and love, so if we see it differently, that is intersting and educational, but not harmful.<BR/><BR/>A couple of interesting articles:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/christianity-in-a-one-storey-universe/" REL="nofollow">The One-Storey Universe</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://incommunion.org/articles/previous-issues/older-issues/through-creation-to-the-creator" REL="nofollow">Through Creation to the Creator</A>Yewtreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02028699564003381058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-33931441273167035162007-07-21T17:24:00.000-04:002007-07-21T17:24:00.000-04:00Blogger seems to have eaten my last comment so I'l...Blogger seems to have eaten my last comment so I'll restate and be brief.<BR/><BR/>Cat, you are too kind. Experience and meditation are more important than philosophy. You remind me to get back to work. <BR/><BR/>Marshall. I'm a bozo,or at least a Greek bozo. Pneuma is not Pythagorean. Means breath in Greek. Aer is Pythagorean. I could make an argument that pneuma and ίδέα, Idea or ίερόν, Hieron "a divine thing" are analogous, but I'm just going to stop now. <BR/><BR/>(and get back to work)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-42114911334814203782007-07-21T14:42:00.000-04:002007-07-21T14:42:00.000-04:00Hi,I'm going to stand clear of the discussions of ...Hi,<BR/>I'm going to stand clear of the discussions of pneuma and ruakh and all the rest--I'm not much of a philosopher, myself, so, though I'm happy to see conversation on such topics, I'm going to sit over here on the sidelines and just listen in...<BR/><BR/>Marshall, if it is not obvious, I in no way feel judged by you. I'm quite aware that you are writing your responses, as I am trying to write my comments and the original posts, from your heart, striving to hear and speak in clearness. You are simply sharing with me your understandings--how could I ask for more? <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I'm not sure our understandings are quite as far apart as they may seem at first blush--some of what I rendered in my comments earlier with irony and humor (attempted, at least) I think I may have articulated unclearly, particularly in the area of what I mean be being "dumb and obnoxious," and not regretting "causing harm." But I think we're probably pushing the limits of clear communication through words alone--face to face discussion, where words can be weighed together in the Spirit might be needed to sort out the areas of clear disagreement from the areas of miscommunication. And, I suspect that if I ever had the chance to meet you and talk with you face to face, I'd have a thousand more important and immediate things to talk about, starting with, "Wow! You're Marshall Massey! How great to actually meet you!" (David, Erik, as two of my most regular and thoughtful readers/commenters, I believe I'd have the same feeling about meeting either of you two.)<BR/><BR/>As for there being delays in anyone's responses, I'm honored by every person who does respond here, briefly or at length...I know everyone's life is busy, and anyone who takes the time to read my words, let alone respond, is giving me a free and lovely gift! I take it that way.<BR/><BR/>I don't mind my tale being reflected upon critically. Well, obviously, since I'm doing so myself! I think I'm holding it out for public view because it's the best way I know to make spiritual matters concrete and real--and not notional! (One of Paganism's great failings is that we can become very, very notional at times, and lose our way in a maze of intellect.) This happens to be the only story I both know is true, and hold the "patent" on, so I can share it as freely as I wish. And if I tell the truth well enough, more people than I may be able to figure out a thing or two about how spirit (in whatever forms) affects our lives.<BR/><BR/>I suppose someone could approach my tale uncharitably. It's been done, on occasion. But there's a real difference between that and the discussion you have held out to me here, Marshall... and, David, thank you very much for engaging with these ideas. You are so much more articulate than I in many of these areas (how very Druidic of you, friend!)and, though I may not agree with your every word, I'm enjoying holding your ideas up for reflection, too.<BR/><BR/>Blessings, y'all... *big smile*Cat C-B (and/or Peter B)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10002916434676859262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-73702865575210645302007-07-21T13:31:00.000-04:002007-07-21T13:31:00.000-04:00Word derivations are tricky, but I won't argue aga...Word derivations are tricky, but I won't argue against your interpretation of the orthodox Christian interpretation of pneuma. The word had a life before the New Testament, however, especially in the Pythagorean system where there was an element pneuma and a fifth class,which seems to mean alternatively idea and "divine thing." The earth religions family containing wicca and druidry recognize this fifth element, the center, as spirit. So, perhaps every 2000 years there's a reinterpretation:-)<BR/><BR/>As a question, if the life force is "blind vitality" what do you do when it talks back? Perhaps a strictly orthodox Christian would say either a) it is delusional and self-generated or b) it is not from God so it is either erroneous or evil. And, any honest pagan would tell you that either is possible and must be tested and struggled with. Or as someone once said "Just because your ancesters are dead doesn't mean that they know anything."<BR/><BR/>So, I'm going to make one more stab at finding commonality and ask this question. Does it make any sense, to practice a religion that does not provide spiritual feedback - that does not place you in the presence of Spirit, however you conceive of the presence of Spirit? Most pagans left their home religions over spiritual emptiness and the negatives of much of organized Christianity. (http://www.sacredtribes.com/issue2/STJ-finals/Factors%20of%20Paganism_Cooper.pdf) But I see neither of that in your Quakerism.<BR/><BR/>DavidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-43451730742811173532007-07-21T06:34:00.000-04:002007-07-21T06:34:00.000-04:00Hello, Cat and David M.This is a very busy time of...Hello, Cat and David M.<BR/><BR/>This is a very busy time of the year for me -- three yearly meetings in less than two months, and the final one of them, the one coming up next week, a yearly meeting at which I am scheduled to do a major presentation. So if I seem slow to respond to your words, it's because I am up to my ears in pressing commitments. I hope you understand.<BR/><BR/>Cat, you wrote, "<I>One of the places where I draw an absolute blank, in the sense of words holding no meaning for my tiny little mind as I read them on the page, is in the whole concept of sexual desire as harmful or undesirable in itself.</I>" Let me respond. I do think that for puritan Christians, whether they are Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox (puritanism has historically existed in all three branches), sexual desire is indeed harmful or undesirable in itself. But puritanism has never been the only form of Christianity. It has never even been the dominant strain. It is <I>a</I> strain, and nothing more. There have always been plenty of other, non-puritan Christians able to say that God pronounced the whole world good, just as He created it (Genesis 1:10,18,21,25,31), and sexual desire was quite obviously part of what He created, since part of His blessing on both animals and people was that they "multiply and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:22,28).<BR/><BR/>Historically speaking, for spiritual Christians, the big problem with sexual desire has not been that it is "harmful or undesirable in itself", but that when it is aroused it becomes very hard for the person under its influence to hear or obey God's urgings to do what is right. Desire is not the only thing that can make it hard to hear God's urgings, either -- all the passions can do that, which is precisely why what is traditionally condemned, in Christian spirituality, is not desire alone, but passions generally. (You say much the same, I think, when you condemn "angry and spiteful impulses", "addictive behaviors", etc. For all these would be categorized as passions in Christian thinking.) The flesh is problematic because the flesh is where such passions arise and are experienced.<BR/><BR/>So this does not mean that desire is evil, or that the flesh is evil. It means that they all too often generate distractions that make it hard to hear and obey God.<BR/><BR/>You go on to say, "<I>...I have trouble with the whole concept of 'sin,' which I can really only understand through the insight I had some years ago that (earthy language alert) we are all, indeed, ordinary human assholes; we do the dumbest and sometimes most obnoxious things from time to time....</I>" There are several Hebrew words in the Bible that are translated "sin", and what they mostly have in common is an idea of straying from the right path, crossing over a boundary between what God intended and what is out of place. So these meanings too are tied to an essential concern for discerning and following God's will, rather than to a concern about not doing dumb and obnoxious things. (You yourself repeat this understanding, Cat, I think, when you write, "<I>...I'm saying, I think, that sin is turning away from the Voice of that Inward Light....</I>")<BR/><BR/>So it's maybe worth noting that the Hebrew prophets and the Christian apostles did dumb and obnoxious things from time to time <I>in obedience to God's will</I>, and those dumb and obnoxious things bore healthy fruits. And it's also maybe worth noting that the Jews and the early Christians -- like spiritual people everywhere -- had little respect for human wisdom, no matter how skillful or gracious, when such wisdom stands on its own two feet, apart from a submission to God's will. "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" said First Isaiah (Isaiah 5:21). And the author of the book of Job put this observation into the mouths of one of his characters: "He (God) frustrates the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot carry out their plans. He catches the wise in their own craftiness...." (Job 5:12-13)<BR/><BR/>I must decline to guess what the sin in your divorce was, or even to decide whether there was a sin or not. That is a matter between you and the people you were entangled with in making that choice, and also between you and God. It is none of my business unless you choose to make it such. What I wrote in my previous comment was not an attempt to assign blame or sin, but only an attempt to share something of my own thoughts about what Christ was teaching and about how all such situations as the one you went through might perhaps be viewed in the light of his teachings.<BR/><BR/>Let me say, though, that when you write, "<I>I see that I have done harmful things, and yet, I cannot regret any of them,</I>", you and I part ways. I deeply regret all the harm I have ever done, and I answer to my God for the harm I have done to others, every day of my life.<BR/><BR/>David M., the only thing I will say here is that you, and the group you refer to as "probably the majority of pagans", may not necessarily mean the same thing by "Spirit" that the Hebrews and Jews of the Bible, and Christ and the apostles, and the early Friends, meant when they used the term. Biblical usage, like classical Mediterranean usage generally (including classical pagan usage), made a clear distinction between Spirit and the life-force that flows through living beings; Spirit was (in Hebrew) <I>ruakh</I> or (in Greek) <I>pneuma</I>, while the life-force was (in Hebrew) <I>khay</I> or (in Greek) <I>zoë</I>. In Biblical thinking, the life-force infuses every blade of grass, as you say the Spirit does. But the life-force is only a blind vitality, far simpler than the grass itself, let alone the Person, the Spirit, that breathes that life-force forth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-62855983051426014172007-07-19T17:57:00.000-04:002007-07-19T17:57:00.000-04:00Alas! I shall simply say, then, that I imagine tha...Alas! I shall simply say, then, that I imagine that your Lindy and my Lindy, kind, generous, loving ladies both, are the same wonderful woman I know.Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00469586369675197872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-26415605898746701132007-07-18T21:19:00.000-04:002007-07-18T21:19:00.000-04:00Some clarifications for Marshall about my own post...Some clarifications for Marshall about my own post and maybe a bit more.<BR/><BR/>I didn't say what the object of desire was. Perhaps, since I was writing to Cat, I took some shorthands that deserve more explanation. <BR/><BR/>Probably the majority of pagans see Spirit (or Goddess or God, but I'm going to use Spirit here) as infusing creation. Spirit in every blade of grass. One druidic approach is to open up to relationship with Spirit in Creation -to recognize and honor and respect our spiritual interdependence. There is a deep desire within each of us to live again in this spiritual awareness. If I were Christian, I would describe it as a return to the Garden. (For Cat - If you decide to try again, the opening chapters of Bobcat's Living Druidry describe opening each of the senses to Spirit.) <BR/><BR/>So there is the desire to reconnect spiritually with creation and the method is our senses, whether outwardly or inwardly because Spirit is outside of us and also within each of us.<BR/><BR/>Connection with Spirit is a gift. Our gift of honor and respect is sometimes returned with the gift of Spiritual presence and with insight. And those insights may change us. And these gifts may also make demands on us that we have free will to follow or ignore. Not every Spirit is true or as Cat says, we are responsible for the Gods we worship.<BR/><BR/>This is how I mean the words sensuality, desire and gift. <BR/><BR/>davidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-69290316344166136232007-07-18T12:04:00.000-04:002007-07-18T12:04:00.000-04:00Ah, Marshall, I am so pleased that you have posted...Ah, Marshall, I am so pleased that you have posted your comment here. If I were simply Pagan and not Quaker, then reexamining my story through your eyes--the eyes of a kind, compassionate, and Christian Quaker--would not be relevant to me. But I <I>am</I> a Quaker, and the corporate discernment process is one of the reasons why. So, despite our different ways of understanding the world of Spirit, I see your understandings as very relevant.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to make an aside at this point, to any Pagans reading this comment and Marshall's, to avoid the temptation to leap to my defense or that of Paganism here. Marshall is not attacking me, and his Christian perspective is invited here. (I know, we're all used to anti-Pagan blog spam that cites Jesus and the Bible. But just because the man talks about Christianity, doesn't mean he's intolerant or attacking anyone--go read his other comments here if you doubt this!) So, if you choose to respond to his ideas, please let it be to the ideas, my friends. And let's keep it in a spirit of open-minded and thoughtful dialog, OK? Plenty of Light--but no call for heat. :)<BR/><BR/>Right. <BR/><BR/>Here I was, thinking I'd hear from you on the Wiccan practice of drawing down the moon... but you have instead responded to the (in some ways) far more delicate and important question on the place of desire and fidelity within Pagan life.<BR/><BR/>Paganism, and particularly Wicca, take as a central myth the relationship between a Goddess and a God, who between Them generate the world and all life. An oversimplification, of course, that leaves the impression that we're truly duotheists, which I don't believe we are. But it's definitely an important element in how Pagans see the world: a central mythological event is creation through sexual desire. Thus, sexuality becomes a central metaphor underlying much of Pagan thought and ritual.<BR/><BR/>Christian myth, on the other hand, removes sexuality from the process of creation, and takes for its central metaphor the relationship between a Father and his Son (and by extension, his other, younger children as well).<BR/><BR/>I see both myths as valid--in the sense of tying into powerful human instincts, in ways that help us have a way of understanding, in terms that mean something to us, the love that fills the universe. I doubt very much that either is a very adequate way of describing God's reality from God's point of view... but that's one point of view I can't take in, anyway. <BR/><BR/>You write, "Traditional Quakerism... handles desire in the same way as first-century Christianity: it says, desire is good if-and-only-if it is in step with what God wants... ...[E]arly Friends struggled to rein in their desires, to keep those desires from becoming unhealthy and hurtful, while at the same time rejoicing in the gift of their love for one another." This is my impression of Friends' views on sexuality, too.<BR/><BR/>One of the places where I draw an absolute blank, in the sense of words holding no meaning for my tiny little mind as I read them on the page, is in the whole concept of sexual desire as harmful or undesirable in itself. It's one of the things that I come across over and over again reading the works of early Quakers. Time and time again, I'll be reading a passage that I absolutely get, on what it's like to listen to that inward Voice, and then I'll stub my toe mentally over a phrase about resisting lusts or fornication or the flesh. And I go..."huh???" <BR/><BR/>I will admit, I have trouble with the whole concept of "sin," which I can really only understand through the insight I had some years ago that (earthy language alert) we are all, indeed, ordinary human assholes; we do the dumbest and sometimes most obnoxious things from time to time, dammit. And, for the most part, all we can do about it is pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, say, "Oh, crap, I did it again," and go make right whatever we can. It's also a really good idea to remember, when another ordinary human asshole does something dumb and obnoxious to us, to remember the last time we were that kind of jerk, and that it comes with the territory, and to get over it already. I'll just add that my ability to do these things, in relation to being one of a group of ordinary human assholes has been greatly aided by two things: active and loving participation in flawed but beautiful human community (via Paganism) and experiences of divine love, both in communion with the Goddess and in Quaker meeting. I'm a little better able to overcome my innate asshole-ness through repeated spiritual practice that involves these things, which I take for a sign that I'm on the right track.<BR/><BR/>So, with that as my operating definition of "sin", let me scandalize my Pagan compeers by recognizing it as a concept that has at least some meaning for me.<BR/><BR/>But the emphasis on lust as sin, fornication as sin, the flesh as sin...that's just a big ol' question mark in my mind.<BR/><BR/>Nope, the sins I find myself slipping into in the course of my life tend to fall into one of four categories: <BR/>1. Giving in to angry and spiteful impulses.<BR/>2. Falling into addictive behaviors that take what could be pleasurable and positive, and ignore the limits that would keep it so (mainly, for me, that's around food, the Internet, and reading suspenseful books well past my bedtime).<BR/>3. Being too lazy to do what I know it really is my job to do, and letting something important go undone, or another person carry my share of the load (that would be Peter, alas...)<BR/>4. Saying snipey and gossipy things about other people (or telling parts of their story that are not mine to tell) either for comic or dramatic effect.<BR/><BR/>In the case of each of these, I have an early-alert system--a voice or a sensation that lets me know I'm doing wrong. And when I do wrong, I ignore that voice and carry on with my ordinary human asshole-ness anyway. (I don't capitalize Voice here, because sometimes I think it's ordinary conscience; sometimes it may be the Inner Light. But I'm not clear on which is which, probably because in those moments, I'm busy trying _not_ to hear that voice. <BR/><BR/>I notice that you did not, in your description of early Friends and traditional Friends understanding of sexual morality, condemn desire on its face. Nope--you spoke of early Friends working "to keep those desires from becoming unhealthy and hurtful, while at the same time rejoicing in the gift of their love for one another." It's not desire that's the problem here--it's unhealthy and hurtful desire--desire not "in harmony with God's will."<BR/><BR/>I'm taking that to mean something like what I've noticed about my addictive behavior--when I take what should be joyful and pleasurable, and ignore the Voice that counsels when to stop and when not to engage at all. It's not that it's about sexual desire... its that it's about desire that ignores the Inner Guide. And here I am using capital letters, because it becomes very important to distinguish between my own, merely humanly wise conscience, and the voice of the Inner Light of God.<BR/><BR/>My conscience will be wrong, sometimes. And, though we're used to thinking of that in terms of people who rationalize away the voice of conscience, that's not the danger I'm thinking of. I'm thinking, instead, of the adolescent, for instance, who is embarrassed by his developing sexuality (and aren't all adolescents so embarrassed?) who takes his discomfort with his desire as a sign that, say, his masturbation is sinful. Lots and lots of kids out there torturing themselves over that one. (And it's so much worse for the ones who are gay...) But I simply cannot believe that masturbation, per se, is sinful and evil and something that the Inner Guide counsels against. Nope--I suspect that the guilt that arises over that one comes from our muddled human consciences, and not from the Guide at all.<BR/><BR/>So I'm saying, I think, that sin is turning away from the Voice of that Inward Light; and that the issue is confused by how hard it can be, especially when we're inclined not to listen to that Voice, to distinguish between it and our own human consciences and instincts.<BR/><BR/>I think that, for me, the "sin" in my divorce was in refusing the self-awareness of my developing feelings for Peter. I think that I really was offered a choice (Seven of Cups, remember?) and I tried, at least for a while, to weasel out of knowing I was going to be making one, and one that would certainly hurt someone. (Peter would have been as harmed as I had we not married in the end.) But I wanted things to work themselves out without my needing to know uncomfortable things about myself--such as the fact that I'm capable of hurting people. The Light illuminated who I really am. I did try to turn away, at least for a time. And I think that that is a large part of what has always made me uncomfortable about that kiss in circle. Beyond the questions of possible abuse of trust, there's the question of what it implies about refusing to know what I felt. And acting on an unacknowledged desire...<BR/><BR/>*sigh* Now I'm frustrated, because words for what I'm trying to explore here are failing me. Perhaps a sign that I haven't quite got it yet. But I do think that refusing to see what was in me is the biggest part of my failing in the parts of the story I've shared here, and echoes in the parts I've not written down...<BR/><BR/>Something Herne said to Peter around this time seems very relevant to me. He told Peter he was going to have to "act, and face the consequences." And while I don't think that's a universally good idea, I do think it was what both he and I needed to understand at the time of our affair. It was True for us in that context. And refusing to know that, for as long as I did, was part of my failing.<BR/><BR/>As for my first marriage...would Friends discernment have kept me from marrying? Maybe. Were we spiritually immature? Oh, yes, definately. And yet, we were both 22, and smart, and clearly cared about one another a lot. I'm not sure most Friends meetings would have gotten much traction with us. Nor do I remember any of those promptings of the Inner Guide around the decision to marry (though I had some dreams that, in hindsight, might have told me something... but only in hindsight, and I did not have to tools to examine them at that time).<BR/><BR/>I cannot even call my first marriage a mistake. Not only did we both grow, and support one another in our growth for many years, but my daughter was born because of it. How can any mother ever consider her child to be a "mistake"?<BR/><BR/>So... it's an odd story, at least to my own ears. I see that I have done harmful things, and yet, I cannot regret any of them. I'm grateful for it all... skeptical that, had I been either Quaker or Pagan earlier in my life than I was, it would have made very much difference to my choices at the time, and even where it might have, incapable of wishing it had turned out differently.<BR/><BR/>*Laughing* As if I weren't long-winded enough! What a lengthy comment! Thank you, however, for being so indulgent and willing to turn this over in your hear alongside me. (Now, if only you could also counsel me on how to Get Right with Hera--I've always been nervous around Her since the time of my affair and divorce! But that will perhaps have to wait for a patient Hellenic Pagan to discern...)<BR/><BR/>Bright blessings, Friend.Cat C-B (and/or Peter B)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10002916434676859262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-24284070538382816502007-07-18T09:12:00.000-04:002007-07-18T09:12:00.000-04:00Dear Cat,Here it is the morning of July 18 — nearl...Dear Cat,<BR/><BR/>Here it is the morning of July 18 — nearly six days after you posted this essay — and all I can say is, I've been praying over it, and over your decision to share this story publicly, ever since it came out.<BR/><BR/>I believe David M. is right in saying that paganism is unusual in its handling of desire. (It's not unique in that regard, though; there are tantric traditions that operate similarly.)<BR/><BR/>Traditional Quakerism, on the other hand, handles desire in the same way as first-century Christianity: it says, desire is good if-and-only-if it is in step with what God wants. There are some very moving letters written by early Friends to their spouses, expressing how much they wanted their love for each other to remain in harmony with God's will. One can see in those letters how the early Friends struggled to rein in their desires, to keep those desires from becoming unhealthy and hurtful, while at the same time rejoicing in the gift of their love for one another.<BR/><BR/>The big question that this essay of yours, and the one that follows, tend to raise in my own mind, is whether your desire for Peter, and his for you, were in step with what God wanted. A traditional Protestant or Catholic would answer that question in a knee-jerk fashion: since it was extramarital, <I>of course</I> it was wrong. But I am not a traditional Protestant or Catholic, and for me the question is complicated by the thought that it may have been your first marriage that was the real departure from what God wanted. (You have indicated, in the essay that follows this one, that your first marriage was barren of any shared spirituality, and I am guessing it was not preceded by the sort of slow and careful discernment that early Friends would have required.) So I have to answer, I don't know the truth of this matter. I am not in a position to know!<BR/><BR/>For a traditional Friend (Quaker) such as myself, this matter has to be seen in the light of Christ's teaching that marriage is a once-and-forever proposition — that things like adultery and divorce are contrary to God's will. (Mark 10:2-12 / Matthew 19:3-9.) But I am simultaneously mindful of Christ's example in the case of the woman taken in adultery: he said to her, after rescuing her from her executioners: "I do not condemn you; go your way, and sin no more." (John 8:3-11)<BR/><BR/>Thus I read Christ's teaching on the permanence of marriage as representing an ideal that God intended for us all — an ideal of closeness and companionship, mutual support and loyalty, harmony and happiness, that Christ wanted us all to enjoy. But it's evident from the story of the woman taken in adultery that Christ didn't want our striving toward that ideal to be tainted by judgmentalism in the cases where one of us struggles and fails. His attitude (it seems to me) was, when one of us stumbles and falls, the rest of us should be there to help the stumbler find her way back to the path of goodness, the path where happiness lies. Our job is not to tear the stumbler down.<BR/><BR/>Paganism's handling of desire seems to me to be in error, because it fails to provide an adequate answer to the problem of harmful desires. But that is not to say that all pagans are willfully choosing to cultivate harmful desires! And your own story is, in that respect, a case in point.<BR/><BR/>As I read your story, it seems clear to me: (1) that your struggle for a right marriage was sincere; (2) that when you failed the first time around, it was due in large part to spiritual immaturity (a spiritual immaturity that expressed itself as a less-than-whole first marriage, and also as a lack of familiarity with the skills needed to handle strong temptation); (3) that the failure of your first marriage was partly due, too, to a lack of a good community support system that would have helped you marry right the first time, and helped you handle subsequent tests of the marriage; and (4) that now, after the first marriage fell to pieces and you've had to rebuild your life and learn from the pain, you do strive sincerely to do what's right.<BR/><BR/>I share your own grief over the fact that you had to go through an affair and a divorce to get to a happier ending; that is a very, very painful route to go by! And I see from what you say about your children, in the essay that follows this one, that the ending is still, even now, not without its painful edges. But I am very gladdened by the values you express as you tell the story now.<BR/><BR/>I am moved to say, I believe in you, Cat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-12562280806878092262007-07-17T19:16:00.000-04:002007-07-17T19:16:00.000-04:00I'm not sure what the deal is with Blogger and com...I'm not sure what the deal is with Blogger and comments--I've been having some weird issues myself, lately.<BR/><BR/>Liz--I'm glad to share whatever I can with you of how that connection to nature has been important as my spirituality has grown and changed over time. Glad you could stop by--your blog is terrific!<BR/><BR/>Honey, thank you so much for reading. The kiss has done so much more than haunt me! Nothing but good came out of that event... and yet, I do have concerns and reservations about that part of my Pagan practice, and one more way I'm happy to have become Quaker these last few years!<BR/><BR/>Kate, I have lost touch with the Lindy of this memoir, most unfortunately. I can't tell you about her life today.<BR/><BR/>And David, since Emma Restall Orr is, in many ways the Pagan writer I was most directly inspired by when I began this blog, you have won my undying friendship by comparing me to her! I love the way Orr writes from her center, about the direct experience of Druidry, and I heartily recommend her book, <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Spirits-Sacred-Grove-World-Priestess/dp/0722535961" REL="nofollow">Spirits of the Sacred Grove.</A> (To any Pagans in our studio audience looking to deepen your spiritual practice, I say, buy it! Read it!)<BR/><BR/>Thank you so much for your comments here.Cat C-B (and/or Peter B)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10002916434676859262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-5623948654527010302007-07-17T19:06:00.000-04:002007-07-17T19:06:00.000-04:00I'm posting this for David M., who writes:Hello Ca...I'm posting this for David M., who writes:<BR/><I>Hello Cat,<BR/>Blogger seems impeneterabe to me, so I'm writing you directly.<BR/> <BR/>First, this series takes enormous courage and honesty. I've only seen this in a pagan writer once before, but I'll get to that later on in this email.<BR/> <BR/>Your description of drawing down and the moral issues surrounding it seem to me to be part of a larger theme that pagan spiritual practioners (and probably others) deal with on a regular basis. Unlike a lot of religions, desire is firmly embedded in what we do. We open to the sensuality of our experiences both in this and the Other world. With no filter, we take what we receive- raw, beautiful and dangerous. So there are highs and screaming lows. I'm reminded of a documentary on the Summer of Love, where the whole discussion of bad trips came up. One of the folks said simply, that psychedelics tear down neat and orderly structures that we call our lives and then we build them up perhaps new and improved. But, she went on - if you're 14 you may not have the reasources to build yourself up again. That is the underlying risk we take, that we may not survive the gifts we're given.<BR/> <BR/>It seems spectacularly unlikely that you consciously abused your role. More likely, you were given a gift, but I'm only guessing and only you can really know. <BR/> <BR/>Which brings me to doubt. Circa 1999, I was in a real spiritual low. I felt what I was doing was inauthentic while simultaneously leading circles in a sort of non-denominational wiccan group. I stumbled on Emma Restall Orr's (Bobcat) Spirits of the Sacred Grove and was immediately taken by it. Two quotes within a page or two of each other. The first - a true encounter with a dark night of the soul.<BR/> <BR/>"Who am I calling to? Why am I still fooling myself that anyone is listening? How could I live so long with such an illusion, such a pathetic search for purpose when there is none, such a sad craving for friendship that I have to create invisible people? Isn't it time right now to admit the reality that all this is no more than the stench and bile vomited out of my twisted psyche, somehow made into art...?"<BR/> <BR/>And the second was -<BR/> <BR/>"Doubt is always there. Perhaps if it weren't, we would not be so very wide awake, nor so open in our senses, listening , watching. In Druidcraft, as we search for where we belong, in time and space, we respond to the songs and calls of every spirit around us, nurturing relationships, learning to hear and to truly communicate, knowing that ony by doing this will we find true responsibility."<BR/> <BR/>(which incidentally, sounds a lot like the way you talk about Meeting)<BR/> <BR/>This sealed the deal for me and I began a druid (OBOD) path. In my mind, I see you two as spiritual sisters. She too moved on from an HPS position and the issue was also about power, but with a different twist. Her book Living Druidry, may be the single most important book of neopagan philosophy written to date. And it is certainly one of the most soul searching and honest ones.<BR/> <BR/>peace and health,<BR/>david<BR/>/|\<BR/> </I>Cat C-B (and/or Peter B)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10002916434676859262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-12833812966781849442007-07-15T17:24:00.000-04:002007-07-15T17:24:00.000-04:00Lindy, up in New England, in the SCA. Is her SCA n...Lindy, up in New England, in the SCA. Is her SCA name Brid, by any chance? If so, I know her...Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00469586369675197872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-4342769872503800402007-07-15T16:53:00.000-04:002007-07-15T16:53:00.000-04:00wow, talk about baring your soul. Thank you, that ...wow, talk about baring your soul. Thank you, that kiss will haunt you but you have already grown from it. I love your writing.Honeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15662439151558495496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25987874.post-21623006623089510242007-07-15T03:15:00.000-04:002007-07-15T03:15:00.000-04:00Thanks for your explanation, I hope to have time t...Thanks for your explanation, I hope to have time to read your blog posts soon. <BR/><BR/>Ever since I was little I have always felt spiritually connected to nature (and still do) so I def. understand that aspect of it and am curious to find out more.Liz in the Misthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535396346855135995noreply@blogger.com