Anth: so what kind of information are you looking for, more specifically?
I will give it a try.
I am interested in the theory and practice of attaining unity with God through intimate connections. (Wouldn’t I write a romantic love letter: Dear Alice, the intimate evening we enjoyed last night has forced me to revise my prior theory of love, which I now realize was much to static. I look forward to further such encounters both for their intrinsic value (which is great) and for their utility in facilitating the revision).
But I am interested in more than the unity, but also the creative power of that unity. A magical ritual of the kind I had in mind, then, would likely produce some results, but, unlike some rituals, those results would be unprescribed (By analogy, an act of sex may produce life, but the personality of that life and all the details of that creation are largely unpredictable).
The Christian context is one in which the body is understood as sanctified through the enfleshment of God and God’s Wisdom, and thus, that which is bodily in an effort to find unity with God ought not be shunned (as Origen tried to do) in favor of a lofty, completely allegorized version of sex. Neither, of course, should the lofty be abandoned in favor of the material, for the sanctification of the body rests on God, not yet flesh, becoming flesh, that we might be as Christ.
For my mind, Britney Spears and Porn Star tee-shirts are going to represent the most basic and material of the world — precisely that most in need of sanctification and wholly inadequate in itself for a ritual of unity with God. But, of course, not recognizing these as holy parts of Creation would be tantamount to viewing them sinfully, disconnected from God, which is precisely the opposite direction I’m wanting to go. (So scorning Britney too strongly is as surely against my purposes as embracing her too fully)
Now, if anyone here has actual experience with coupling with a god, that would certainly be the kind of information I’m looking for. But I also appreciate the suggestions I’ve received so far. And I’d like ideas about the process, and other things I haven’t thought of yet.
That’s my effort to answer the question. I hope it helps but I don’t want to put heavy restraints on the discussion.
Grant: Explain the John 4 connection, please.
I see three wedding stories in the Fourth Gospel. The first is at Cana, in which Jesus transforms water into wine. The headwaiter complains that this is good wine, and we are supposed to serve the good wine at the beginning of the wedding. He thinks the wedding is over, but this is the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in John. The third wedding story is with Jesus on the cross, when the sour wine is served to him, and his side is pierced with a spear (a symbol of the consecration of the wedding). Out of his side flows a stream of water and blood. These two stories indicate that the entire time between them is meant to be read as a wedding between God and humanity. The second wedding story is the story of the Samaritan Woman at the well in chapter 4, the story that initiates Jesus’ “I am” claims. My paper argued that the exchange between Jesus and the woman at the well was one of a mutual exchange of the Divine Logos (and mutual transformation), but it included in this claim that one bit was Jesus suggesting that He (God) could fill the role of her husbands.
To paraphrase:
“Go get your husband”
“I have no husband”
“I know”
All of this, of course, requires an argument to see, but that’s how it’s connected to the thread. Jesus’ entire ministry was meant to be a wedding of sorts.
Illmatic: You might find the work of Jeffrey Kripal of interest.
Hmmm. The wikipedia entry doesn’t paint a very flattering portrait of this one. It sounds like his argument was so amazingly off that his critics doubted his integrity, and he made the claim that their doubting of his integrity was the same as making an ad hominem argument. Still, that doesn’t mean the work is of no value. |
