You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: WRATH - Beyond the eye-for-an-eye principle

in Proof of Brain3 years ago

You need not to answer on this. I use this space as a reminder for me - maybe will write about it one day.

So what the men did, basically acting against their own teachings, is to avoid worldly, that is, sexual desires in the form of abstinence and celibacy. The logical consequence of this was the avoidance of the feminine and thus their demonisation as impure seductresses or ambitious heads of households (to support themselves and their brood). The intelligent teachings themselves state that "avoidance" is merely the other side of the coin and that any persona non grata will become more of a problem the more one tries to banish this persona. The banishment of sexuality and thus of fatherhood and motherhood led quite naturally to what today is probably psychologically called "repression" and "compensation of repression".

I consider the Christian Reformation, i.e. the abandonment of celibacy within the priesthood, to be correct, but here too I would not be dogmatic and now demonise celibacy by all means. They should remain personal decisions, not imposed or punishable ones.