You are here

Amelia Bingham - Sapphic Arch-Traditionalism?

Enter Amelia Bingham is probably the most unusual book to appear this year. Written over a decade ago, but mired in publishing difficulties, it has finally appeared.

To call it a “lesbian book” is not really fair. It is nothing so vulgar. While it is set in an all-female sub-culture, explicit “sex” never rears its ugly head. The book is far too elegant for that and it is questionable whether it is even implicit except to the coarse post-Freudian mind

Despite what some would think a curious ambience, the book is utterly scathing about all the ills of the modern world. It is pro-femininity to a degree that is vitually unheard of even in conservative circles. Its scorn and disdain for the post-60s world is total. Unlike most “conservative” writing, it does not condemn liberalism in its own terms or speak the language of the mass-media. It speaks from outside it all; from a pinnacle of lofty contempt.

I have included a few sample quotations. Find out more about the book here:

http://www.lulu.com/content/140556

or browse inside it here:

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_1/140000/140556/2/preview/Ameliapreview…

Above anyone I had ever known, I regarded Amelia Bingham as truly great. If it be greatness to be born into a world that despises everything you stand for and stands for everything you despise; to refuse to give an inch, but to fight that world for the right to be yourself and to emerge gloriously triumphant — if that be greatness, then Amelia Bingham must be numbered among the truly great.

“you can hardly have been unaware of the financial difficulties in which my family found itself.”

“Estate duties, I believe,” said Amelia.

“Exactly. Those malicious taxes which are levied with no other purpose than to break and destroy the great houses of these islands. Robbery one can understand, Miss Bingham, and perhaps even forgive. It is after all, only the last extension of that greed and folly common to us all. But systematic extortion and vandalism, relentlessly pursued, with no motive other than venomous envy, or worse, and with no aim other than the destruction and despoliation of all that is noble and beautiful: what can one say of that?

As Amelia had said, a good lunch, good conversation and good wine soon washed away the distastefulness of that interview, and I felt quite ready to see my frock. I must say that those preparations were hardly necessary, for as soon as I did see it, everything else was swept from my mind. It was beautiful. In delicate shades of pink and blue, it looked like something from a fairy tale. The bodice fitted my form exactly (I was glad of the corset), and the skirt swelled out from my tightened waist with regal magnificence. It made me feel infinitely tall, yet infinitely delicate. I was filled at once with the most fragile femininity and the most imperious majesty, and felt that the two were one. I suppose there must be other things than crinolines which give one such a feeling, but certainly none of them exist in the modern world. It seemed to me strange that in an age which yearns so greedily for every possible sensation, the majority of women will never experience the sensation of wearing a crinoline.

But then again, perhaps the sensation would not exist for them. Over-stimulated by the crude and massive sensual assaults of modern music and the modern mass-media, perhaps most modern people would find their senses too dulled for such exquisite sensations as these. I am lucky enough to have been blessed with an unusually sensitive nature, and the last week, in many ways the last few months, have, I now realise, been gently raising me to a new kind of sensitivity: the sensitivity so richly valued by Amelia and Miss Findlay. Much of what Miss Findlay had said about Miss Duncan now somehow struck me with greater force. How, if one wishes to savour the true perfume of life, one must weed and tend the garden of one’s soul, and how, if one grasps greedily and clumsily for sensation, one’s hands close upon dust and ashes.

“I think she is the most unconventional person I have ever met.”
“I should think she is the only unconventional person you have ever met.”
“I have always thought you a little unconventional, Amelia.”
“Thank you, but it is not so. I behave conventionally in an unconventional world. Actually it is impossible to be unconventional in an unconventional world, just as it is impossible to provide light relief in a comedy. Trixilee is unconventional in a conventional world. The formality of this dance, say, or of the Guides is the life-blood of Trixilee’s genius. She thrives upon it. A formal world enjoys the delights of both formality and eccentricity. An informal world enjoys neither.”

http://www.lulu.com/content/140556

Forum: 
Share/Save

“To call it a ‘lesbian book’ is not really fair. It is nothing so vulgar. While it is set in an all-female sub-culture, explicit ‘sex’ never rears its ugly head. The book is far too elegant for that and it is questionable whether it is even implicit except to the coarse post-Freudian mind” (—from the forum entry)

You read this sort of thing from British homosexuals both male and female. I read a comment by a British male homosexual describing his distaste and even shock at how homosexual commentary and literature emanating from the U.S. went so far as to mention “penetration,” as he put it—he found that vulgar, irrelevant to what (male) homosexuality was about, and repulsive. I read his comment a few years ago and still can’t understand his viewpoint. Was male homosexuality purely platonic for him? Or was “penetration” OK as long as you didn’t show the extremely bad taste to talk about it? In Robert Graves’ autobiographical work, “Good-bye To All That” (published when he was still a young man, in the 1920s or 1930s I think), he described how he’d fallen in love with (I think that was the way he put it) a slightly older boy at his school, how, as a result, their separation was extremely wrenching for him, and so on. Robert Graves was not, as far as I’m aware, a homosexual. Puzzled by this “falling in love with another boy” thing among English heterosexual boys, I asked a normal, heterosexual, very happily-married Englishwoman about it, citing Robert Graves’ experience. She responded in a tone that implied I was making a mountain out of a molehill—sort of, “yes, it existed, but it was completely normal, wasn’t it? After all, wasn’t it common for schoolgirls to have crushes on older girls at their schools? She herself remembered doing it when she was at school. It meant nothing; these adolescent girls all grew out of it; if girls that age did it why not boys too, though she was no authority on schoolboys’ crushes on other boys; and it bore no relationship to homosexuality.”

I still don’t get it, exactly—but whatever it is, I think it’s better than the system we have here in the States: you can tell that without completely understanding it.

That said, I don’t see how it can be disputed that what’s going on in Aristasia—the sexual orientation of the place—is some sort of true lesbianism, not just this mysterious, innocent, platonic, or whatever it is, English-schoolgirl-crush-on-an-older-schoolgirl thing. Aristasia is gone way beyond that into the world of adults and seems obviously to be centered around lesbianism whether with the English revulsion for “carnal explicitness” or not.
________________________

Long live Flanders!

________________________

“You read this sort of thing from British homosexuals both male and female.”

Glancing now at that opening sentence of my comment above, I see I was clumsy, as it might be taken to imply something about Novaryana, which of course I didn’t intend at all.
________________________

Long live Flanders!

________________________

I am not sure about the precise answer to this question. What does seem to be the case is the “conceptualisation” of homosexuality since the last quarter of the 19th century.

I suspect a few things went into the making of this. One was the Victorian “romantic” emphasis on marriage as the main and central affection in a person’s life. The other, and increasingly predominant, one in the 20th century was the progressive sexualisation of thought following (and perhaps necessitating) Freud.

Strong, intimate friendships between people of the same sex were regarded as normal before the mid-19th century. They were not seen as sexual, but the word “love” was freely used in such contexts, not having been narrowed down, as it has been today, by Victorian romanticism (and its successor sentiments encountered in the lyrics of most pre-Eclipse popular songs - and possibly post-Eclipse ones too: I wouldn’t know) and Freudesque sexualism.

Modern biographers routinely brand (or laud) any and all evidences of strong same-sex affection in earlier people as “homosexual”, incidentally finding therein huge evidence for the liberal contention that homosexuality has always been rife among a relatively large percentage of the population. It does not take vast historical understanding to see that this interpretation is laughably anachronistic and consists of reading current attitudes (not to say obsessions) into the hearts of people with a very different outlook on life.

Part of the problem here is that of reductionism. Miss Trent speaks of the three great reductionisms of the later 19th century: those associated with the names of Darwin (reduction of form to material accident), Marx (reduction of human culture to economics and power-relations) and Freud (reduction of the higher human emotions and sensibilities to sex - “sublimated” or otherwise). How far these reductionisms actually represent the thought of the persons named is relatively unimportant. They are really shorthand ways of referring to three reductionist tendencies. That of Marx has long since ceased to be the exclusive property of the “left” and forms the basis of most contemporary politico-historical understanding.

Each of the three is much more far-reaching than it at first appears (between them amounting to an almost complete re-writing of human perception). In the case of “Freudism” one of the many corollaries is that the multitude of various and subtle, frissons associated with the intricacies of human relations have been fraudulently reduced to one single “underlying” cause - the urge to procreation. As a result, by the end of adolescence, if not long before, most people have either suppressed them or explicitly sexualised them.

With them depart a whole range of subtle and often elevating human emotions - all thrown carelessly into the “sex” bucket and either embraced or discarded as such: but in either case completely denatured

One of the dangers that confronts us now is that anti-homosexualists are doing the work of this “Freudesque” redefinition of the human heart every bit as thoroughly as homosexualists.

The reductionism Novaryana mentions does exist, and it causes big problems in human relations today. Basically, it means that the three possible modes of human relatedness are master-slave, contract, and common subjection to an impersonal bureaucratic machine. Sex initially seems to suggest a way out of all that because it causes us to find delight in another person and seems at least momentarily to sweep away thoughts of personal interest. For that reason sexual connections are thought to trump everything and are considered absolutely basic to human fulfillment. (Hence, inter alia, free divorce and “gay marriage.”) Unfortunately the conceptual problem remains, so in the long run it’s still just a choice among domination and submission, quasi-commercial exchange, or comprehensive PC government regulation.

(I’ve gone on a bit of a tangent away from Aristasia and comparative homosexualities, but I suppose that’s natural for me.)

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Not at all, sir. Your thoughts flow logically and elegantly from the discussion.

A little comment from the Aristasian forum may be of interest:

Of course it is easy to see how the other two reductionisms came out of the first one (the Darwinian).

If people are just “evolved animals” then their political institutions can only be extensions of animal self-interest rather than reflexions of the Divine Order.

If people are just “evolved animals” then their highest emotions and sensibilities can only be fancied-up versions of animal lusts.

One more comment on this subject from an Aristasian forum which I felt I must share with you-all:

The much-touted (since the 1960s) notion that one person in ten is “homosexual” can certainly be sustained from the study of history - at least in the case of women - IF one relies on the asumption that every act, staement and letter which today would indicate a “homosexual” bent meant the same thing to our ancestresses. But, of course, it didn’t.

Modern Freudesque (what a useful term!) writers, however, do not even need to make the above assumption. They can rest on the dogma that our “primitive” mothers did not understand what they were really feeling and it is only we, armed with Herr Doktor Freud’s doctrines who can interpret their emotions for them.

I doubt if anyone here will fall for that one!

The truth is that the depths and subtleties of the human heart and its potential for beautiful affections are infinitely greater and more mysterious than the two-dimensional, animal-based asumptions of the Freud-Darwin Axis can possibly alow for or understand.

Were our ancestresses primitive? If by “primitive” we mean what the word actually means - closer to our Divine origins and therefore superior - they certainly were. If, on the othe hand, we mean it in the “evolutionist” sense of crude, unsophisticated, coarse and stupid, it is clear that the post-Freudians are the primitives.

I agree, and this anachronistic approach to our forebears makes the reading of modern biography (and much history) almost unbearable.

I’m also interested in the fact that most of these biographers (if not all) subscribe to the dogma of social constructivism, yet, curiously, they impose the rigid determinism of Freud upon our ancestors (who misinterpreted their biological drives as affection and respect, those naive dolts).

Is homosexuality a social construct, or is it a determined biological category? Is the construction of this dichotomy, or the choice between the two alternatives, itself a social construct, and therefore essentially a matter of politics?

I wonder if our more enlightened contemporaries, imbued in the “western historical consciousness,” could enlighten us.

In a Catholic context, I thought primitive usually means cruel and violent. Women seem equal to men in these respects. The Aristasian forum is clearly a cult evidencing my proposition about women.

The idea of closeness to our origins in time or to the Garden of Eden is gibberish. We are no more fallen now than we ever were. I don’t seem wrong here.

Concerning “The truth … or understand,” is pretty well accepted by most psychiatrists. Freud is a straw man. He is now well understood as a theorist that moved psychology forward, as Darwin moved evolution, but neither had all the answers.

Paul

For those wishing to peruse this book, it can now be done free! Here is the announcement from Aristasia:

Yes, it is true! You may now “buy” our delightful new book Enter Amelia Bingham for nothing!

It will come to you as an Elektra book, all properly typeset in PDF format to read on your screen or print out.

We know that many of our members are very young, or rather poor because of not managing well in the beastly old Pit, while others are just browsing about Aristasia and finding their feet.

So we have decided not to make money a barrier for any one who wants to read Aristasian and quasi-Aristasian literature. If you love it as much as we think you will, you will want to buy a nice book to have on your shelves anyway! If, after enjoying it, you want to make a voluntary donation, you can always pop here: http://aristasia.co.uk/donations.html

But most of all, we just want you to enjoy it. So whizz over here

http://www.lulu.com/content/140556

When you get to the checkout-thingy, just delete the paid copy and the free one will be with you in a matter of seconds.

It may be the happiest thing you will do all week!

How do these people become so twisted? I suppose I should Pay it Forward and be kind to this silly person, but she wants to mix it up. So let me give her what she wants

She is a Nazi, who believed in the superiority of a human class that justified the murder of other human classes. I suppose I must wearily use citations, as Nazis never do.

Some charming excerpt from this utterly evil group:

“The cross is a symbol that predates Christianity by tens of millennia and is found all over the world.”
http://www.aristasia.co.uk/aristasianflag.html (last visited 8-9-05).
Oh just wait.

“One more point about the Imperial Flag should be considered, and that is its colours. The three primary colours, red yellow and blue, represent the three primary tendencies of matter: the three gunas. Since the flag represents all worldly manifestation and authority, it is proper that its colours should represent the process of manifestation itself.”
http://www.aristasia.co.uk/aristasianflag.html (last visited 8-9-05).
Starting to get it? Yes the hilarity gets better and the “English” just gets, well, more un-English. I really am not making this stuff up. I am not that creative.

“This is the real meaning of the Holy Imperial Aristasian Flag, beside which the tawdry conjectures of late-patriarchal journalists seem, we think you will agree, rather trivial.”
http://www.aristasia.co.uk/aristasianflag.html (last visited 8-9-05).
This needs to be posted at National Lampoon—those tawdry patriarchs.

This is too easy. Calling all real wags. I’ll need to send this to the Two Blowhards.

Oh Just All the Best,

Paul

P.S. This is my second identical post. I hope this one takes.

I don’t know what them ladies are smoking, but it seems like something strong; I don’t see what the hell this “Aristasia” crap has to do with traditionalist conservatism, in the least! Much as I hate to admit it, that multiple identity troll who used to participate here was right in one thing - we who identify ourselves by the name of Christ really shouldn’t be wasting time dialoguing with them - we have nothing to learn from them, and I don’t think they’re interested in learning anything from us, either.

Dear Will,

I agree fully. It is amazing there are SS wannabees crawling around on the Net but are cowards, which the SS never were, not that courage relieves SS troopers from being hung (or given over for life on a chain gang down where I live in a sweltering spa) as the murderers they were.

Cowards yes because they won’t debate and because it is easy to write vicious ends for other people without any justification. How many Amelia fanatics actually would face any of us one-on-one?

I just insist on rebutting so any impressionable people will not leave this wonderful site thinking a moronic post was anything worth considering. I also like humor, so I notified the Blowhards

All the Best,

Paul

… fair enough; we have a difference of approach. Your way makes sense. For my part, I choose to generally ignore nutters and trolls, no matter what they say. But hey; a chac’un son gout!

Cordially,

Has it struck anyone that if “believing one class to be superior to another” made one a Nazi, then most European Catholics have been Nazis from the earliest days to very near the present - and in many cases including the present.

The French Revolution’s doctrine of Universal Equality was opposed by the Church, and the terms “left” and “right” in Europe have tended to mean, on the one side egalitarian, anti-clerical democratism, and on the other Throne-and-Altar traditionalism which believed in the Church, the Crown and a hierarchical society.

No doubt some correspondents believe this all to be “out of date” and that the Church must “move with the times” - not quite what I expected from this site, but never mind.

In any case, try not to forget your history. Confusing the belief in heirarchy and class superiority with the revolutonary mass-movement known as National Socialism is a product of that sophomoric leftist propaganda, dominating the mass-media and academic establishment, that wishes to lump together everything which it considers “right” of the permitted spectrum.

Whether National Socialism can even be called a movement of the right is another question. It is certainly a direct heir to the Fench Revolution and the general “left” current of Europe.

“Confusing the belief in heirarchy and class superiority with the revolutonary mass-movement known as National Socialism is a product of that sophomoric leftist propaganda […]” (—Novaryana)

I agree but wouldn’t phrase it as “hierarchy and class superiority” but “hierarchy and class,” leaving off the “superiority.” To me, class means more to do with “different roles to play” than “superiority/inferiority.” There is a sense in which the number six is greater than the number five without being “superior to it.” A school teacher has to be obeyed by her pupils but there is a sense in which she is not “superior” to them. Chinamen have higher IQs than whites but there is a sense in which they are not “superior” to them. A patient must obey his doctor, a client his lawyer, a student his professor, a wife her husband—or a husband his wife, in the tons of situations where women know best—without being inferior to them. Frodo had to be obeyed by Samwise Gamgee but there was a sense in which he wasn’t “superior to him.” Samwise had a role to play, as did Frodo, and the job of each was to play it, not worry about which was “inferior” and which “superior”: that role placed certain responsibilities on each, ones that were equally important and difficult. “When two ride [a horse] together, one must ride behind,” that’s all. Flannery O’Connor wrote, “As far as I am concerned, we are all ‘the poor.’ ” I like the Prussian aristocracy because it was austere and imposed the biggest burden of duty on itself. Idem the early phase of the ancient Roman aristocracy—or so, at least, runs the myth:

XXXI
‘Horatius,’ quoth the Consul,
‘As thou sayest, so let it be.’
And straight against that great array
Forth went the dauntless Three.
For Romans in Rome’s quarrel
Spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life,
In the brave days of old.
XXXII

Then none was for a party;
Then all were for the state;
Then the great man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great:
Then lands were fairly portioned;
Then spoils were fairly sold:
The Romans were like brothers
In the brave days of old.
XXXIII

Now Roman is to Roman
More hateful than a foe,
And the Tribunes beard the high,
And the Fathers grind the low.
As we wax hot in faction,
In battle we wax cold:
Wherefore men fight not as they fought
In the brave days of old.
XXXIV

Now while the Three were tightening
Their harness on their backs,
The Consul was the foremost man
To take in hand an axe:
And Fathers mixed with Commons
Seized hatchet, bar, and crow,
And smote upon the planks above,
And loosed the props below.
________________________

Long live free Flanders!

________________________

Hmmmm… At this point I fear we may be juggling with a word. To me the words “superior” and “inferior” are not so worrying. People have traditionally spoken of one’s “natural inferiors” and “superiors”. Of course this is usually meant in a particular respect or even in a wide range of respects. It is not total. A servant is counted the natural inferior of her mistress, but it may be that the servant is a saint and her mistress not. In this (far more important) respect, the servant will be the superior.

But in any case, we are both playing with the word. What you say is exactly what I think, and what most people I know think. I use the word superior more freely. I happily acknowledge both my superiors and my inferiors without envy toward one or contempt toward the other, and I think I am at one with much tradition (though perhaps very unAmerican).

When you write “A school teacher has to be obeyed by her pupils but there is a sense in which she is not “superior” to them. Chinamen have higher IQs than whites but there is a sense in which they are not “superior” to them.” I have a sense that you feel that acknowledging the inferiority of any party would be a cheapening of that party’s soul: a sort of blanket devaluation of the person. That is certainly not what I mean by the term. If that were what the terms implied to one, then it would certainly be better to avoid them.

Novaryana, from what you say I’m sure you see my point, and I do see yours, completely. In retrospect I may have been being a bit nit-picky (not in the sense of my point not being an important one—I feel it was—but perhaps in the sense that it went without saying?). So, I think we agree. Everyone plays an essential role in a hierarchy—and because each role is essential, all roles are equally important, all having the importance that being indispensable confers. You will as a non-Christian permit me I hope to laud one of the great positive aspects of traditional/historical organized Christianity, its “superiority” (in the hierarchical sense) to all social ranks: lords, generals, members of the bourgeoisie and of the peasantry, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, powerful and weak, noble and common alike were subordinate to it and equally subordinate: they were all equal before the priest. This must have brought a democratic-type sense of satisfaction and reassuring “rightness” to the majorities who belonged to the lower, weaker classes of people. I agree with those who want a greater degree of hierarchy back, who want more of things like respect (respect equally toward those who are “above” and those who are “below”), rank, duty, and so on, in their lives, who have had quite enough, thank you, of this extreme democracy we’re living under which is seen more and more to be valueless and meaningless.
________________________

Long live free Flanders!

________________________

Sir, when you write:

You will as a non-Christian permit me I hope to laud one of the great positive aspects of traditional/historical organized Christianity,

This is chivalrous and right, and I thank you for it. I should like to take this opportunity to mention the assumption made by so many these days (and I am sure you were not making it - you just brought it to my mind) that non-Christian means “anti-Christian” or “offended by Christianity” or even “offended by the prevalence of Christianity in Christian societies”.

I have heard members of Western Hindu groups (very Western, I might add - the sort that have few if any actual Indians in them) waxing angry about Christianity being treated as if it were the majority religion and had certain rights and privileges as such. I am not sure to what extent these people realise that they are doing the work of anti-religious secularists, and to what extent they even care.

As a non-Christian I take it as axiomatic that the divide between the religious and the non-religious is far more fundamental than the divide between particular religions, I favour prayer in schools, and in Christian countries, such as America and the nations of Europe, that will be Christian prayer. Of course tolerance and provision should be made for non-Christian religions. Of course minorities of non-Christian pupils should be allowed their own prayers and the handful of committed atheists should be allowed to opt out altogether. But any one of any religion who wishes to stifle the religious life of the majority is, to say the least, misguided.

The avoidance of the naming of Christian festivals is another piece of idiocy. The only people I know who are actually offended by Christmas are a few extreme Protestants - and, of course the secularist who invokes the “rights” of one religion to attack another while hating them all.

This, I understand, is termed “multi-culturalism”.

What is this wacky stuff about Nazis and SS and murdering classes? I mean where does it come from? The “proof” seems to be that an Aristasian has said that the symbol of the Cross predates Christianity (which it does) and a number of other doddering irrelevancies.

On this logic I can prove you are a Martian by quoting you as saying “good morning”.

Citations! With citations like that, who needs rice pudding?

Disagree if you want to. But please don’t bring up this contemptible “Nazi” parrot-cry. Or if you do - at least try to find some citatons.

Dear Mr. Kalb and Fellow Readers,

The reference to the cross predating Christianity intentionally implied Christianity is invalid intellectually and of no consequence. The premise was people that believe in Christ’s death on the cross believe in some pre-Christian myth. The premise is similar to the premise that an affection for the German Iron Cross means anyone with such an affection is a Nazi, who used the Iron Cross many years earlier to award murderers. As the Aristasians do, the Nazis spread the idea of Christianity’s invalidly, and the first persons the Nazis persecuted were Christians, Catholics. Let the ignorant look it up. The failure to use logic and authority is the mark of a fanatic or an intellectually ignorant person.

The Aristasians are too easy but helpful to rebut. Another of their quotes, “One encyclopaedia [sic] that ought really to know better identifies the Flag’s charge as the Cross of Odin — as if a feminine nation whose religious affiliation is to the Supreme Mother would be paying homage, in its Imperial Flag, to a male god.” http://www.aristasia.co.uk/aristasianflag.html (last visited 8-26-05).

This is funny stuff. The premises are there is a female that is the Supreme Being and believing in a male Supreme Being is nonsense. It follows that the Bible is nonsense and Jesus is a nonsensical being. This stuff is offered up without citation, as was the above rebuttal. The superiority of one class of people to another is fundamental Nazi doctrine; anyone unable to accept this as authority is a nominalist, crazy, or a lying Nazi.

What the heck is pit-politics?

In any event, Novaryana deserves our prayers, and I wish God to bless her.

All the Best,

Paul

This is just getting too wacky for words! Like millions of Hindus Aristasians believe in a feminine Supreme Deity. We do not believe that belief in a masculine supreme is “wrong”, just another perspective. We are not exclusivists in the way the Christians or Moslems are.

Clearly we shall disagree on this. But screaming “Nazi” at everyone one disagrees with is really a teensy bit silly isn’t it? And the supposed grounds for this are frankly absurd.

Of course you are all Nazis because:

Hitler wore trousers
Hitler was a nazi
You wear trousers
Therefore you are a Nazi.

Well, it makes about as much sense as your assertions.

Thank you for your prayers. Remember that in the end we all worship the same God.

You in your way, and we in Hers.

All right. Peel yourself off the ceiling. I just put in that last bit because I couldn’t resist it!

Naughty old me.

… if I may I’ll just throw in here that I once sat through about fifteen or twenty minutes of some cleric or theology professor repeatedly using the feminine personal and possessive pronouns “she” and “her” to refer to Jesus Christ. It was maybe five, six, seven years ago—something like that. It was some interview/discussion show, maybe the Charlie Rose show, or maybe something on C-SPAN—I can’t remember. It wasn’t Crossfire because there was only one guest being interviewed, this Protestant cleric or professor or whatever he was. I tuned in in the middle, so wasn’t prepared for what was going on—I assume at some point before I tuned in, his calling-Jesus-a-her schtick was explained and I missed it. Anyway, imagine sitting there watching a TV discussion show, hearing Jesus Christ being referred to as a she or a her, and thinking the guy made a mistake so thinking nothing of it, and then hearing it again, and thinking this time, “Did I hear that right? Did he say that again?,” and then hearing it every time he referred to Jesus, and watching as Charlie Rose, or whoever the interviewer was, said nothing, asked no questions to clarify what the guy was doing, gave no explanations of what was going on (but I had tuned in in the middle, so explanations must have been given earlier, I said to myself afterward), and the whole conversation continuing that way for maybe twenty minutes until I couldn’t stand the nonsense and total absence of an explanation and changed channels finally. The guy doing it was a Rev. Barry Lynn type, clearly—judging by the other crap he was spouting—a lefty in that same mold (it wasn’t Barry Lynn though). You thought you were in the Twilight Zone, you really did. I imagine this guy’s motivation was one of these women’s-lib notions such as that, since God couldn’t possibly have a sex, it was just as OK to refer to him as a female as it was to refer to him as a male, and since Jesus was God it was not just OK to refer to Jesus as a “her” but was “sexist” to make an exclusive habit of doing otherwise and he, this professor, was going to start redressing the imbalance by referring to Jesus exclusively as a “her” a while, till the imbalance was redressed. Something like that—once one figures out how these people think one has only to fill in the blanks. Any simple computer program could do it.
________________________

Long live free Flanders!

________________________

I fully agree that this is not only nonsense, but irreverent nonsense. The Lord Jesus was quite clearly male.

Despite the odd - and extremely ill-informed - opinions expressed elsewhere on this page, Aristasians are in fact concerned about the integrity of the Christian Tradition. It is, of course, not directly our affair, but we should cetrainly wish to avoid even the appearance of being ranged with those forces trying to subvert traditional Christianity.

You may be interested in this reply by an Aristasian thealogian to the suggestion that Catholics should accept the Blessed Virgin Mary as divine:

You reveal the position exactly. For a Hindu to represent one Deity as the Supreme in one Purana, and another in another involves no contradiction. Of course there is only one God, but She can be seen through any of Her manifestations. For the Hindu, even accepting Mary as a manifestation of the Supreme would not be too great a stretch of the imagination. For the Christian it would involve throwing out twenty centuries of theology and doctrine. Even aside from our own considerations, we should be concerned about the subversive influence of such a movement on Christianity. For, while it is true that Christianity is surrounded by subversion on every side, it does not behove us to add to it.

“But anyone of any religion who wishes to stifle the religious life of the majority is, to say the least, misguided. The avoidance of the naming of Christian festivals is another piece of idiocy. The only people I know who are actually offended by Christmas are a few extreme Protestants—and, of course the secularist who invokes the ‘rights’ of one religion to attack another while hating them all. This, I understand, is termed ‘multi-culturalism.’ “ (—Novaryana, 8/29, 7:07am)

In my mind I link the above comment of Novaryana’s with this hilarious bit over at Steve’s today (I can’t for the life of me imagine what the connection might be between the two …):

“In order to become a lawyer, [Professor Trivers] had to have a humanities degree, so his first studies at Harvard were in American history. They were interrupted by the first, and worst, of his breakdowns, which took the form of spiralling mania—staying up all night, night after night, reading Wittgenstein and then collapsing. He was hospitalised, and treated with the first generation of effective anti-psychotic drugs. His mentor was an ornithologist called Bill Drury, whose memory he venerates. […] Drury became very close to his pupil and his trust was reciprocated: ‘Bill and I were walking in the woods one day, and I told him that my first breakdown had been so painful that I had resolved that if I ever felt another one coming on, I would kill myself. Lately, however, I had changed my mind, and drawn up a list of 10 people I would kill first in that event. I wanted to know if this was going forwards or backwards. He thought for a while, then he said “Can I add three names to that list?” That was his only comment.’ “
________________________

Long live free Flanders!

________________________