A somewhat stupid problem with Song of Songs

[steffenlaursen]

The favourite book of the mystics, they tell me.

It is a wonderful book, about the realtionship between the church and Christ, and I can understand that on an intellectual level, but whenever I try to read the book non-intellectually, that is the way a mystic would read it, I get distracted because Jesus obviously is a male. It seems wrong in one way, and in another I know that it is wrong that it feels wrong.

So I guess my question - put a bit sharply - is this: What is the difference between mysticism and homosexual fantasies? I want the first, I don’t want the other

• Steffen

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The favourite book of the mystics, they tell me.

It is a wonderful book, about the realtionship between the church and Christ, and I can understand that on an intellectual level, but whenever I try to read the book non-intellectually, that is the way a mystic would read it, I get distracted because Jesus obviously is a male. It seems wrong in one way, and in another I know that it is wrong that it feels wrong.

So I guess my question - put a bit sharply - is this: What is the difference between mysticism and homosexual fantasies? I want the first, I don’t want the other

• Steffen

Read it on the spiritual level, not the physical.

St. John of the Cross references the Song of Song often, in his writings, especially the The Spiritual Canticle

Here Christ is the Bridegroom, the Soul is the Bride. Again, not in the physical, but in the spiritual and yet not unlike a marriage where Christ is head of the union.

The basis of course is love, not eros, but agape.

Jim

 

[puzzleannie]

God is masculine in quality in relation to the soul which is always feminine. This is a separate construct from male and female, so get attributes of male and female, including secondary sex characteristics, out of your head because they are not part of this discussio. Masculine in quality means initiative, feminine means receptive. This book is an extended analogy between married love and Christ’s love for the Church, on one level, and between married love and God’s love for the human soul on another level. You see why even admitting the concept of homosexual love into such a construct is a perversion, and why married love is the only acceptable context in which sexual expression works in this analogy.

 

[drafdog]

The book is about sex. It is about a couple who are incredibly, madly in love with one another. It is about how we are to respond to our spouses. We are to be overwhelmed by the need to be with the other, holding, caressing, kissing and having good sex.

It is also about how God feels about us. Lady Wisdom (the Holy Spirit) wants to be with us, enveloping us in her care for us. Try reading along with Song of Songs the Wisdom of Solomon. Read especially chapters 6 & 7. Lots of sexual references there, too, in comparing love of Lady Wisdom with the love of a woman. The beginning of 8 says “I desired to take her for my bride and I became enamored of her beauty.”

God is not male or female. On the other hand God is not NOT male or NOT female. Living with the transcendent is difficult.

Matthew

 

[Nita]

The book is about sex. It is about a couple who are incredibly, madly in love with one another. It is about how we are to respond to our spouses. We are to be overwhelmed by the need to be with the other, holding, caressing, kissing and having good sex.

It is also about how God feels about us. …

Matthew

I agree with your observations about the two areas involved, but not with your emphasis on which is primary.

The book is not about sex; it is about God’s love for the human souls He has created; and how He draws them into a deeper love relationship with Him. He used the human relationship between a man and a woman, who progress to a love and desire for total union (physical and spiritual). as an analogy to help us understand the strong, overwhelming way He desires us; and the ways He leads us to desire Him with our whole mind, body, heart, and soul -to desire total union with Him.

I recall reading somewhere that in OT times, one had to be 30 years old before they were allowed to read and study this book! I can understand why.

Nita