Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:00 am

Why are so many unmarried women drawn to the Christian religion?

There are, of course, various reasons why such women are drawn to it. For example, the Christian religion provides unmarried women with a sense that their life has meaning and value of a spiritual kind; it provides them with a sense of social respectability as Christian believers; it provides them with a sense of belonging to a community (the Church)...and so on.

However, given the fact that there is a noted loss of enthusiasm for religious interests on the part of happily married women, we should suspect that a major reason why the Christian religion holds a strong appeal for unmarried women is because it satisfies certain needs of theirs which cannot be fulfilled within the context of marriage or a similar kind of relationship - specifically, the need to love a significant other and the need to be loved by this other in return.

So how does the Christian religion satisfy both of these needs? Well, it does this by providing unmarried women with the perfect object onto which their love needs can be projected and reciprocated: namely, Jesus. It is not too difficult to see why Jesus is such an alluring figure for many unmarried women. After all, think of all the women whose experience at the hands of men has been hurtful or damaging in some way. For example, think of the women who have been rejected or humiliated or disillusioned or oppressed or abused by men. I'm sure you'll agree that the number of women who have been given good cause for turning away from men is very large. This being so, is it any wonder that many of these women turn to Jesus as a substitute for real men? To this One in whom gentleness, compassion and love are epitomised....

But there is a further reason why Jesus serves as the perfect object for many unmarried women to re-direct their love needs onto. He is able to function so successfully in this role because he possesses an enormous advantage over men of the flesh and blood variety. And the advantage which Jesus possesses is this: since he is a fantasy-figure who only exists in the minds of Christians he is immune from all contact with reality. That is, unlike the empirical man, Jesus runs no risk of exposure to the vicissitudes of reality in any way. Since he is never tested by reality he runs no risk of failing in the face of it; of being 'brought down to earth' by it; of being unmasked by it; of being provoked by it; of being de-humanised by it....of being made brute-like by it.

This is why Jesus can be all things to the unmarried woman: for example, saviour, friend, confidante, lover of her 'soul'...her staff in this life, as she might put it. As a fantasy-figure, Jesus is forever safe from reality, forever beyond its reach, forever untouched by 'the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune'. Accordingly, he will never disappoint the unmarried woman who idolises him. How could he?

It is not only unmarried women who use Jesus as a vehicle for satisfying their love needs. No. It is not only the Eleanor Rigbys of this world who use him in this way. Many women who are unhappily married do so as well. And it is easy to see why. I mean, imagine a woman who has had the misfortune to marry a man who is a useless article, a man who has proven to be a great disappointment in love and in lots of other ways, a man, say, who is violent or who wants nothing more from this life than to lie under his bedcovers and sniff his own farts. Imagine a woman trapped in such a marriage through fear of divorce or by physical threats. We should hardly be surprised if a woman in this position sought some kind of respite from her unhappiness in the love of a perfect fantasised object like Jesus.

Regards

James

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:22 am

Yes, stats, though not conclusive proof of anything, would prove helpful here.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:33 am

The following reply was made to the OP by Accountable:

Accountable wrote: Methinks you need to spend some time on the couch, friend.

And then hastily deleted.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:37 am

Glaswegian;468575 wrote: The following reply was made to the OP by Accountable:

And then hastily deleted.
Wonder why? Perhaps the author reconsidered and thought the post too harsh. Hmmm. Nah that can't be it. It must be cowardice, huh? :yh_loser

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:12 am

I would like to see statistics for unmarried women drawn to other religions...............

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:29 am

Accountable;468576 wrote: Wonder why? Perhaps the author reconsidered and thought the post too harsh. Hmmm. Nah that can't be it. It must be cowardice, huh? :yh_loser

Hey Accounts

You rock:-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:35 am

weber;468598 wrote: Hey Accounts

You rock:-6

Thanks. In RL sometimes you say something you later think you shouldn't have. Here, if you're quick enough, you can literally take it back. People with class will let you. :yh_sigh

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:37 am

Accountable;468603 wrote: Thanks. In RL sometimes you say something you later think you shouldn't have. Here, if you're quick enough, you can literally take it back. People with class will let you. :yh_sigh

Thank God for people with class.....takes a lot of love:-6

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:41 am

:rolleyes: don't quit your day job!

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:38 am

Glaswegian wrote: The following reply was made to the OP by Accountable:

'Methinks you need to spend some time on the couch, friend.'

And then hastily deleted.

Accountable;468576 wrote: Wonder why? Perhaps the author reconsidered and thought the post too harsh. Hmmm. Nah that can't be it. It must be cowardice, huh? :yh_loser

Then why didn't you post another reply stating that you felt your opening post in this thread was too harsh? Why didn't you make a second reply as follows:

'The reply I made to Glaswegian - viz. "Methinks you need to spend some time on the couch, friend." - was too harsh.'

Why didn't you state this publicly through your own volition (i.e., before you were forced to do so in post #4 once I'd revealed what you had done)? If you had done this then you would have acted admirably - in my eyes at least. But no: what you did instead was try to make it seem as if your opening post had never been made at all by deleting it very quickly. Why did you feel the need to do this?

Accountable wrote: It must be cowardice, huh?

The word cowardice here is yours not mine, friend. But the reason why you alighted on it is now glaringly obvious to everyone in this forum.

I think that your choice of username is inappropriate. For clearly you are unwilling to be held accountable for what you post, which is to say, you are afraid to stand by what you post.

Since you were afraid to stand by your post I think it is safe to assume that none of your forebears fought at the Alamo. Or if they did then they didn't stay for very long.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:02 am

The word cowardice here is yours not mine, friend. But the reason why you alighted on it is now glaringly obvious to everyone in this forum.

Im thinking.............no. Highly unlikely if not impossible. Id stake your life on it.

I think that your choice of username is inappropriate.

Your too quick to jump to conclusions here friend. Put your pea shooter back in the holster. Id stake your life on accountables credibility.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:04 am

SnoozeControl;468651 wrote: Methinks you need to spend some time on the couch, friend.

That too!!!!!!!!!

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:08 am

Nomad;468659 wrote:

Your too quick to jump to conclusions here friend. Put your pea shooter back in the holster. Id stake your life on accountables credibility.

I've never met a troll before Nomad.....

is this person what they are like? If so, I don't want to meet any more of 'em.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:19 am

Not sure web, maybe just tender at heart and defensive. I suspect acc skeered him and after cleaning himself up he lashed out.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:23 am

Nomad;468671 wrote: Not sure web, maybe just tender at heart and defensive. I suspect acc skeered him and after cleaning himself up he lashed out.

Now I know you've got a good heart Nomad.

There are a lot of good hearts around here. The joy of it is such a good feeling.:-4

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:58 pm

Magenta flame;468713 wrote: jesus had brides?:-3

Strange sounding isn't it. But He is considered the Bridegroom and we are His brides or bride. I seem to remember that in Revelation and elsewhere through the bible.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:00 pm

weber;468727 wrote: Strange sounding isn't it. But He is considered the Bridegroom and we are His brides or bride. I seem to remember that in Revelation and elsewhere through the bible.

And also in The Spiritual Canticle (St John of the Cross)

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:35 pm

"For he who has become your husband is your Maker; his name is the Lord of hosts; your redeemer is the Holy One of Israel" (Is 54:5)

"I am not the Messiah," he told his listeners, "but I was sent before him. The one who has the bride is the bridegroom; the best man, who stands and listens for him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice" (Jn 3:28-29).

There are lots orf references to it.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:05 pm

Magenta flame;468794 wrote: Right ! get the black trackers and blood hounds out and hunt her down!:wah:

KOO WHEE!

Who is Pam?

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:24 pm

Giggle

I am Pam hear me roar!!!

I got a bit carried away - grin - actually had some convent days myself, seems a lifetime away - and went off on a nostalgia trip tangent of my own. They were mostly good days actually. I helped the librarian who was old and fat and adorable, a great gossip and this was a silent order. And my other thing was working in the vegie garden. Loved the plain chant. Loved the silence. Loved the rose garden. Hated stuff like doing what I was told. That's called Obedience. Used to wander off too much, climbed trees and was generally my abnormal bolshie self. Totally unsuitable for monastic life, though I still have a yen for it at times. I got thrown out eventually, of course. Lovingly, giggle.

Footnote: You can be totally bitchy in complete silence. No kidding!! You can also be completely wonderful, supportive and fine (even holy) in complete silence.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:27 pm

AussiePam;468865 wrote: Giggle

I am Pam hear me roar!!!

I got a bit carried away - grin - actually had some convent days myself, seems a lifetime away - and went off on a nostalgia trip tangent of my own. They were mostly good days actually. I helped the librarian who was old and fat and adorable, a great gossip and this was a silent order. And my other thing was working in the vegie garden. Loved the plain chant. Loved the silence. Loved the rose garden. Hated stuff like doing what I was told. That's called Obedience. Used to wander off too much, climbed trees and was generally my abnormal bolshie self. Totally unsuitable for monastic life, though I still have a yen for it at times. I got thrown out eventually, of course. Lovingly, giggle.

Footnote: You can be totally bitchy in complete silence. No kidding!! You can also be completely wonderful, supportive and fine (even holy) in complete silence.

Das gotta go down in history. Sounds like you did all the things I wanted to and didn't dare. And you look so shy and demure.....I am of course thinking your avatar is you.....sweet thing sneaking out to climb trees....tut, tut:D

Oh, and I had forgotten you had been in here cuz I know you is Pam. I thot they meant somebody else

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:29 pm

weber;468867 wrote: Das gotta go down in history. Sounds like you did all the things I wanted to and didn't dare. And you look so shy and demure.....I am of course thinking your avatar is you.....sweet thing sneaking out to climb trees....tut, tut:D

Grin. My av is me!! And of course I'm shy and demure. :sneaky:

PS. The pic is about three years old. After those days, I grew my hair!!!! And only cut it shortish again relatively recently. Will locate pic with short hair.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:32 pm

AussiePam;468870 wrote: Grin. My av is me!! And of course I'm shy and demure. :sneaky:

PS. The pic is about three years old. After those days, I grew my hair!!!! And only cut it shortish again relatively recently. Will locate pic with short hair.

:wah: :-4

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:35 pm

weber;468873 wrote: :wah: :-4

You can laugh!!! Found this one of me with figleaf, Lausanne last Fall.

Attached files

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:36 pm

AussiePam;468881 wrote: You can laugh!!! Found this one of me with figleaf, Lausanne last Fall.Where, where, quick, find it, hide the guys:D

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:47 pm

AussiePam;468881 wrote: You can laugh!!! Found this one of me with figleaf, Lausanne last Fall.

Nice pic Pam. Way to go with the fig leaf......requires lots of imagination:-3

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:50 pm

Pam, you are cute in short hair!

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:54 pm

put it in the photo thread!

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:57 pm

lady cop;468926 wrote: put it in the photo thread!

Jez like a cop..........ordering everyone around, crackin' the whip, get it there:p

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:01 pm

Magenta flame wrote: jesus had brides?

weber;468727 wrote: Strange sounding isn't it. But He is considered the Bridegroom and we are His brides or bride.

What weber says here is correct, Magenta flame.

But it is not only Christian females who are considered to be the brides of Jesus. Christian males are viewed in this way as well. And this accounts for why Jesus also functions as a perfect fantasised love object for Christian males who have repressed their homosexuality. Let me give you an example of one such male selected from a vast number:

Ted Haggard

Christian males like Haggard who complain that homosexuality is an abomination because it is 'sinful' in the eyes of God are only pretending to be shocked by it. Their outrage about homosexuality is only ostensible outrage - pseudo outrage - because these Christian males are really drawn to this form of sexual behaviour and would like to indulge in it themselves. We can glimpse the repressed homosexuality in this type of Christian male by examining some of the ways in which he uses language to conceptualise his 'relationship' with Jesus.

For example, along with conceiving of his soul as the 'bride' of Christ and Christ as its 'bridegroom', he ardently desires to be 'penetrated' by Christ's love; and he anticipates that his 'union' with Christ will be 'ecstatic' when he 'opens himself up' and lets Christ 'come into him' so that he can 'feel the vibrating, pulsating power of His love inside'. The nature of the Christian male's homoerotic love for Jesus varies from individual to individual. Thus, the masochistic Christian male wants to be 'possessed' violently by his 'Lord' while the Christian male whose sensibilities are more delicate wants Jesus to be 'gentle' with him and to be 'caught up in His everlasting arms'. Then, of course, there is the Christian male who cries in a paroxysm of passion: 'I am yours Lord! Do anything you want with me!' Plainly, this kind of Christian is besotted with Jesus: he 'trembles with desire' for his 'Lord' and wants to 'prostrate' himself before Him 'abjectly'. Thus, in these and many other ways the Christian male who has repressed his homosexuality gives expression to his secret desire to be Jesus's 'woman'.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:13 pm

weber;468931 wrote: Jez like a cop..........ordering everyone around, crackin' the whip, get it there:p

DON'T put it in the photo thread! neener neener.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:00 pm

lady cop;468949 wrote: DON'T put it in the photo thread! neener neener.

Shucks, now she'll have to do it just cuz she wants to, poo......

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:32 pm

Glaswegian;468939 wrote: What weber says here is correct, Magenta flame.

But it is not only Christian females who are considered to be the brides of Jesus. Christian males are viewed in this way as well.

Christ is the Bridegroom and all the world, all His children are His bride. Anyone who tries to make any more out of that than is there is just looking for trouble and isn't going to get it.:p

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:01 pm

[quote=Magenta flame;468774]edited

Pam you'll find back in the ancient days Women were entitled to alot more than they are now. We read the circumstances of women in the bible and it turns out that it was not a common institution to neglect women in the different nations at that time.

Why oh why did it take us 2000 yrs to get that one right :rolleyes:

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:12 pm

You Guys are GREAT. Thankyou. I'll put the pic in the Photo thread if I can find that.

And yes, some of the old civilisations were matriarchal. Even in modern Judaism, I understand 'jewishness' is passed down via the mother not the father. I'm a great supporter personally of the Earth Mother idea. Of course that's been entwined with the cult of the Virgin Mary, even the Black Madonna. But we won't go there. Yes we will... grin... I was wandering the Tuscan countryside in May, and found myself up into the hills. Found myself deep in farmland, vineyards and olives, came to a dusty crossroads near the top of the hill - five intersecting paths, and the oldest most gnarled oak tree you could ever imagine dead center. And high up in the tree, a statue of a woman smiling in a most non-virginal way - and people had left wild flowers, mostly yellow and red, all round the tree. Diana lives!!! And the agrarian workers knew it. 'Chaste' Diana - Goddess of childbirth, the hunt, witchcraft, fertility, the moon, the crossroads. Mother, perhaps of Existentialism. Maybe surrealism too, with some help from Apollinaire there, if not Apollo. But I digress... and I'm getting carried away too.......

What was the subject.. oh yes, Jesus and Dracula. Attention grabbing, but meaningless otherwise.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:17 pm

here you go Pammie! Post Your Photos Here! ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)

lady cop