Post No. 120 - Tiw's Day: Juliet, gender stereotypes and some thoughts about the novel "The Betrayal"

Let me begin this post by saying that I consider the person we know as Jesus Christ [1] to be a real historical person. I also consider it a very real chance that he did perform miracles - or what seemed like miracles. However, I consider what is preached by many neo-Christians to have as little to do with Christ's message as ... well, very little. So ... I was intrigued to come across an archaeological view of Christ's life and what was factually erroneous in the reports on his life (i.e., the Gospels), and some explanations of what was being done in terms of what was happening at those times. [2] The view was written by the archaeologists Michael Gear and Kathleen O'Neal Gear, and formed the basis of their book "The Betrayal", which I read about in an interview on the Gear's website.

I first came across the Gears when I started reading their First North American series of novels, which covers early North American cultures, combining archaeological research with knowledge of shamanic practice. I haven't read all that series, and am looking forward to finishing it (now that I've rediscovered them - I lost the name of their series [and the authors] for a few years ... but then, I did have other matters to attend to).

In terms of their book. "The Betrayal", the interview was fascinating, and I am hoping to track down a copy of the book and add it to the list of books I am reviewing .... (almost finished the next review now :) )

Now, on other matters: while driving home and planning this brief post, I was listening to the BBC's "World Update" on ABC's News Radio, when I heard a story that enough people write letters to Juliet of Verona (i.e., the Juliet in Shakespeare's play "Romeo and Juliet", that someone (I think "The Juliet Club") employs up to fifteen secretaries to open, read and reply to the letters.

How sad! Most of these people are lonely, have had bad experiences in love, or have self esteem issues. We do some ... strange things when we get hooked on searching for intimacy - no, we can do things that make us look sad, mad, or bad. I've seen people behave in incredibly unethical ways to try and "win" over someone else - which, ultimately, is self defeating. I also think the focus of society these last few centuries on romantic love, with its corresponding view that there is something "wrong" with you if you don't find romantic love, is unhealthy, unjustified and just plain WRONG. It's bad enough with the idiotic rules put on love (I'm in favour of polyamory for a whole range of reasons) and the generally sex-negative views found in too much of society as it is ... (This previous post may also have some relevant thoughts ... )

A friend of mine (hello Venerable Rune Master From The Bush [3]) occasionally laments the loss of the words bachelor and spinster and being reasonably acceptable, albeit maybe somewhat eccentric, terms for people who, for whatever reason, don't wind up in an intimate romantic relationship.

After listening to that radio story, I'm with him. May the Goddess help all who feel they have lost in (romantic) love find a worthwhile way to pass their lives. Such things do exist - I'm blessed by a wonderful loving relationship now, but have spent most of my life single, and that let me explore my spirituality/psychism and personal growth in ways I could never have done otherwise (largely because of the commitment required for some of that work, but also because you sometimes best find your personal demons by being alone).

Of course, what has helped me is being - or rather, becoming - somewhat inured to society's expectations on gender expression and, well, pretty much anything. Nevertheless, I find the idiotic sorts of remarks made about President Obama's nomination for the US Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, idiotic and abhorrent. Amongst all this, the woman who said Kagan doesn't sit like "all other women" because she (Kagan) doesn't sit with crossed legs has never met any dykes. What an incredibly un-informed, SEXIST thing to say!

And, as a final point, I thought I'd just add that I think I've written previously the best way yo prevent you from radiating out negativity is closing your aura: another key aspect of this is simply to have the intention not to leak or project energy. A lot of people think about magical intent in the sense of having the intention to DO something (e.g., shileding your aura),but it can also be viewed as having the intent NOT to do something (e.g., not project or leak, or not break you word, or not break the law, or not forget to make your partner a cuppa before you leave for work). Bit arguable, given the notion that if I say "don't think of a pink elephant" the first thing most people do is think of pink elephant, but I personally find it useful from time to time (particularly the concept of not breaking my word - which, if I want to phrase in a more "constructive" way, I would term "adhering to my personal code of honour/ethics/behaviour).

Anyway, time to get ready for the day: may you be blest in your day, wherever you are.

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr

Notes:

1. I feel like I should be writing "Jesus the Christ": somewhere, I think I've read (maybe that should be some wheres) that "Christ" means "enlightened", so we should refer to "Jesus the Christ", meaning "Jesus the Enlightened".
2. For instance, there are errors in the terms used for Pontius Pilate and errors in the story around the release of Barabbas.
3. This Bush is, for overseas readers, an Australian term for "wild countryside", NOT Dubbya

This post's photo is yet to be posted.

Tags: about me, daily life, emotions, lifestyles, life lessons, love, romance, intimacy, relationships, media, socialisation, O’Neal Gear, archaeology, polyamory, sex, Shakespeare, Obama, indigenous,

First published: Wednesday 9th June, 2010 (I thought about the post overnight, which is why it didn't get posted on Tiw's Day [or Tysdagr, to use the Old Norse]. I had planned a fifth point (originally third in the sequence :) ) in response to the BBC programme, but can't recall what it was)

Last edited: Thursday 5th August, 2010 (added more tags)