Conference quark::mennotes-v1

>    I am interested in understanding the man's relationship with the
>    Lord.  What are your feelings about it?
    
 	Which man?

Richard.

	I can't put my finger on a definate answer here.  I have to believe
  that something or someone created this beatiful planet we live on.  What
  I cannot believe is how could a creator allow such suffering to go on??


						Jim

    i think we should write-lock this topic. it would be better served
    in one of the religion-related notesfiles or in the soapbox. i don't
    see any special male angle on the subject of god.

    I sincerely thank all of the responders for participating in this small
    test.  As pointed out in previous reply this topic really does not
    belong here. 

    It was entered to see how long it takes for the moderators to notice it
    and write-lock it. 

    I would appreciate if you would delete your replies.  This will enable
    me to delete the base topic. 

- Vikas

    So... the moderators didn't delete it.  What's your point?
    
    - M

    the point is that it's probably reasonable to try to discuss what
    it means to be a male in a society that has been heavily influenced
    by a patriarchal religion.
    
    and, as has been pointed out in womannotes, there is a strong
    correlation between sexism and racism in our society, and that to
    understand our sexual roles, it may also be fruitful to think about
    our racial roles... our society has created a pecking order,
    into which each of us fits by virtue of our gender
    and our 'race'. to be unable to see the connection and try to understand
    it requires either willful ignorance or disgusting cowardice.
    
    flameout
    
    /bruce

    RE .8:
   
    That's all well and good, but what did .0-.6 prove? 
    
    - M

    I think it proves that the whole issue has been reduced to childish
    antics.  You guys are just making it worse.
    
    Spence

    A noter enters topic on racism.
    
    A suggestion is first made to move the topic to SOAPBOX.  It is
    promptly write-locked by the moderators because they believe the topic
    is inappropriate for this conference. 
    
    Another noter enters a topic on religion.
    
    Moderators do not seem to have any problem with this topic.  No
    effort is made to direct the discussion to either SOAPBOX or any
    other religious conference.
    
    Why?
    
    - Vikas

    re: .11
    
    The racism note was not promptly write-locked -- it was open for
    3 1/2 days.  During that time:
    
    	(a) At least one person gave their opinion as to why they felt
    	    the discussion did not belong here.
    
    	(b) The moderator of HUMAN_RELATIONS gave the guidelines under
    	    which he felt it would be an appropriate topic of discussion
    	    in that conference.
    
    	(c) There was very little discussion of racism in the note.
    	    Instead, most of the replies debated what conference the
    	    topic does, or does not, belong in.
    
    I didn't see the base note of the racism topic before it was deleted,
    so I can't offer my opinion as to which conference is most appropriate
    for the particular note.  In general, I think HUMAN_RELATIONS is
    a better forum than MENNOTES for discussing racism simply because
    racism is not a gender-specific issue.
    
    	- Jerry
    
    P.S.  Vikas, this note has only been open for two days; you still
          have 36 hours before it will be write-locked.  8-)

    I haven't considered write-locking this topic because I'm unsure
    what the base note is about.  I was hoping for some clarification
    that might make it more relevant to this conference - so far, all
    I've seen is a couple of jokes at the expense of .0's author.
    
    Unless things change, I don't think it's appropriate for this conference
    either, but since there seem to be so many vultures out there panting
    for "moderator blood", I figured I'd stay out of it for a while.
    
    And to Vikas - I would not participate in this discussion no matter
    where it appeared, because to me, religion is a deeply personal subject
    and should stay that way.  I do recognize that not everyone feels
    the way I do about the matter.
    					Steve
    
    

    The only problem I have with posting topics in SOAPBOX is that any
    serious discussion would be marred by the constant obnoxiousness,
    name-calling, and insults by certain frequent users of that conference.
    At least here there is a chance of some polite discussion. 
    
    By the way--have you ever read _Esquire_ magazine?  Though a "men's"
    magazine, it often deals with general topics of interest, not just
    "men's" issues.  The yearly "Dubious Achievement Awards", for example,
    have nothing to do with men per se, but I would hate to see them
    deleted from the magazine.  So, how do you define a "men's issue"?
    Perhaps this issue needs its own topic?
                                                              
    --Mike

    Re: .14
    
    I don't think Esquire and MENNOTES have the same goals.  Esquire
    is aimed at male readers, but covers general topics, with a male
    slant of course.  MENNOTES (in my mind, anyway) tries to deal with
    the subject of men themselves, leaving other topics (finances,
    politics, movie reviews, etc.) to other conferences.
    
    As has been pointed out earlier, just about EVERYTHING is of
    interest to men, and if people just dumped everything in this
    conference, it would quickly be unuseable.  (I believe one example
    was that VMS problems are of interest to most male readers of this
    conference, but that does not mean that we should be posting VMS
    questions here.)
    
    MENNOTES is not a magazine (or even a conference) for men - it is
    ABOUT men, and that is a significant difference.  I notice that
    my views about the scope of conferences are not shared by all,
    including apparently the moderators of WOMANNOTES and many readers
    of same.
    
    To me it is unfortunate that many noters develop "favorite"
    conferences, where they consider it appropriate to bring up anything
    that interests THEM.  This dilutes the usefulness and raises the
    noise level of our conferences.  If we water down all of our
    conferences (especially the "human interest" ones like MENNOTES,
    WOMANNOTES and HUMAN_RELATIONS), we'll lose a lot of what makes
    these conferences so special to us. 
    
    [I recognize that these comments will be taken as patronizing by
    some.  I regret this, but it doesn't affect my views.  Also, I feel
    obliged to point out that this particular reply, while accurately
    reflecting my views based on my experience as a moderator of
    at least a half-dozen active conferences, is not intended as
    an "official moderator's position" on any particular note in this
    conference.]
    					Steve

    
         I think an "Official Moderator's Position" is badly needed
    here.  Otherwise, contributors will begin to hesitate for fear of
    being branded INAPPROPRIATE.  The specifications are rather hazy,
    and to some, the decisions of whether or not a subject is appropriate
    do seem quite whim-originated.  Everyone knows that exact descriptions
    are impossible, but it is getting hard to stay between the lines.
    
                                    ?
    

    Note 75 - Racism - was to discuss racism as it applies to 'the human
    	race'.  Suggestions to rephrase it to be of concern to men only
    	were ignored.
    
    Note 78 - Men's relationship with the God - The title appears to
    	apply to men.
    
    78.0 
>    I am interested in understanding the man's relationship with the
>    Lord.  What are your feelings about it?
    
    If 'the man' refers to men versus women, then it applies.
    If 'the man' refers to the human race, man, then it doesn't apply.
    
    The statement is ambiguous and confusing.
    
    Spence

    Re: .17
    
    Ok, here goes at my attempt at an "official moderator's position".
    If the author of .0 can clarify the topic so that it is clearly
    relevant to men, and not just a general religious discussion, then
    I'd think it could stay.  But I am unable to see how that could
    happen.
    
    I think I've made my interpretations of the MENNOTES "rules for
    eligibility" pretty clear by now.  If you have a topic that is about
    men, or specific to men, then it is appropriate here.  If it is
    a topic that is merely of interest to men, but would be equally
    of interest to women, then it probably doesn't belong here.
    
    One of the rules in the conference introduction suggests that if
    you are unsure whether a topic belongs in the conference, you
    should contact a moderator before entering it.  (If this happens,
    the contacted moderator should notify the other moderators so
    there is no confusion.)
    
    I, for one, am getting tired of all the moderator baiting that has
    been going on here.
    					Steve

did i read somewhere in this note that it was entered just to see how
    long it would take to get write-locked??????
    well if i was a semi-religous person i would probably be offened
    by someone using god to bait the moderators.
    
    as an aside, i am meeting more and more men that are returning to
    organized religion as they get older. it seems they have a need
    for a feeling of peace and for a sense of belonging.
    
    					kelly

    Until the author of .0 can reconcile .0 with the note that follows,
    my position is as follows:
    
     1) .0 Was nothing but pure moderator-baiting.
     2) I recognized it as such when I first read it.
     3) I refuse to participate in such games.
    
    How can I read what is below and not come to conclusion in #2???
    
    - M

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
                                  -< Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 31.27                  Reax to other Conferences                  27 of 102
SERPNT::SONTAKKE "Vikas Sontakke"                    11 lines   2-MAR-1987 09:35
                           -< Please take the hint >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: <previous few>
    
    If some people enjoy their limited view of the world, let them. But if
    and when they get out of their shelterd conference, I expect them to
    behave as rational human beings.
    
    Particularly, I will not tolerate ANY religious propaganda in THIS
    conference.  And if the situation arises, I will have no hesitations
    in going to the highest level to get it cleared up.
    
- Vikas

    re .23:
    
    Yes, I saw that.  The point of my previous posting was that the
    note from SBox was entered almost 2 weeks prior to .0 and I, having
    read it, had good reason to suspect .0.
    
    - M

    well, there's still fertile ground here for discussion...
    
    does the fact that one of our dominant religions reveres 'virgin
    birth' have any effect on the way men look at women? are there any
    sexually active men who still wish to marry virgins?
    
    does the fact that most religions relegate women to subservient,
    self-effacing roles affect the way that our society has controlled
    the roles allowed to women?
    
    /bruce

    re: .26
>                          -< JOHN 3:16, BELIEVE IT!! >-

    OR NOT!!!!
    
    ASP    

    From the age of two to six I lived in Miami, Florida.  Unlike today
    there was quite a bit of undeveloped land, and I remember going
    to outdoor fairs and circuses on open grounds where not a single
    house could be seen.  
    
    Indeed when I split my head open after falling from a high tree,
    the ride to the hospital resembled an outing in the Plains states
    out on the open highway.
    
    My mother and father had married in Coral Gables in May of '57 in
    a Methodist Church and exactly a year later I let out a scream 1200
    miles away in Portsmouth, NH.
    
    I didn't know it then, and even today I hardly recognize it, but
    it seems clear to me that my parents interest in Church life, an
    interest which in so many ways involved a real reaching for the
    higher meanings of life, set the foundation for my own religious
    interests which have propelled me thru life.
    
    When I was four my Dad walked me along the beaches where we'd marvel
    at the gulls and acrobatic pelicans.  I wondered how those gulls
    could soar so high, effortlesly gliding over a small church by a
    port which overlooked the sea.
    
    I noticed a simple cross atop the structure and asked my pop, "Dad
    what is that"?  "That's a cross Russ, churches that believe in Jesus
    have those."
    
    "And who is that"?  "I'll show you a book at home that tells you
    about him," he replied.
    
    My eyes were transfixed on that little church and that thing on
    top of it as we walked back to the car.  It wasn't a weather vane
    on top of that building like most of houses I'd seen.  It was a
    *different* thing called a cross!  It didn't tell which way the
    winds were blowing, or even help tell if a hurricane might be brewing!
    
    It just stood there alone, underneath whatever sky nature decided
    to surround it with.
    
    As was often the habit when my Dad and I returned from a walk by
    the Sea, sand had totally filled my small rounded sneakers and I
    couldn't wait to take them off.  I liked to pour the sand grains
    over backyard anthills to see em squirm.  Sometimes the sneakers
    would stomp on them, particularly if the ants were those stinging
    red ones.  Arggh, how I hated them!  And the roaches!  
    
    My Dad showed me a book called the Children's Bible and started
    reading it to me.  I listened intently as the words and pictures
    of a not too distant past registered images in my mind.
    
    Adam and Eve walking with God.  An accident in the Garden by both
    of them, tricked by a serpent, an enemy to God!  My!  A big thing
    called knowledge being eaten up by the 2 sexes, with their beliefs
    totally tied up with it.  God walking away disgusted.  Adam and
    Eve have kids and one of them kills his own brother!  People of
    different lands, tongues, customs, dress, all sorts of changes and
    differences engulfing the world.  Sometimes love and caring, often-
    times a bad thing called war and strife.
    
    Noah's rush to save his family and as many animals as he could because
    God was mad at people's way of life and wanted to get rid of as
    much bad as he could!  Months of floods wrecking everything, and
    a bird being sent out to find life or land outside of the ark.
    
    Relief when a green leaf is found and the courageous crew is allowed
    to escape that cramped boat and re-settle the land, a brand new
    start!
    
    Frustration when the problems that happened before crop up again
    and God gets mad again, this time thru more and more people like
    Moses.  And all of the tales that go with those men.
    
    The sea waters that close in on Pharoh as Moses and a huge group
    of people settle in another land.
    
    The New Testament with the baptism of Jesus, the son of God, by
    John the baptist.
    
    The better way of treating people and behaving - living and following
    the spirit of the law (ie 10 commandments) and not the letter!
    
    The sermon on the Mount, Mary washing Jesus' feet, a last supper,
    a crucifixion, and the son of god rising alive from the grave.
    
    "So that's why my father said those evening prayers before supper",
    I thought, "he and mom believe in God and respect him in this and
    other ways."  
    
    The birds and fishes, animals and insects, flowers and trees, land
    and sky all had a meaning beyond what I had thought before.  So
    many of these things were not just alive, moving, and growing, -
    God had made them and cared for them!
    
    To be sure he didn't care much for those things that were bad or
    had gone bad, but God cared even for bad people for as far as he
    was able to!
    
    One night after I finished the last page, I tip-toed out under a
    quarter crescent moon and walked silently toward the beach.
    
    My parents were asleep and even a startled Amarillo I'd nearly tripped
    over on a sand dune couldn't disturb my urge to trek on.  
    
    I picked up a stick and used it as a cane in case there were any
    more of those or any snakes.  I threw off my sneakers and hid them
    in a garbage can under a streetlight near the beach where I could
    find them later.  I could hear the crash of the waves getting louder
    and louder.
    
    As I reached the seashells upon the darkened beach, I noticed a
    blazing bonfire a quarter mile to the right of me, and I headed
    toward it.  
    
    I stopped several times along the way as sharp points of shells
    kept piercing the tender underneaths of my feet.  I wondered if
    I was bleeding and squinted hard in what little light there was
    to see if I could tell.  "Why didn't I wear my sneakers", I thought
    as I approached the distant light.
    
    I relished the thought of warming my toes as the Ocean's cold water
    on sand's edge kept moving me toward higher ground.  "If I step
    on a big Clam I'm a goner", I thought.
    
    A group of about a dozen people seemed around that beach-front fire
    and I heard a chorus of voices singing out with vigor.
    
    A sigh of relief passed thru me as I was afraid it might be pirates
    looking for trouble.
    
    I sneaked off the main beach part and hid behind a wooden fence
    about 100 feet from the blazing fire.  
    
    A group of Florida natives of all color were loudly singing religious
    songs about love and God.  I couldn't hear all the words, but I
    could tell they were having a good time and I sure as heck could
    feel the intensity of the moment.
    
    These people were happy and they were into their music.  They believed
    in God and themselves and they exalted in that love of life, their
    creator, and themselves by shouting forth the joyous words that
    only happy chords can yield.
    
    I watched them join hands in circles, dance, and cuddle up close
    in blankets as the flames died down.  
    
    It is beginnings like these - seeing a cross, reading and being
    read a book, to feeling the warmth of a beach full of joy that
    started me toward my awareness of the God.
    
    
                                                   Russ

    
    if a church that worships Yehoshua ben Joseph has a cross,
    I wonder what God is worshiped in buildings with a rooster...?

    I saw this topic quite a while ago and thought my comments would
    be inappropriate. That was then...
    
    And of course this is now.
    
    I noticed two different titles given to this deity. One was "Lord"
    and the other is "The God".
    
    Let me state parenthetically that I don't have a God or a Goddess. I
    have a relationship to/with life which I call Nature. As human minds
    try to understand the processes of Nature we sometimes put arms and
    legs on the damn thing and ruin it entirely. Yet for some strange
    reason I sometimes call Nature the Goddess. (Must be all that
    indoctrination. B^) Yes Nature has it's fertile aspects and if one sees
    the world as an entity pregnant with possibilities once could term it
    Goddess. 
         
    Now as the human mind really gets going we see different parts of the
    process. Some are female in "feel" and others are male in feel.
    Consequently a male form of the deity is conceived. Many, if not most,
    neo-Pagans call this entity "The God", as per the topics title, and
    consider it a subdivision of the Goddess.  Semi-logically then I have
    as much a relationship to the God as I do the Goddess.
    
    Well where does this Lord stuff come in? The God in northern European
    mythology many times is referred to as the Horned Lord; the master of
    the wild beasts. This may be a recreation of the Greek God Pan. Now Pan
    is not the little satyr that runs around playing his pipe for those
    that ask. Pan was seen as the full effect of life in the forests as
    seen by the city dweller. My guess is that Pan became a fearful entity
    because the city dweller had already lost their ability to subsist
    permanently in the wilds. Thus Pan took on negative meanings (from
    whence the Christian "Devil" emerges) caused by the fear of Nature. 
    
    For me then, as one who has a relationship with life and nature there
    is no panic in Pan or in any of his look alikes. I know and love that
    beast master that lives inside me. And I look for that same force in my
    friends and lovers.                                                

    I agree with most of what was said in the reply before this one.
    I see the Goddess in all things around me.  I find that I don't
    need a church to feel close to the Goddess for she is also in me.
    
    Before any flames start here, I am not trying to preach.  Us Pagans
    do not feel a need to try to convert others.  I was just stating
    a few of my beliefs.
    
    Blessed Be,
    
    Pat

    One of the difficulties with the notion of a Goddess, is the fact
    that there is an utter paucity of established religions (certainly
    in contemporary society) regarding any such distinctly identifiable
    female being.
    
    While feminist scholars such as Eisler (Stone, Daly, etc.) have
    gone into a number of such deity histories and myths, I do wonder
    just what is there (ie "in it for a man") for me to want to grasp
    about some theoretical Goddess beings that don't have any kind of
    substantive history by which I might be able to seriously consider
    the idea of possibly being attracted to such a deity?
    
    It is not enough to her people say about a Goddess, "The idea of
    the Goddess is MINE," nor does it do to hear, "And Goddess bless
    them all."
    
    Martel said that Goddess worshippers don't believe in anything and
    I agreed with him.
    
    Maybe when the great library of Alexandria, Egypt burned, Western
    Civ was set back 5000 years.  
    
    And with it, any chance for a Goddess history to survive, much less
    flourish.
    
                                                    Russ

    Reply to...
================================================================================
Note 78.32               Men's relationship with the God                32 of 32
MCIS2::POLLITZ                                       26 lines   8-JAN-1989 20:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  >  One of the difficulties with the notion of a Goddess, is the fact
  >  that there is an utter paucity of established religions (certainly
  >  in contemporary society) regarding any such distinctly identifiable
  >  female being.
   
    I don't know if I'd call it an "utter paucity of established
    religions". B^) 200,000 to 400,000 folowers may be small by number
    but that is still alotta' people.
    
    The Goddess is there but you don't notice Her. She's also called Mother
    Nature. We all think we understand Mother but do we really? We all
    think Mother is on the back burner, but is She? We all take Mother for
    granted but should we? You get my drift? She is a feature in our
    psyches, something conscious and unconscious, not just words on paper
    (news of natural catastrophes, etc.) to be ignored. 
             
   > While feminist scholars such as Eisler (Stone, Daly, etc.) have
   > gone into a number of such deity histories and myths, I do wonder
   > just what is there (ie "in it for a man") for me to want to grasp
   > about some theoretical Goddess beings that don't have any kind of
   > substantive history by which I might be able to seriously consider
   > the idea of possibly being attracted to such a deity?
    
    I've asked this question myself. I guess for a number of reasons
    men can benefit from 'a Goddess'. Men can see nature, life, the
    planet as nurturing instead of punishing; as the giver of life as
    opposed to the giver of civil law. It's a way of looking a life.
    We see ourselves as holy and divine also in opposition to guilty
    and sinful.
    
    Another benefit for men is that 'a Goddess' is primarily focused on all
    the real aspects of life as opposed to abstract concepts describing
    those aspects. Instead of creating abstract ideas about life we can
    just live. It takes the mental pressure off. Feel horny? Get laid.
    Feel loving? Love somebody, including yourself. Feel like crying?
    Go ahead. Wanna' party? Go ahead. Wanna' run around naked? Go right
    ahead. If it wasn't fun I wouldn't be involved.
    
    There is a unifying aspect of 'a Goddess' that deserves a topic it's
    own in another conference. 
    
    And there is always the "sex factor" in choosing a deity.
    
   > It is not enough to her people say about a Goddess, "The idea of
   > the Goddess is MINE," nor does it do to hear, "And Goddess bless
   > them all."
    
    Every deity is a conception in each and every followers mind. Each is
    unique to some extent. Each is the intellecutal property of the owner
    of the brain that conceived it. What has this to do with anything? 
    
   > Martel said that Goddess worshippers don't believe in anything and
   > I agreed with him.
                                               
    Brother Martel, rest his soul in Summerland, was wrong. They do believe
    many things.            
  
    Further, most of Wicca, sometimes referred to as The Old Religion, is
    focused on a Goddess and a God. This is to balance the vision of Deity
    in the psyche. If deity is female in "feel" we won't treat women badly
    because they are divine. The same goes for men and male deities. 
    
    I'm divine. So don't treat me badly. B^)
    

    Mikie,
    
    If most (if not all) of the alleged psychological differences between
    men and women are largely are largely culturally imposed and the result
    of a sexist society, then isn't assigning a gender to a deity because
    of a male or female "feel" rather sexist?
    
    -- Mike

    
    Intersting how this topic suddenly came to life...
    
    As far as my own views go, I don't subscribe to any organized religion.
    I feel most "comfortable" with the writings of Lao-Tse if I feel the
    need for spiritual reflection, but I'm no more of a Taoist than I am
    a Baptist.  I tend to focus on ethical behavior and a healthy respect
    for the natural world rather than a set of rules and rituals.  My
    friends belong to all sorts opf different religions or to none, and
    I can't remember the last time any of us "argued" about religion.  So
    I guess you could say my relationship to "God" is one of mutual
    tolerance - he doesn't fry me with a lightning bolt, and I don't mess
    with him or his adherents.
    
    The only things that draw a response from me on a religious front are
    when someone continues to try and "convert" me after I've made it clear 
    that I'm perfectly content, and when I see the abridgement of civil
    liberties based on religious beliefs.
    
    For the most part, discussions of religion have always struck me as
    the anaysis of a footprint in the sand, rather than a look at what
    or who caused the footprint.  Most of the heat generated comes from
    disagreements over peoples actions (or inactions) which they ascribe
    to their particular set of beliefs.  And, unfortumately, religion often
    gets used as a thin disguise for peoples fears, insecurities, and 
    political maneuverings.
    
    Ron

    Reply to...
================================================================================
Note 78.34               Men's relationship with the God                34 of 35
CSC32::M_VALENZA "Able was I ere I saw Elba"          8 lines   9-JAN-1989 09:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
  >  If most (if not all) of the alleged psychological differences between
  >  men and women are largely are largely culturally imposed and the result
  >  of a sexist society, then isn't assigning a gender to a deity because
  >  of a male or female "feel" rather sexist?
  
    I'm a little confused. The first part of the questions seems to be
    true. However the second part does not seem to follow from the first. 
    
    Perhaps feel is a bad word. Then again, if I fondle the brest of a
    woman I feel the womaness of her body. I call that female. Is that
    sexist?
    
    This seems to be the problem with dualism. One material form exists,
    then another. Which terms describe which the best? 
                                                  

     It does seem that assigning a gender to the supreme being is
    superfluous. Since the supreme being has no reason to reproduce
    (at least sexually), assigning a gender to it is groundless. 
    
     Perhaps because individuals feel the need to identify more closely
    with their idea of God, they simply feel the need to describe
    their idea of that being as having a sexual component. While this
    idea may or may not (probably not) have basis in spiritual reality,
    it does serve to foster a better relationship between themselves
    and God and can be looked at as being beneficial. (to them)
    
     While each person has their own idea of "God," until one of us
    meets the "real God," and reports back to us, there will be little
    in the way of definitive arguments regarding gender or much of anything
    else. I personally feel that as there is no real need for a gender
    to be attributed to God, I find that my image of God transcends
    the limits of gender. Attributing a gender to God, in my estimation,
    serves only to alienate half the population.
    
    The Doctah 

    Re: .38
    
    The issue of God's gender appears to be most noticeable, when
    refferring to God as a pronoun in the the third person singular.
    
    In English, we have three choices: He, She or It.
    
    And I know a lot of people get offended when they hear God referred
    to as "It".
    
      Alan