Religions > Atheism > if you will drop Hamid's line as for falls, it will else organise the doctrine
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Inspector Sarah Olaes" |
| Date: |
11 Dec 2007 11:06:54 AM |
| Object: |
if you will drop Hamid's line as for falls, it will else organise the doctrine |
take a dim view of the relation to the other sex, for they assume that
getting involved with the other sex is the demotion of man.
And this is precisely why it is said (in the thieves' slang we humans
use) that everyone is duty-bound to marry and that marriage is the
genuinely ennobling life.
In this context it is distressing to me that an eminent person like
Luther came to such an erroneous position. He should have understood
that his marriage was an exceptional act, a corrective; therefore, as I
have pointed out somewhere in my journal, he should rather have taken
pains to stress the fact: Although I am a monk, I have married - the
woman is not at all the important factor here; what was needed was an
awakening, and it would have been just as awakening if it had been an
ironing board, which naturally would have had to be kept secret. This
would have been a way of being salt! But instead Luther became the
commander-in-chief of that whole swarm of prolific people or breeders
who, inspired by Luther, assume that getting married belongs to true
Christianity.
As far as I am concerned, I will not claim to have understood everything
at first as I later came to understand it; if I had not once and for all
run aground on the exceptional. I too would have been married.
Something very exceptional held me back - and now at long last I see
that the exceptional for me is what Christianity would call the
universal, the normal, that Christianity insists on the single state and
rather makes marriage the exception.
Here again a Governance has been with me. But it really had to be done
this way, for how could a ma
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
