Archive for sex

Sin of Onan, Respecting Ethics (sort of)

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, culture, faith, freethought, life, random, religion, sex, sex taboos, thoughts with tags , , , , on October 26, 2010 by chouck017894

In the Genesis tale of Joseph, the plot is interrupted with the subplot regarding Onan, a son by Joseph’s half-brother Judah by a Canaanite woman named Shuah (Genesis 38:2).  Shuah had already borne another son by Judah, and that firstborn son was named Er; and she would bear a third son named Shelah.  This typical “begatting” was cut short in this storytelling, and by verse seven the son Er was found to be “…wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.” 

The theory of primordial man, according to the priest authors of biblical tales, was that every woman must be made pregnant.  But when Er died from God’s alleged displeasure, he had not yet sired any offspring.  This was propagandized as an almost shameful situation.  One must alway increase the herd, so to speak, if you wish to achieve wealth and authority in the world.  Thus, since Er died without progeny, Judah charged his second-born son, Onan, with the duty of impregnating Er’s wife, Tamar, so that Onan’s seed might be raised up to represent Er. 

Like most biblical characters, ethics was not a strong point with Onan, but he did not see that impregnating his brother’s wife was a particularly wise ambition.  But Tamar was attractive, and his big brother was dead, so he did take advantage of the opportunity.  Only at the orgasmic moments Onan”…spilled his seed on the ground.”  For this alleged “sin,” Onan is alleged to have been put to death (Genesis 38:6-10).

Here we are allowed to see how interpretation by Bible fanatics can so often go absurdly astray.  Although this myth says that Onan did cohabit with Tamar, his alleged “sin” was that he simply avoided impregnating his sister-in-law.  So the priest-authors say that God killed him for this!  To compound the absurdity of the alleged “sin,” Onan’s method of avoidance of impregnating his sister-in-law, coitus interruptus, came to give  rise to the term “onanism,” and half-baked Bible enthusiasts then chose to believe the word was a synonym for masturbation.  To this day these Genesis verses are pointed to by fundamentalists as indicating heavenly condemnation of autoeroticism.

Missing the point is a fundamentalist’s habitual means of carrying on a tirade.  In the erroneous interpretation of  “onanism” as signifying masturbation, the main point of the priest-author’s tale is disregarded, for, to the distress of the fanatics, Onan’s alleged “sin” was not sexual.  Onan was punished for being deceptive: he dared to refuse to fulfill the obligation of levirate marriage, meaning impregnating his dead brother’s wife to ensure the continuation of his brother’s family line for the purpose of inheritance.  This primitive tribal mode of reasoning, levirate marriage, is also addressed in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and in Ruth 4.

The average interpreter of biblical texts does not understand that the Bible’s theme is Creation.  When recognizing this theme, the character of Onan properly personifies what may be termed the genetic principle active in life, thus he can also be said to represent the Creator.  Onan therefore refused to crossbreed, which is in agreement with the earlier Genesis command that every living thing was to bring forth after his own kind—not after his brother’s  kind.  And yet, by priest-author interpretation, “God slew him…” for following genetic purity!  The rest of chapter 38 expands upon this contorted version of the genetic process in a spicy episode of having Tamar play the harlot in order to lure her father-in-law, Judah, into misconduct and thus conceive an heir by him.  By her act, Tamar was, by tribal law, supposed to be burned alive for playing the harlot.  Of course when Judah found out that he himself was the one who had impregnated his daughter-in-law, he said that she had been more righteous than he!  The story is left to hang there, telling only that Tamar bore twins, and readers are left to wonder why those in authority are allowed to sidestep responsibility imposed upon others.  No wonder the fundamentalists and those who seek to make the Bible the model for government claim such abiding love for this book.

2 Comments »

Breastplate, Sexy Biblical Garb

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, faith, random, religion, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on September 9, 2009 by chouck017894

(Continuation of Dressed for Sex, Bible Style.)

It was noted in the earlier post that the biblical character Aaron’s holy duty was to minister “in the holy place,” and to do this he was instructed to take upon himself “garments for glory and for beauty” (Exodus 28:40); garments of which it was said “…from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach.”   Since the name Aaron means “to conceive,” and he is to be in the breastplate when he is ministering “unto the holy place,” the breastplate is sacred language jargon to describe the feminine or polar half necessary for the conceiving process.

The “breastplate” that Aaron was charged to  put on when going in to minister “unto the holy place,” is said to have been outfitted with two gold rings “upon the two ends of the breastplate on the border thereof, which is the side of the ephod inward.”  Two gold rings are placed “…on the two sides of the ephod underneath, toward the forepart thereof, over against the other coupling thereof, above the curious girdle of the ephod.” (Exodus 28:27)  Curious indeed!

The gold rings mentioned in connection with the ephod represent the female organs of conception and the place of fecundation.  (Remember, gold represented the sacred respect directed to whatever is focused upon.)  “And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and Thummim…”–symbols of light and perfection–which refers to the genetic purity of each life species.  The instruction had absolutely nothing to do with sexual morals, chastity or the like, but with the process by which all life is conceived. 

That the Urim and Thummim are held to have specific attributes in the breastplate is a prime clue.  “And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and Thummim, and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart when he goeth in before the Lord (law); and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord (law) continually.”  (Exodus 28:30)

The words Urim and Thummim have never been given clarification in meaning, but are traditionally theorized as referring to stones that were perhaps used as lots—a theory based solely on accepting the description of the breastplate literally.  According to texts in Exodus and Leviticus, Moses placed the Urim and Thummim into Aaron’s breastplate, which is commonly accepted to mean into a small square  pocket attached to the ephod.  As usual, ignorant literalization of priestly stories is to be led into spiritual confusion.

The Urim and Thummim imagined to be stones have caused some biblical scholars to surmise they were of different colors, by which the practice of divining god’s will was determined–like casting of lots.  Another interpretation can be traced back to the writings of Josephus (37?-95?)—a strangely unverifiable Jewish historian—that asserted that the jewels on the breastplate became luminouson on occasion.  The suggestion reveals that the author, whoever he was, had an understanding that the ancient term UR always referred to light.  (Remember, Abram/Abraham, whose seed was blessed by god, is said to have come from Ur.)

Since the name Aaron translates in meaning “to conceive,” the light that is implied in the word Urim is the light of life that is to be conceived.  As a personification of the conceiving force, Aaron is thus charged with the duty of bearing the light and diversity of life upon his heart.”   Urim and Thummim, therefore, represent the polar aspects that determine and segregate (judge) the diverse essences and characteristics of each life form, hence this feature is a vital part of the “breastplate of judgment.”

The Urim and Thummim thus serves as astonishing symbolism linked with sexual reproduction, for the “judgment” that is implied is in regard to the segregation into different gametes of paired alleles in meiosis.  In other words, the cell division in sexually reproducing organisms that reduces the number of chromosomes in reproductive cells to half that found in the somatic cells, leading to the production of gametes in animals and spores in plants.  This is then given emphasis with the decorations of  pomegranates and bells that are said to have been embroidered at the hem of the high priest’s garment, for they symbolize seed bearing and the fruition that rings out as life.

  • Abridged from The Celestial Scriptures.  CMH
  • See related post, Gemstones in the Bible, June 2009 

2 Comments »

Dressed for Sex, Bible-Style

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, biological traits, Christianity, culture, faith, life, random, religion with tags , , , , , , on September 8, 2009 by chouck017894

Use of sacred language was a means of disguising many ancient teachings among the politically minded plotters known as priests who chose not to share wisdom with others in order to exercise control over the masses.  Thus in the stories and “history” that scriptures allege to convey, especially in the Old Testament tales, rarely is there provided much functional information for seekers to follow for spiritual advancement.  A prime illustration of sacred language technique used to disguise their true meaning swirls around the character of Aaron introduced in the book of Exodus, and it has to do with the godly prescribed “holy” paraphernalia that Aaron was to wear in his role as high priest.  The hidden meanings will surely shock many devout Bible addicts.

First of all, the name Aaron is derived from the word harah, which means “to conceive.”   Since this myth was written by priests to give themselves authority status, the physical organs necessary for conceiving were disguised as “garments for glory and for beauty” (Exodus 28:40) of which it said, “…from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach” (28:42).  With these “garments” Aaron and his sons were to “…minister in the holy place.”   The chapter then ends saying that these garments are to be “a statute forever unto him and his seed after him.”  The required “garments” are listed as breastplate, ephod, two onyx stones, and pouches of gold.  And the rites to be enacted with these “holy garments” also included liberal use of  “holy anointing oil.”

What do these “garments” really signify?   The word ephod is derived from the Greek word ephobos, which means entering upon early manhood—the time of raging hormones and acute sexual urges.  Bluntly, the word ephod therefore refers to an erect phallus, the organ of conceiving.  This is indirectly reaffirmed in verse 32, where it says, “And there shall be an hole to the top of it, in the midst thereof: it shall have binding of woven work around the hole of it, as it were the hole of an habergeon, that it be not rent.”   The word habergeon is a translator’s word from the French, and refers to a sleeveless coat of mail, which is peculiarly suggestive of the network of nerves in the corona of the penis.

Of the two “onyx stones” (verse 9 through 14), the reader probably already surmises.  The holy instructions declare that all the names of the children of Israel are to be engraved upon the two small stones.  Although the implication seems to be that only six tribal names are written upon each of the two stones, the phrase “children of Israel” means the entire countless descendants—millions upon millions.  Thus the sacred language disguises the biological fact that millions of “names”—or sperm cells—are encoded in the testes. 

The “garment” inventory immediately adds that the “onyx stones” are to be “set in pouches of gold.”  Sacred language uses the value of gold to indicate the sacred respect that was directed to the scrotum and its contents.  Indeed, so holy was the scrotal sac deemed to be that oaths requiring the vow of truthfulness were declared while cupping the testes, the sac of life, for to swear falsely upon one’s “stones” was to court reproductive disaster upon the one so swearing.  From this ancient cutom of testes-cupping we use such words today as testify, testimony, testament, testate, etc.   As for the “holy anointing oil,” that should be pretty much self explanatory.

  • Abridged from The Celestial Scriptures.  CMH
  • Next posting, Breastplate, meaning of 

Leave a comment »

The Stringy Coil of Life

Posted in culture, life, Middle Ages,, nature, prehistory, random, religion, science with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 1, 2009 by chouck017894

In the distant past, around 300 million years ago, the determinants of life consisted of identical chromosomes carried within an ancestral mammal-like creature.  Then some energy infusion caused the identical chromosomes to mutate and diverge as the X and Y chromosomes.  These were to set the destiny for life-form variations.  In other words, the sex method of creature reproduction evolved.  In biblical myth this is Eve being carved out of the side of Adam.  There is nothing sacred initiated with this mutation of the long, stringy masses of genes that convey heredity information.

In the conception of physical life there is, in a sense, a reenactment in miniature of the continuous action of Creation.  In human development, when the male spermatozoon comes into contact with the female pro-nucleus, they fuse and form a new nucleus that contains both male and female elements.  This nucleus is known as the blastosphere.  The first result of fertilization is the division of the ovum.  These two parts then continue dividing and initiate protoplasm development—the energy-substance from which potential life may collect as form.  A fascinating aspect of this division is that two separate masses of protoplasm are established, each containing a nucleus and with the same energy composition but slightly unequal in size.  The segmentation of each mass of protoplasm then develops differently!

The slightly larger cellular mass is more pallid than the other, and after the two cells have subdivided three or four times the rate of cleavage in the cells of the paler mass becomes more rapid than the cells of the other protoplasm mass.  These paler cells have a tendency to spread over and enclose the cells of the other protoplasm mass, and by the ninth or tenth division an external layer of pale cells enclose the mass of slightly smaller, less numerous, more opaque cells.

This is an extremely simplified version of earliest life-form inception, but it shows that the process of fetal development follows the same principles that account for development of everything in Creation.  This energy is the likeness spoken of in Genesis 1:26, “…Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”

That “likeness” is conveyed through 92 different chemical elements and it is through chemical evolution that the multitude of compounds necessary for biological life are generated.  The ineffectual religious interpretation of this is to characterize the defining action that takes place through an amoral chemical process as the “will of God.”  (Amoral does not mean immoral: it is something more akin to indifferent.)

The “soul” and its link to matter-life has been a constant and nagging problem for theologians for over a millennium.  The Roman Catholic Church, for example, reached a theological conclusion that the soul of a human “…is created and united by God to the infant body yet unborn, which union is called passive conception.”  This theological circumvention of elucidation brought the Church “fathers” considerable anguish and perplexity since its medieval time of  institution, for if God unites the soul “to an infant body yet unborn,” then how are they to account for all the infants that the church considers to be “illegitimate”?

The catch-22 to this self-mortifying quandary is that if, as the church insists, God is morally loath to fornication then how is it that he indulges himself in “passive conception” of infants shunned by the church?  This sticky theological puzzle has never been blessed with a sane answer because the religiously disoriented refuse to accept amoral biological facts.  Instead the religious business machines choose to portray this chemical action as the result of some moral being who “passively conceives” in a manner that can only be politely termed as unrestrained.

And because this theologically inspired superstition does not provide any information of just when or at what stage God supposedly unites the soul (self-awareness) to the infant body yet unborn, the church is obliged to condemn abortion of non-conscious energy-substance at any stage of its evolutionary transformation in a chemical base.  So unrealistic is this view of the biological process of life that even preventing conception is condemned!  Of course all this “revealed wisdom” was postulated in the Dark Ages by male-only think-tank members known as the clergy.

The more ancient nature-based faiths were more scientifically astute and positively pro-life than have been the hierarchical, militaristic, and tyrannical religions of the western world through the last two/three millennia.  The degraded and maligned Pagan wisdom understood properly that the microcosm reflects the macrocosm, and all creation principles apply at every level—even in the situations in which individual life forms begin to manifest.   As in the manifestation of other matter-forms throughout the universe, until a definable prototypal form is energized it is simply substance which holds only the potential for matter development.  Human gestation was recognized to mimic these creation principles, so if they pondered over the when or at what stage self-awareness begins to evolve they would be instructed that it is not until the fourth month that a very imprecise awareness as self  is initiated.  It is at this stage of energy involvement, as an example, that sexual polarity is tentatively determined.  Once the developing energy-mass begins to take on unquestionable sexual identity, the will of life can be said to have been taken up.  Even so, the brain, where self-awareness guides the consciousness of life, is not even fully assembled until months after the infant body takes it first breath of life.  Indeed, the brain then grows to half its adult size by the age of six months, and this accelerated brain growth happens only once in life.

See also earlier postings, God Forgot to Say, March 28,2009; The Code of Life, April 1, 2009: RNA/DNA’s Covenant with Life, April 18; What’s in a Name?, April 26.                    The bulk of the above information is taken from The Celestial Scriptures, page 396, regarding lessons of life taught using constellation figures as a subject’s focus.

 

3 Comments »

Religion, Nature and Sex

Posted in Atheist, Bible, biological traits, Christianity, culture, freethought, humanity, life, meaning of life, naturalism, random, religion, sex taboos with tags , , , , , , , on June 4, 2009 by chouck017894

The three organized religions of the western world—Judaism, Christianity, Islam—have been cultivated upon a strong sense of man’s superiority to nature, provoking in that ego-centered illusion the attitude that in nature’s diversity dwells the contamination of evil.  Western organized religions are not exactly philosphies of life: they are philosphies of otherworldly speculations.  To pass judgment upon nature from such an arid obsession is to assure failure across all human relationships, for such judgment is an assault upon the pulse of nature within each of us which reflects the spontaneity that is creation.

This negative approach to understanding the energy-activity in which we have our existence has resulted in millennia of needless emotional turmoil to strongly and negatively color the most intense and dramatic way that human relationships can be expressed: sex.   Thus, in our western cultures where humans are taught to feel isolated from nature, the diabolical result is that individuals will react in squeamishness at sexual attraction or even to devoted relationships.  Christianity with its anti-sex “saints” such as Augustine and Jerome fanning unnatural guilt about passion and attraction have not served as the shepherds of inner peace and contentment.  The natural result of pretending to be above or apart from nature is that the organic spontaneity of sexual attraction gets enthroned as forbidden treasure.

When the interacting energies that manifest as nature are assessed as inferior or contaminated with evil, our biological selves react by hoarding attraction and passion in a corner of consciousness to churn there with mental turmoil spoken of as sex on the brain.  This negative religious approach to nature and sexual attraction has never allowed a philosphy of life to be integrated with the belief in creative intelligence.  Instead of recognizing sexual attraction as a means of spiritual exchange between persons, western religions have installed a formula of prohibitions that reject such attraction as “animal.”  Nonetheless, the human physical being is a mammal, a manimal if you will, that has been taught by negative religious interpretations to think that personal ego reflects universal favor.

An example of grudging toleration that western religions extend to sexual attraction is shown in 1 Corinthians 7, where the implication is that marriage is solely for the purpose of avoiding the greater “sin” of being sexually attracted to more than one.  The  preferred conduct for  man, according to verse 1, says, “…It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”  The unlikelihood of that gets summed up in verse 9 as “…if they cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.”  By that statement it would seem that marriage is not exactly a holy sacrament but a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card.

There is, conversely, in verse 7 of chapter 7 of Corinthians, also a sly nod to nature’s diverse expressons that are present and active within man.  There it is ackknoledged, “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”

Strangely, the gay community has neglected to utilize this statement of one’s “proper gift” as defense when the homophobes spout select biblical verses to justify their bigotry.

 

Leave a comment »

Gnostic vs. Judaic/Christian

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, Bible, culture, history, naturalism, nontheism, religion with tags , , , , , , , on April 15, 2009 by chouck017894

The writings we refer to today as the Old Testament were regarded by Gnostics as the accounts of Jehovah’s crimes against humanity. Jehovah (Yahweh) was not accepted by them as the true god but was assessed as the identity of a Demiurge (creator of the material world).  Such OT characters as Abraham, Moses and the like were regarded as the henchmen of Jehovah who were dedicated to misdirecting the souls of humans into matter and ignorance. This, of course, was considered heretical by the Jewish priests and Christian fathers. But the Gnostics believed that inquiry into spiritual truth was of  more spiritual value than brainless adherence to priest-concocted rituals and ceremonies.

Of the Gnostics themselves very little is known of their true doctrines, with most of the accounts of them provided by opponents and detractors, thus those accounts are probably not too reliable. Because the Gnostics did not regard matter-life to be the true residence of the human spirit they tried to avoid creating material evidence of their entrapment in this material plane. Any writing or illustrative work on Gnostic belief was regarded with contempt, for it was judged by them to provide the means of engendering new errors. As a result there is very little true Gnostic literature or artifacts available for study.

Despite the accounts by opponents and detractors whose interest was promotion of their own belief systems, Gnosticism was, for the most part, centered on the highest ethic. That their concept of ethics was held to be judged from an amoral perspective is difficult to comprehend by modern western religions that insist that everything is to be classified as either good or evil, black or white, or positive or negative. Sex, for example, was not deemed a horrendous wrongdoing by them as western religions chose to pretend and have used to chain people to dogmas through a sense of guilt. Sex was held by the Gnostics to be strictly the business of consenting partners or participants. As Basilides, and Alexandrian Gnostic master of the early first century CE said, “The perpetration of any voluptuous act whatever is a matter of indifference”–to the highest powers.

Indeed, consensual sexual activity was held with positive regard in the little that is known of Gnostic theology, for it was recognized as the means of experiencing the indiscriminate Life Force. The sexual impulse was understood by them to be the highly personal energy field that can open a release from the constricting pressures of this matter world. In other words, sex was seen as a means of re-creating their identity within the universal creative powers –the primary intent of sexual activity. And since the Gnostics sought to avoid entrapping others in this material plane crafted by the Demiurge, procreation was regarded as less than of secondary importance. To the Gnostics the command to go forth and multiply was the enticement to moral and ecological disaster.

Maybe they were on to something.

1 Comment »

God Forgot to Say

Posted in Atheist, Bible, sex taboos with tags , , , , , , , , on March 31, 2009 by chouck017894

The priests and prophets of biblical lore claimed to have received all necessary information needed by man directly from an omnipotent, all-knowing being. It is astonishing, therefore, how much God seems to have neglected to explain to his favorites. In view of the fact that sex is the foundation of all material life forms, why did he not make clear the microscopic process by which he bestowed diversity within all life forms?

For example, male and female development is dependent upon the different determinants or segments or genes distributed along the X and Y chromosomes–X for female and Y for male. Every individual is “designed” or created with different and unique combinations of these, and they affect each person’s body structure, brain activity (including physical desires), and behavioral patterns.

The X and Y chromosomes demonstrate how the chemical process results in character traits and attractions that are of psychological and social interest. For instance, all males with an excess of either X or Y chromosomes tend to produce an increased amount of male hormones which tend to become expressed with a tendency toward aggressiveness and a lower threshold for committing violence in comparison with so-called “normal” male population. Perhaps the hardline religious leaders could possibly be accounted for by an extra X or Y in their chromsomal composition.

For YXX males it seems that violence generally begins early; around the age of 13 instead of around age 18 for the “average” male. The YXX males issue out of a fairly “normal” sample of the population, but they feel at odds with the “normal” environment.

The religiously obsessed choose to ignore the means by which life’s diverse “designs” are allowed and encouraged to manifest as physical form. The idea that human propagation is a sacred duty, for example, elbowed its way into western religious decree through the development of a self-serving Jewish “law,” said to be passed down by God, but clearly fashioned upon tribal mentality. The priest-authors who interpreted God’s “laws” sought to encourage reproduction of their followers to insure the increase of their followers to stand against the differently oriented societies around them. Any sexual activity that did not contribute to the desired growth of followers was deemed a threat to the social/political authority of those priests and prophets claiming divine guidance.

Thus it was claimed by the priest-authors of “holy word” that the Lord abhorred and condemned any nonproductive sexual activity such as masturbation, abortion, homosexuality, celibacy, etc. This was, to be blunt, politically and economically profitable for the priest class, as well as racially eugenic.

Today, with the human population on this little planet hovering over seven billion, for Judaism, Christian, Islam and even eastern “faiths” to continue to regard the propgation of more humans to be a sacred duty is hardly pursuing life’s  higher potential in a responsible manner.

3 Comments »

Religion’s Sexual Roots

Posted in Atheist, Bible, freethought, Pantheism with tags , , , , on March 23, 2009 by chouck017894

All organized religious sects of western cultures have their roots firmly entwined with sexual allusions. This, of course, is fervently denied by those who passionately seek association with the creative power that they imagine to be a humanlike being that is at once highly prejudicial yet blissfully indifferent.

But the sacred path has always tended to meander around in a labyrinth of camouflaged passageways. The alarming thing is that most of the time even the most devout of the “spiritual leaders” are oblivious as to the real message hidden under sacred words.

For a start, consider the word “sacred.” The words sacred, sacrament and sacrifice are all derived from the Hebrew word sacre, meaning “phallus” or “penis.” This should not be surprising, for the penis was regarded throughout all ancient cultures as symbolic of self-manifestation as activated through the creative source. This is why the three major religions of the west have a long history of denying women entrance into the ranks of priesthood.

And the holy testaments that are held out to us as divine pronouncements continue that sex association. We hold in high regard the such words as testament, testify, testimony, testification, testator, attest, etc. Guess what: the honored words are derived from the Latin testis, the testicles, the male reproductive organs situated in the external scrotum behind the penis. The respectful meaning accorded to these words today comes from the ancient custom prevelent through the ancient near-east in which the most solemn oaths were sworn by grasping their own testicles–or sometimes the testicles of the man sworn to–that what was declared was truth. It was regarded as asking for reproductive disaster to swear falsely upon the sac of life.

Of course it then becomes clear where the word seminary originated, although everyone today regards it as meaning a theological school for training priests, ministers or rabbis. But seminary is derived from the Latin seminarius, and referred to the seed carried in the seminal fluid. Again, women were thought to be  incapable of understanding this holy power carried by men and therefore women were barred from holy study.

And just to get the bottom of this, consider the words rector and rectory: Rector refers to a member of the clergy in charge of a parish (Protestant Episcopal and Anglican), or (Roman Catholic) a priest appointed to be administrative head of a church or institution such as a seminary: rectory can refer to either the house where the rector lives or the office of the rectore.  All these are derived from the Latin root rectus, meaning “straight.” It is telling that it is from this same root that we also get the word rectum.

1 Comment »