-
Posts
-
So, the choice question is interesting and I don’t claim to have the answer. I will share that I have a good friend who is gay and he told me quite a bit about his experience. As a teenager, he tried to establish relationships with girls. At one point, he engaged in sexual relations with a girl and he explained to me that being near her, physically, was absolutely repulsive to him. Being close to her naked body literally made him feel sick. He was acutely aware of how hurt his parents would be if he came out as gay so he agonized over it for years.
Let me try to explain.
(84:4.5) Men have long regarded women as peculiar, even abnormal. They have even believed that women did not have souls; therefore were they denied names. During early times there existed great fear of the first sex relation with a woman; hence it became the custom for a priest to have initial intercourse with a virgin. Even a woman’s shadow was thought to be dangerous.
I don’t mean to be condescending or insensitive but sometimes it’s an overwhelming place to be for a boy. That moment when you have to decide what trend you will establish.
Sorry to crop the quote but don’t you think the authors Could have used a little stronger language when they state “differences in viewpoints “? think about it this way: could Michael do the job or take the place of our universe mother spirit, or could she do his job, take his place?
I think the authors are vague on purpose. Don’t forget we are told that our Michael has a nature more in line with the Eternal Mother Son. Why the ambiguity? The Eternal Son acts as a mother in the creation of Creator Sons; the Universal Father acts as the father. Our Michael is apparently more like the mother. Does that make him gay? Or is there a more important purpose for the ambiguity? Perhaps folks with feminine personalities who are given masculine bodies are being asked to explore ways to reconcile the ambiguity without going off the deep end psychologically. Perhaps they are more in line with universe reality than they think . . . just speculating.
(235.2) 21:1.3 The divine natures of these Creator Sons are, in principle, derived equally from the attributes of both Paradise parents. All partake of the fullness of the divine nature of the Universal Father and of the creative prerogatives of the Eternal Son, but as we observe the practical outworking of the Michael functions in the universes, we discern apparent differences. Some Creator Sons appear to be more like God the Father; others more like God the Son. For example: The trend of administration in the universe of Nebadon suggests that its Creator and ruling Son is one whose nature and character more resemble that of the Eternal Mother Son. It should be further stated that some universes are presided over by Paradise Michaels who appear equally to resemble God the Father and God the Son. And these observations are in no sense implied criticisms; they are simply a recording of fact.
Do you think gender identity is a “dual phase of personality manifestation” or personality trend we call male and female?
I think gender identity, as we understand it today, is mostly about sex organs. I think the two types of personality manifestations or trends transcend the physical body as well as the social, psychological and emotional climate of the individual. Patterns are mechanisms of unifying those aspects of selfhood. If a personality has a feminine pattern, selfhood will be unified in that direction. However, what society deems to be feminine and what universe reality deems to feminine may not be the same thing.
So, the choice question is interesting and I don’t claim to have the answer. I will share that I have a good friend who is gay and he told me quite a bit about his experience. As a teenager, he tried to establish relationships with girls. At one point, he engaged in sexual relations with a girl and he explained to me that being near her, physically, was absolutely repulsive to him. Being close to her naked body literally made him feel sick. He was acutely aware of how hurt his parents would be if he came out as gay so he agonized over it for years.
Let me try to explain.
(84:4.5) Men have long regarded women as peculiar, even abnormal. They have even believed that women did not have souls; therefore were they denied names. During early times there existed great fear of the first sex relation with a woman; hence it became the custom for a priest to have initial intercourse with a virgin. Even a woman’s shadow was thought to be dangerous.
I don’t mean to be condescending or insensitive but sometimes it’s an overwhelming place to be for a boy. That moment when you have to decide what trend you will establish.
Oh, no doubt. You make an excellent point. The same can be said of women, too, though. Do you think the average woman is entirely comfortable with the idea of having sex for the first time with a man? It’s terrifying — I think for all of us, regardless of gender.
The sex drive is overwhelming therefore it lays down a foundation, an obvious place to learn how to control oneself by the choices we make. To me the idea that we are born to be inclined to one type of sexual behavior or another is irrelevant,
I agree that the sex urge is nothing more than an urge. It’s what people do with their urges that matter most.
(922.3) 83:0.3 It is because of the sex urge that selfish man is lured into making something better than an animal out of himself. The self-regarding and self-gratifying sex relationship entails the certain consequences of self-denial and insures the assumption of altruistic duties and numerous race-benefiting home responsibilities. Herein has sex been the unrecognized and unsuspected civilizer of the savage; for this same sex impulse automatically and unerringly compels man to think and eventually leads him to love.
In general, the sexual realm of human activity is over-emphazised and has been highly subjected by the outworkings of the self-assertion doctrine of the Caligastia rebellion in my opinion. It’s “no holds barred” so to speak and now in these modern high tech times it’s taken an even more prominent place than before. It’s massively out of control.
I can see the Lucifer seeds of exaggeration of self in the current fascination with sexual freedom, but only when folks identify themselves with their sex organs. We’re supposed to identify ourselves with our souls . . . need I say more? (Same thing happens when folks identify themselves solely with skin color or race.) I think the sexual revolution of the 70’s did more harm than good, especially if you recall the reason for the downfall of the Roman Empire was the emancipation of young men and women to do whatever they wanted sexually (71:1.22). The hyper-fixation on sex organs we see today is, in part, fallout from society’s premature emancipation of youth. Hopefully we will work it out, but it tends to be a nasty process in a democracy where minority groups are permitted freedom to express themselves, and some go overboard (“massively out of control” as you say).
It’s an interesting phrase “personality trend.” Trends are born and upheld by choice are they not?
I don’t think they are born by choice. In the quotes below we are told that we bear the characteristic stamp of our Master Spirit and that stamp provides distinctive personality trends which cannot be effaced for eternity.
(191.2) 16:5.4 The physical stamp of a Master Spirit is a part of man’s material origin. The entire morontia career is lived under the continuing influence of this same Master Spirit. It is hardly strange that the subsequent spirit career of such an ascending mortal never fully eradicates the characteristic stamp of this same supervising Spirit. The impress of a Master Spirit is basic to the very existence of every pre-Havona stage of mortal ascension.
(191.3) 16:5.5 The distinctive personality trends exhibited in the life experience of evolutionary mortals, which are characteristic in each superuniverse, and which are directly expressive of the nature of the dominating Master Spirit, are never fully effaced, not even after such ascenders are subjected to the long training and unifying discipline encountered on the one billion educational spheres of Havona. Even the subsequent intense Paradise culture does not suffice to eradicate the earmarks of superuniverse origin. Throughout all eternity an ascendant mortal will exhibit traits indicative of the presiding Spirit of his superuniverse of nativity. Even in the Corps of the Finality, when it is desired to arrive at or to portray a complete Trinity relationship to the evolutionary creation, always a group of seven finaliters is assembled, one from each superuniverse.
I don’t see anything in TUB either that says homosexuality is evil. However, like any recreational activity we are subject to decision making that is right or wrong. Like if this recreational sex is cheating on a partner, breaking a promise of loyalty or if the act precipitates disease like aids, or other recreations that involves numbing your mind with drugs and related activities that impacts you and your community negatively. There is potential evil in such recreation and sin when you make a choice to do it when you know what the negatives are.
I think you’re talking about self-gratification, and TUB has a ominous warnings about that:
(766.1) 68:2.11 Vanity contributed mightily to the birth of society; but at the time of these revelations the devious strivings of a vainglorious generation threaten to swamp and submerge the whole complicated structure of a highly specialized civilization. Pleasure-want has long since superseded hunger-want; the legitimate social aims of self-maintenance are rapidly translating themselves into base and threatening forms of self-gratification. Self-maintenance builds society; unbridled self-gratification unfailingly destroys civilization.
(942.3) 84:8.2 Originally, property was the basic institution of self-maintenance, while marriage functioned as the unique institution of self-perpetuation. Although food satisfaction, play, and humor, along with periodic sex indulgence, were means of self-gratification, it remains a fact that the evolving mores have failed to build any distinct institution of self-gratification. And it is due to this failure to evolve specialized techniques of pleasurable enjoyment that all human institutions are so completely shot through with this pleasure pursuit. Property accumulation is becoming an instrument for augmenting all forms of self-gratification, while marriage is often viewed only as a means of pleasure. And this overindulgence, this widely spread pleasure mania, now constitutes the greatest threat that has ever been leveled at the social evolutionary evolutionary institution of family life, the home.
Mara wrote:
We had a lively discussion in study group last night about some of the material in Paper 84.
I’m curious, now that our discussion has gone for 3 pages of back and forth, whether your study group’s conversation and what we have discussed here have reached any common conclusions or shared speculation. Or was your group’s discussion altogether different from what has been brought up here? If so, can you share anything from that conversation that we may find enlightening/ interesting?
Bonita wrote: If a personality has a feminine pattern, selfhood will be unified in that direction.
We’ve had past discussions about the bestowal of personality. We do know personality is bestowed before the arrival of the Adjuster.
16:8.3 Personality is a unique endowment of original nature whose existence is independent of, and antecedent to, the bestowal of the Thought Adjuster.
We know other factors condition and qualify personality.
“. . . but personality is diverse, original, and exclusive; and the manifestation of personality is further conditioned and qualified by the nature and qualities of the associated energies of a material, mindal, and spiritual nature which constitute the organismal vehicle for personality manifestation.”
The revelators firmly believe the Adjusters volunteer, and are apprised “. . . of all the associated energies of a material, mindal and spiritual nature which constitute the organismal vehicle for personality manifestation.”
108:1.2 […] The Adjusters thus volunteer to indwell minds of whose intimate natures they have been fully apprised.
None of this pertains to the speculation that personality has a feminine or a masculine trend. But since God doesn’t make mistakes, do you think he would bestow a feminine-trending personality in a masculine body, or bestow a masculine-trending personality in a feminine material body?
I’m curious, now that our discussion has gone for 3 pages of back and forth, whether your study group’s conversation and what we have discussed here have reached any common conclusions or shared speculation. Or was your group’s discussion altogether different from what has been brought up here? If so, can you share anything from that conversation that we may find enlightening/ interesting?
For one thing no one had anything disparaging to say about other-than-heterosexual people. Like you, UB readers have questions. Every person knows someone and many of us love someone who has a non-heterosexual orientation. I think it’s the sex part where people get their underware in a twist.
In study group we read and discuss the material which often leads readers to ponder their own experiences and the people they know. So study group differs from topical discussions where the subject matter is focused. In study group we benefit from each other’s comments and questions (and jokes), but the venue isn’t condusive to what we have here on the forum where people can bring up other material from the book in support of ideas. Here, people have plenty of time to think about things, to do research and formulate their opinions and comments. The discussion here is different and I would say, better, than study group, because of the ability to do the research.
So, the choice question is interesting and I don’t claim to have the answer. I will share that I have a good friend who is gay and he told me quite a bit about his experience. As a teenager, he tried to establish relationships with girls. At one point, he engaged in sexual relations with a girl and he explained to me that being near her, physically, was absolutely repulsive to him. Being close to her naked body literally made him feel sick. He was acutely aware of how hurt his parents would be if he came out as gay so he agonized over it for years.
Let me try to explain.
(84:4.5) Men have long regarded women as peculiar, even abnormal. They have even believed that women did not have souls; therefore were they denied names. During early times there existed great fear of the first sex relation with a woman; hence it became the custom for a priest to have initial intercourse with a virgin. Even a woman’s shadow was thought to be dangerous.
I don’t mean to be condescending or insensitive but sometimes it’s an overwhelming place to be for a boy. That moment when you have to decide what trend you will establish.
Oh, no doubt. You make an excellent point. The same can be said of women, too, though. Do you think the average woman is entirely comfortable with the idea of having sex for the first time with a man? It’s terrifying — I think for all of us, regardless of gender.
Here’s a thought:
Maybe if that first time were not distorted/biased by social pressures to perform like Superman or video clips of porn and degenerate/unnatural sexual behaviors that are so readily available to our kids, but more natural, the experience would be quite different. In our not too distant past, the hunger urge dominated and sex was more of a necessity in order to maintain the working food producing aspect of the community. Self gratification came with sex but it also happened at times when the hunter came home with a load of honey to share, the only sweet thing known to the ancients.
and then there are those institutional religions that attempt to set moral standards resulting in boys and girls having body parts mutilated. How would the thought of that happening to a young girl impact her sex psychology?
But since God doesn’t make mistakes, do you think he would bestow a feminine-trending personality in a masculine body, or bestow a masculine-trending personality in a feminine material body?
Possibly. Why not? As I pointed out a few panels ago, ” . . . what society deems to be feminine and what universe reality deems to be feminine may not be the same thing.”
We know the Adjusters bring with them a predetermined model career for each individual. The challenges of unifying the effects of raging male hormones by a feminine trending personality has potential, and vice versa. For instance, there are some attitudes and emotions which are stereotypically masculine which could benefit from a little feminine softening.
140:5.16 It is a great error to teach boys and young men that it is unmanly to show tenderness or otherwise to give evidence of emotional feeling or physical suffering. Sympathy is a worthy attribute of the male as well as the female.
and then there are those institutional religions that attempt to set moral standards resulting in boys and girls having body parts mutilated. How would the thought of that happening to a young girl impact her sex psychology?
I’ve often wondered what Jesus stance was toward mutilation of the body for religious purposes. I’m certain he was circumcised and he never mentioned anything against it. Not as I recall that is.
and then there are those institutional religions that attempt to set moral standards resulting in boys and girls having body parts mutilated. How would the thought of that happening to a young girl impact her sex psychology?
I’ve often wondered what Jesus stance was toward mutilation of the body for religious purposes. I’m certain he was circumcised and he never mentioned anything against it. Not as I recall that is.
Jesus didn’t really say much about baptism, either, as much as the apostles would have liked him to favor or argue against it. I wonder if circumcision is as much tradition / societal more at the time and place of Jesus as it was religious in nature. He didn’t really comment on social mores or traditions. If I were to guess, I would think that physical alterations *with the informed/ mature consent* of the individual and done for faithful intent, would be okay. But non-consensual lopping off of parts of babies, probably not so much. Just my opinion, though. I am glad my babies were all girls, heh.
(Not judging anyone. Just sharing my opinion based on my admittedly extremely limited experience in that particular arena.)
and then there are those institutional religions that attempt to set moral standards resulting in boys and girls having body parts mutilated. How would the thought of that happening to a young girl impact her sex psychology?
I’ve often wondered what Jesus stance was toward mutilation of the body for religious purposes. I’m certain he was circumcised and he never mentioned anything against it. Not as I recall that is.
more than likely he was
however it likely happened not long after he was born and he was not old enough to see it coming and have time to think about it . Not the case for young girls.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.