Having children, marriage, and sex
I am trying to come to grips with the NEW MORALITY that Monjoronson intends to teach us. Clearly, it is different from the moral codes we have become accustomed to in the various cultures of our world. In my own experience I have found that moral issues are the most divisive ones in human society and religion. No two people can be found to agree on all aspects of moral judgement. From a study of the Urantia Book I have found that it is specifically stated that God judges our acts according to our intentions. If this is the same as saying that the end justifies the means, then so be it. In any case the only way it could be moral on the part of God to create us as imperfect beings is if the end does justify the means; even justify all the evil that has come about because of our mistakes. Therefore, it is necessary to start with a clean slate and work out all our moral ideas anew. This is going to shock a lot of people, but I can't help that. Enough people have suffered from wrong ideas about morality, so, if the price of getting it right is to be shocked, it will be well worth it to end so much mental, spiritual and physical torture.
First I quote from conversations with Monjoronson #40:
"MONJORONSON: Part of the education that must be invoked in the design for sustainable marriages is the thought of having children, or not to have children. Being married does not require people to have children; having children does not require couples to be married. The intention of our work at this point is that children would be brought into the world consciously, deliberately, with an intention of fulfilling their lives to their greatest and maximum potential if possible.
"The marriage quotient is another issue, which does not necessarily relate to the morality of having children out of wedlock. It may seem strange to you, but billions of children have been born throughout the duration of human existence, out of wedlock. Marriage is only a recent invention of society and of tribes, and would be seen as a contractual relationship for tribal and clan purposes. We agree that commitments of marriage are worthy, but are not necessary as long as the individuals are faithful to each other and the commitment of the relationship. There has been so much burden put upon marriage and having children that they have been seen to be very difficult in most societies."
This means that the most serious moral responsibility attaches to bringing children into the world and looking after them. No one has got any right to bring children into this world unless they accept full responsibility for looking after them and giving them a fully human life, to the best of their ability. You can be married out of love and the need for sex and practice any appropriate form of birth control to avoid having children until you are ready to take up that grave responsibility. Or you can partner outside marriage with someone and deliberately bring children into the world with the full acceptance of your responsibility towards them. Either way, there is no question of sin in the eyes of God. This has nothing to do with religion. Religion should concern your personal, individual relationship with God, and your commitment to your divine and immortal destiny. It is not the province of religion to order your married life, your sex life, your sexual preferences, your eating habits etc. etc. Monjoronson is quite clear about this.
As a trained and ordained Roman Catholic priest, I know all the teachings of the Church about this. One thing they argue is that, although food is necessary for human beings, sex is not strictly necessary. On the other hand, Monjoronson clearly says that sex is necessary. It is just as necessary for us as it is for any other animal. This also agrees with my lifetime experience. Frequent sex is therapeutic, necessary to maintain peace of mind and an harmonious relationship with your environment. It makes you a warm, loving and affectionate personality. It helps to maintain physical health by refreshing cell functions of destruction and replacement of damaged cells, thus avoiding some types of cancer. This is part of the life-affirming and sacrifical aspects of sex, which are always present.
The Urantia Book consistently emphasizes the falsehood of the anti-sex concepts that crept into both Judaism and Christianity. In particular it rejects the concepts about this expressed in Saint Paul
We should not try to be holier than God. God created animals as sexual beings, and that is a beautiful divine idea. He also created us as animals, and also allowed for our evolution from animals to pure spirit beings after our death, as well as after a training in hundreds of different world that goes on for millions of years. It is most insulting to God to think that our animality and sexuality is filthy, obscene, lascivious, or in anyway unworthy in terms of divine values. On the contrary, it was given primarily for affectionate bonding rather than for procreation. That it is part of the procreation process is precisely because the ecstasy of bonding between two mortals is itself intrinsically a divine ecstasy which is shared by God. However much mortal bonding may fall short of the perfect bonding of the Holy Trinity it is none the less integrated with the divine. That is why it is the highest ecstasy mortal man can attain in the flesh.
Our moral duty as regards sex has nothing to do with religion as such. It has to do with human ethics. That means that we should use it with a deep sense of responsibility for all the consequences of our actions. We should think out and learn from experience of life what the consequences are, and use our sexual component in such a way that we will respect the rights of other people and do no harm to them. An intelligent person can work out for himself ways to relieve or release sexual tensions and derive reasonable sexual gratification without causing any harm to others. If in doubt he can pray for help to God and the spiritual agents of God to solve his problem. Just because it is not specifically a religious matter does not mean that they will not help you out. They will.
From my theological studies I found out how the Catholic Church has muddled up such moral issues. They quote Jesus as saying: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." They fully misinterpret these words. What Jesus means is that God is Love, and two people come together out of that same love that is also in them, the love of God; for when we love another human person it is truly God Himself that we love in them. Love gives us new eyes to see the hidden divine perfection in them. And Jesus means that it is the sole right of the two persons concerned to do this by their mutual consent, and no third party, whether a private or public party, whether of Church or State, has any right to come between them or interfere with their free will decision, or force them apart. He did not say that they could not themselves divorce by their own free mutual agreement. The Church similarly misinterprets the so-called "Pauline Privilege". If they could understand what Paul is trying to express they would see that it exactly the same as what I wrote above in regard to the message of Jesus. If Jesus had really condemned divorce then Paul would not have the right to make such an exception. Nor is it logical to suppose that such a particular exception could be the only possible one. There are many circumstances in which divorce is a lesser evil. In such matters our own God-given reason is all we need to find a correct solution. We don't need laws, dogmas, priests, bishops, popes, dictators and tyrannts. It is time we grew up!
All such false ideas have come about from the competition between different religious groups to be 'holier than thou' towards one another. In doing so they succeed in being "holier" than God Himself, and their unrealistic puritanical approach imposes severe burdens upon the conscience of ordinary people and makes religion a matter of fear and guilt instead of love, joy and celebration as it ought to be. This is one of the main reasons why so many modern educated people hate religion and have taken up an atheistic attitude. On the contrary, I would rather die right here, right now than be an atheist. I would welcome any terrorist to blow my brains out before I could become an atheist. My aim it to throw out lousy religion and make a new religion worthy of the God I love.
Signed, John Robert Thwaytes at Malbazar on Saturday, February 11th 2012.
Great insight and words John; I don;t know who this Monjoronson is, or if he's a psychic manifestation or hallucination or angel ... but the words are pure and very good guidance I think. I would enquire where does this moral stances allow for the current push for homosexual/lesbianism to be considered 'normal' and for their 'union' to be considered as a marriage - and to then raise (and influence) children. Do we risk having entire generations of gender-benders until the simple and original sexuality, of man and woman, and the original 'natural' structure of the family as it has been for aeons, becomes actually just one rather 'square' version of the menu of options that our free radical society embraces? It seems to my naive or old fashioned mind that the normalisation by decree, of that which is clearly not 'normal' is a high maintenance scenario, aside from the ethical minefield of homosexuality itself and the obvious issues of worldwide AIDS epidemic and so forth - how can children be safely 'reared' pardon the pun, with such influences tending to educate that a man mating with a man, or a woman mating with a woman, is a normal scenario ? We can simulate normality, using devices such as surrogate birthing, but I suspect a lot of misery is being born, down the track, for the offspring of these sorts of marriages. It is one thing to accept the right of individuals to have their own version of sexuality, another to take that into the next step of involving children. What does Monjoronson or JT or Teddy have to offer on this gnarly issue? I of course recognise that the awful scenario is not necessarily typical and that many very happy and well-adjusted children may emerge from same-sex parent homes - they may also be disoriented, identity-challenged and sexually inadequate or psychologically affected and even influenced towards a life of the same homosexuality? I think the word 'gay' is as weird as the reality, as they seem far from gay really, aside from the pubic performances of 'gay abandon' gauged to influence us all to see how happy and liberated and 'out' they are?
ReplyDeleteI don't relate at all to the concept so freely touted, that in most cases people do not choose to be homosexual, I think that is the exception not the norm. Society has no role to judge, and should be concerned only where kids are involved, so I am playing the 'Devil's Advocate' in asking these questions, and using some of my terminology - I realise it is not trendy to have any negative view of homosexuality, or such modern ideas as same sex marriage. What next, can I marry my horse as long as we are truly in love? Or what about marrying my daughter? Or my son? Is anything morally sound, as long as it is loving? Isn't this making a commodity of sex, so that I have a right to any pleasure, thus can mate with a man legally now ... and um, I want everyone to consider this normal ... and um, we also want to play house together and have kids???