Home » Posts tagged 'procreation'

Tag Archives: procreation

Murder Out of Context

Posted on by | Leave a comment

I have previously offered the sacred perspective on procreation, a position that tolerates choice while recognizing that parents are responsible for controlling the frequency of medical trauma. That perspective has been shouted down by psychopathic legalists whose edicts amplify, rather than mitigate, the trauma suffered by women and their children.

To elevate human law over the promptings of the Holy Spirit is the only irredeemable blasphemy. While the Sixth Commandment (“Thou shall not murder.”) issued from the Holy Spirit, it was given in a specific context, and pertains specifically to that context.

The larger context is that of the Flood, after which Noah is told:

“Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.”

[NIV Gen. 8:21]

With the burden of justice settled upon humanity:

“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God has God made mankind.”

[NIV Gen 9:6]

This is an object lesson in attainment of the “knowledge of good and evil.” As Jesus said, God is the source of all that is good. Without His guidance, justice will be irregular of sometimes perverted. This is seen in the structure of the Law itself, which specifies murder as punishment for many offenses, to the absurd extent of an accidental death only when involving an iron implement.

The specific context is the conduct of Moses himself. Moses, positioned in the royal household as the representative meant to organize the liberation of his people, loses his temper and murders an Egyptian. God comes to him in exile, commanding Moses to resume his duty, a duty that Moses renounces in shame. God prevails, of course, and Moses returns to the royal court. The point was apparently lost on Pharoah: the advocate for the Israelites was returned to Egypt, and the heir was allowed the opportunity to be receptive to the testimony of his adopted brother. Instead, the Israelites are liberated only through the intervention of the Angel of Death itself.

Upon reaching the Mount, the People had been conditioned to moral receptivity. The Most High knows that they still are susceptible to the religious anarchy that prevailed in Egypt. So, a set piece is staged: Moses climbs into the Holy Presence while Aaron gathers the wealth of the Israelites to fashion a profane idol.

In this context, the Sixth Commandment was a prophylactic against Moses’ anger, an intervention insufficient against the “inclinations” of his heart. Moses was meant to reason with his countrymen. “Oh, look,  you have created a god to worship. How is that investment paying off? Consider instead these tablets, on which the God of our Fathers has explained how to channel His power…” Instead, of course, Moses shatters the tablets on the ground and proceeds to violate the Sixth Commandment, murdering thousands.

Jesus’ attitude regarding the Mosaic Law is clear. He derogates it. Regarding divorce, He pronounced, “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.” And throughout the New Testament, Jesus said that he would fulfill the Law, and create a New Covenant. The Covenant with Moses would be respected, but only to those that follow it without changing so much as “a jot or tittle.” This judgment is reiterated on multiple occasions by the Mosaic prosecutor who became the evangilist Paul.

In the place of the Law Jesus sent “[His] Holy Spirit,” a personal counselor against whom none are allowed to blaspheme. This covers those that rationalize their sins as “the promptings of the Holy Spirit,” but includes those that impose their understanding of justice on those whose life context leaves them no good choices. To victims of circumstance, the Holy Spirit tenders the compassionate gift of the “Peace that Surpasses All Understanding” and the hope of the Prodigal’s redemption.

The only justification for imposition of human judgment is a claim to privileged preparation to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. The “pro-life” conspiracy is proud to claim such institutions, to govern them with men in respect to the male institution of the Hebrew priesthood, and to reference scripture that counsels wives to follow the edicts of their husbands. Those that assert such privilege, however, should heed the witness of those that persecuted Joan of Arc. At the end of a sham trial in which the martyr frequently rebuked the accusers “Do you really think that We do not perceive the traps that you lay?” an English noble observed “We are all going to Hell.” The entire proceeding was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the second party in Joan’s “We.”

Women, to those that understand Revelation 4, 12, 19 and 22, are the Tree of Life. They have their independent spiritual purpose. For men to impose themselves as judges upon that sacred mission is egregious blasphemy. They should remember that Jesus used a violation of the Sixth Commandment as the mechanism by which He pierced the gates of Hades, thereby redeeming Humanity from the sins codified by Moses. Death is part of the sacred order; the Most High grants that through faith – attentiveness to the prompting of the Holy Spirit – lives can hold meaning. Do not impede the female prerogative to bear children only under conditions propitious to the realization of their Sacred Purpose.

Hear then my judgment: The Federalist Society is an abomination, and the parties that direct its activities and promulgate its policies are guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In divorcing themselves from the promptings of the Holy Spirit, the destruction that they wreak within themselves has an irredeemable finality.

Reproductive Rights (Again)

Posted on by | Leave a comment

In response to this post at The Federalist.

The commentator writes as though no other jurisprudence exists on this matter. If you want to sway the debate, you need to admit and address the arguments made by those that have sought to preserve reproductive rights for women. Many of them are not spiritually unsophisticated: their desire is to create lives that embody love.

And the details of the partial birth abortion are a canard. This is not typical of abortions, which are now most often chemical procedures (the “morning after” pill). Partial birth abortions are incredibly tragic, and politicizing a situation in which either the mother and/or child will die is immoral. A choice has to be made, and it should be made by the parents and their medical practitioners without bringing the police into the situation.

And I would be cautious about the “life at conception” position. Most conceptions end in natural abortions. If there have been 10 billion people alive on earth, God is responsible for aborting at least 10 billion babies. Obviously there is something more subtle going on in the process, some purpose that God has in filtering those that arrive alive in the world.

My perspective is that, being on the path of the knowledge of good and evil, part of our challenge is learning to not be animals in the way that we create progeny. We need to apply reasoned judgment to the problem. That is the gift that God gave humanity above all other creatures, and decrying the use of judgment by others is not morally tenable.

Don’t Blame Love

Posted on by | Leave a comment

In the final chapter of Love Works, the feminine personality of life, irritated by the disorder generated by the masculine personality of intellect, grabs him by the short hairs, prompting him to observe:

Choice is a bitch. Let’s hope the kids do better next time. Now, will you let go? (How does she make it hurt so much?)

It’s undeniable that the spread of life across the earth has been driven by primitive urges.

Life’s procreative greed causes ecosystems to become saturated, stunting evolutionary opportunity. The great extinction episodes of paleohistory terminated biological dead-ends, and were all followed by eras in which life took off in new directions.

Conversely, the ability to use tools requires a large brain and flexible digits, both of which limit the growth of organic armor (which traps heat) and organic weapons (which must be anchored to large bones). Thus creatures of intellect such as humans are biologically vulnerable, and so spread only when they can produce tools that overcome the weapons and armor of other animals.

Once those tools were available, however, fear and greed drove us to consume natural resources without restraint, bringing the globe today to the point of ecological collapse. Deflecting the force of these natural tendencies is the challenge we have laid at love’s door.

In the history of religion, that struggle began with the worship of the two polar opposites of procreation and death. With the rise of the hydrological civilizations, an intellectual class of priests began to envision gods with subtle ethical character. But it was really only about 3000 years ago (and only among the intellectual elite) that humanity dared to suppose the gods should be devoted to us, rather than the other way around.

Monotheism is the culmination of this process, and led eventually to the declaration that God is love. This is common to all of the great religions.

But is it to our advantage? Given that we have free will, why should we feel constrained to draw only upon love when we face challenges? When our treasurer embezzles the retirement fund, do we just shrug our shoulders? Or do we get a noose? And when the hanging is done, can’t we justify the act with the assertiong that we are loving our spouse, children and/or co-workers?

The retort to this logic is that if you had really cared about your treasurer and paid attention to her psychological well-being, you would have seen the trouble long before it manifested. But, damn, that seems like a lot of work, and didn’t we pay them to do the right thing? So we keep the noose handy, and that means that the old deities of death get in through the back door of our religions. They stay alive there, and as ecological collapse sweeps across the globe, they will appear once again to grow in power.

But, fundamentally, they are the disease. Sexual indulgence and fear of death are what drove us to exploit the natural world. That love did not have a magic wand to drive them away is not its fault. So we need to stop blaming monotheistic religions for our refusal to hew to the dictates of love. Rather, we need to double down, even as fear sweeps over us, and invest in the love that creates the strength to resist the urge to exploit the world around us.