Sunday, September 7, 2008

Sexuality And The Christian Devil

I've had a busy weekend and it's only going to get busier, so this might not be the world's longest post. It won't really take a long post to discuss sexuality and negative plane energy. It only takes books and books and reams and reams of words to justify historical Christianity's take on sexuality.

First off readers need to understand that I don't sexuality as divorced from the totality of a person. Secondly, readers need to understand that I see sexuality as the epitome of the gift of material reality which is touch. Touch is God's way of exploring this reality. He does this through our hands, our hearts, our bodies, our sexuality. In this sense I see sexuality as a spiritual endeavor, not strictly a procreative endeavor.

When sexual morality is divorced from heart and spirit, relegated to a series of do's and dont's based in procreation, the door is wide open for negative plane energy to exploit our sexuality. Negative plane energy is not embodied. Therefor, they, like God use our ability to touch to explore the material plane along side of us. They are not interested in exploring sexuality as a function of love, joy, peace, sharing. They are interested in exploring it through exploitation, dominance, pain, violence, guilt, shame, fear, power. Historical Christianity has made this effort much easier by making sexuality a guilt driven enterprise reducing women's role in sexuality to passive receptors of male seed and birthing of children. Historical Christianity has taken male seed and made it an idol around whose proper planting all sexuality must conform. Essentially historical Christianity has taken the multi faceted world of sexuality and reduced it to a form of farming. Unfortunately the farm feeds a whole host of negative plane energies, through a whole host of exploitative sexual behaviors.

Sarah Palin's shot gun wedding for her daughter amply illustrates how this dynamic works. She has a pregnant seventeen year old daughter who will dutifully marry the father of her child. This is the same 'father' whose face book biography specifically stated he didn't want any f***ing children, amongst a whole host of other redneck self descriptors all most all of them beginning with f***in'. In spite of ample evidence that he demonstrates a stunning lack of parental and husbandly maturity, he will marry and become a father in direct contradiction to his own self understanding. Apparently this is what Jesus would do.

Who benefits from this shotgun wedding other than Sara Palin and John McCain. Undoubtedly a whole host of negative plane energy will, that's for sure. I'm not talking about demonic possession here. I'm talking about energies that just hang around to bathe in the kinds of emotional energy which is generated when immature morally undeveloped youth engage in sexuality and then are forced to into marriage. I've seen how difficult and emotionally charged these young marriages can be, and I can't begin to imagine what it's going to be like for these two teenagers in the face of all the media exposure their relationship will endure. They may have proven they were biologically ready for procreative sex, but that doesn't mean they are spiritually and emotionally ready to become parents.

There is a huge difference between making babies and raising children. This difference is not acknowledged by historical Christianity in it's sexual morality. It leads to really interesting thinking which morally charges women to have the babies of their rapists, and makes sexual rape more moral than masturbation. Makes no sense at all in a spiritual definition of sexuality but absolute sense in a morality which is based strictly in biological procreation. This thinking is what we are being asked to vote for. I'm sure some of Palin's biggest supporters are not of this world, and not of the Angelic world.

The negative energy swirling around human sexuality will not leave until humanity takes the high road with regards to sexuality and understands that it is indeed one of our highest Divine expressions. If it's true humanity is God's way of understanding Himself through touch, than we need to rethink our traditional view of sexuality in this context. This won't happen through the auspices of a 'celibate' all male clergy. Sorry you true believers.


  1. Colleen, this is hard-hitting, right-on-target analysis that manages to do what few commentators on sexual morality do: link its spiritual meaning (or the betrayal of that meaning) to its cultural embodiment.

    The following lines are sheer brilliance: "There is a huge difference between making babies and raising children. This difference is not acknowledged by historical Christianity in it's sexual morality."

    What's especially brilliant is that you link what many folks say--there's a big difference between making babies and raising children--to something many people don't even see. This is that any sound sexual morality has to talk about that difference and recognize it as essential.

    Which means it's really shocking when our sexual morality DOESN'T talk about that difference. And it doesn't. And you're among the few folks pointing it out.

    It's a heck of a lot easier to talk about the morality or immorality of this act and that act, than to talk about how we embody mature sexuality in a spiritual way in our lives.

  2. Bill, if the churches can't wake up to this distinction, then society is going to have do it for them.

    Children resulting from the experimental fumbling around with sexuality by teenagers are not indicative of spiritual acts. They are indicative of nothing more than the sexual plumbing works. I have yet to talk to a young man who admitted to seriously thinking his sexual activity would lead a child.

    It's amazing how many times they act the most surprised of anyone. It's amazing how many times he says he feels betrayed, as do the parents of the teens involved. All of this creates such the welcoming environment for the new child, that 'spiritual' gift of procreation.

    The reality is this is an environment which punishes the child and it's mother for the acts which also involved the father.

    Bristol Palin's pregnancy could have initiated a country wide discussion about this difference between baby making and child raising. The RNC, by attacking the media over Britol's pregnancy, has made sure this conversation won't take place. Instead it will be Abstinence as usual and the spiritual beauty inherent in shotgun weddings.

    I suspect it won't be too many years before we begin to read about how the Palin family is now targeting their ex son-in-law.

  3. Colleen, you really paid attention to daughter's comments ... you go!

    I've decided that being nice works with people who respond to nice, but for the rest, maybe its time for a gut punch or two to get their attention.

    The palin pregnancy has me curious, a couple of unanswered questions. Was this pregnancy the result of one event, or the end result of a series of events?

    (isnt that interesting, I still have trouble saying did they do it once and get caught were they stupid and kept at it until she got pregnant - jeez!)

    Depending on which one it was, it puts things into a totally different perspective. One is oops we screwed up, the other is gross stupidity on the kids part. I have compassion for oops, but I have very little tolerance for gross stupidity. I wonder if we will ever know the answer.

    Another thing to consider is the Kryon perspective. According to Kryon (old transcripts, not this specific situation) this is not an accidental event, but the result of a cosmic master plan unfolding. According to Kryon, all of the parties higher selves are involved, soul lessons are to be played out for all parties in ways that we wont know or understand until they happen. I'm trying to put all of this into a framework where it makes sense at all of the levels. The child will most likely be a crystal offspring of two indigos. That will be very interesting as well. (The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced this is part of something really big getting ready to explode.)

    No doubt, part of that plan is to bring the points you and william make out into the open for everyone to see, and hopefully over time lead to a better solution to the problems we are facing. Maybe we can finally start the dialogue that will shed the victorian represive attitude and create something healthy.

    I agree with your assessment of the kids futures. I just wonder how long it will take (> or < 4 yrs) and how ugly it will get when it happens? Not that it isnt already ugly.

    Enough for tonight. I havent slept since yesterday. I apologize if I'm rambling, but it seems like sometimes the moments of greatest insight for me are the moments of before sleep deprivation gets the best of me.


  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Happy B-Day Carl!

    Thanks for the post Colleen. As usual it is always a great read. Regarding Palin: like mother, like daughter? Maybe she'll have five children by the time she is 21? Pregnant at that age is very difficult. Anyone I ever knew who was pregnant at around that age and got married was not married for that long.

    Not only are those two teenagers not ready to raise children, Bristol's parents have their hands full in this election and with their own children and a five month old infant with autism or downs syndrome. What on earth are these Republicans thinking..... if it can even be called "thinking?" Palin was the only person to fit the spot for VP? It just seems so crazy! But, I guess that's to be expected after eight years of Bush in office with their priorities all screwed up on every imaginable front!

  6. I feel so sorry for Bristol Palin. I don't believe that she's choosing this shotgun wedding, at least not without a whole lot of parental influence. Those kids are not fit to raise a baby, and it's sad to know that they will most likely become another divorce statistic in the near future. What's so wrong with adoption? Why are the Palins pushing her into marriage instead of having her give up the baby after it's born? They can still keep to the pro-life rhetoric in that case, so i dont' see what the big deal is. All I know is that it's going to ruin that poor little girl's life, having to marry the father who is obviously not ready for marriage. And all so her mother can further her career. :(

  7. Amanda, I too wondered why the push for marriage and not adoption, or adoption within the family.

    Although we haven't heard a peep from his family's side of things, it maybe that his parents are pushing for this as well. Marriage avoids all kinds of child custody issues with regards to the grandparents.

  8. They very well might be, but I still don't think it's right. I have a cousin who married his girlfriend after she got pregnant. About 18 months later, when the baby was a month shy of his first birthday, they decided to separate. They can't afford a divorce, so they just live separately. She's got another boyfriend (and another baby) now, and neither of them really want to take care of the first baby, so my aunt and uncle have ended up taking care of him half the time. The whole situation is a mess. Marriage doesn't fix a pregnancy screw-up.

    (don't get me wrong, I don't think you disagree with that sentiment, you just pointed out the grandparents/custody thing, and I wanted to say that it doesn't always work out so nicely in that regard)