Last night I had trouble sleeping. Instead of Captain Imagination leading his crew of thoughts toward a distant planet of repose, an enterprise that is almost always successful, I received an urgent message from conscience: stay awake and listen. I am very well aware that the voice of one's conscience is the closest approximation one has to the voice of God; I, therefore, lay back, closed my eyes, and listened carefully. This is what the God of conscience said:
The essence of My law is this: love your neighbor as yourself. Any infringement of this law is morally and religiously wrong. I have been distressed of late that some of My children not only have been disobeying my greatest commandment, but claiming to do this in the name of religious freedom. I have given human beings the freedom to obey or to disobey me; I have also given them a moral sense to know the difference.
There are more betrayals today than there are people; many, many aspects of the world you live in and are responsible for make me sad. I could mention many, such as this one, which I find especially troublesome, namely, the sin of treating one of my children differently because he or she was born somewhere and not somewhere else. Tonight I will, however, address only one: the mistaken belief that opposition to gay marriage can be justified on religious grounds. Religious opposition to marriage equality is an oxymoron. I am now here and there and everywhere to explain why.
My great commandment is found in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and is thus thousands of years old. Although it is a perfect formulation, it was at first understood imperfectly--it is still understood imperfectly, but much less imperfectly than it was when first written. The Ancient Hebrews thought it only applied to their Jewish neighbors and kin. Later on, the Talmud made it clear that My intent is to include everybody, including the foreigner. Only recently, however, has humanity become aware that loving your neighbor as yourself entails gender equality and other forms of equality as well. There will be future extensions of this law also, provided that humankind acts more according to My law so as to have a future.
What exactly do I mean by this great commandment? The first word, "love," is what is essential, but it needs commentary. The love I mean is reciprocal--if you don't love yourself, you won't love your neighbor; conversely, if you don't love your neighbor you won't love yourself. I don't require that you love everything that you do, else there would be no need for repentance--and there is a great need for repentance. Similarly, I don't require that you love everything that your neighbor does, else there would be no need for moral behavior--and there is a great need for moral behavior. It's important to be a neighbor to yourself and to criticize your own bad behavior for your own sake as well as for the sake of others; it is equally important to be a neighbor to one's neighbor in a similar way when a fellow human being acts inhumanely. However, to the degree that you are acting according to My law, that is, according to the law of love, you must support yourself even in adversity as I support you even in adversity; similarly, when a neighbor acts according to My law, you must support him as I support him--even if it makes you uncomfortable.
If My law were interpreted to apply merely to mirror images of oneself, it would be nothing more than a parochial solipsism. You must also love those who look different and act differently. You must love the individual despite immoral behavior, which you must oppose. However, when an individual behaves consistently with the law of love, you must love that individual and her behavior. I repeat: even if that behavior makes you uncomfortable.
Now it's time to turn to the question of marriage equality. Is love in the deepest sense of that word possible between two individuals of the same gender? I have seen many examples of a man holding another man's hand as tenderly as Romeo ever held Juliet's. I have seen many examples of women living together and of men living together for decades in a spirit of love and devotion. I have seen children raised in loving, same-sex households doing as well as children living in loving heterosexual households.
The answer is clear. To oppose gay marriage is another way of opposing Me. Forgive those who are ignorant and direct them to My law; if they persist in their opposition, lovingly and firmly oppose their flouting of My commandment. I reveal to you once and for all: to oppose gay marriage on "religious" grounds is an abomination.
Having said that, your inner voice--and everyone else's--will let you get some sleep now, Thomas Dorsett; you have a lot of work to do tomorrow. I will end by pointing out the falsehood of a very common argument that is used as a "religious" objection to marriage equality, namely, that I created the sex organs for procreation and any way that the genitalia are used in which procreation is impossible is against My original design. This is not correct; I will briefly explain why.
First of all, the penis has a dual purpose, namely, the elimination of waste and the ejection of semen. But there is even a better example that illustrates My multi-purpose designs: that of the mouth. The mouth is the first part of the digestive system, but it is more than that. It is also an organ of speech, rendering into language thoughts received from the brain. Since it contains the tongue which itself contains the taste buds, it is also the organ of taste. Since it is also involved in sexual intimacy, the mouth is also an organ of intimacy. It is certainly not contrary to My will to use the mouth in any and all of those functions. What makes one think that I designed the mouth with great complexity and the sexual organs in a simplistic, dogmatic way? I hope I make Myself clear: I am for love, I am for intimacy, I am for marriage, I am for decency. I have designed the genitalia as organs of procreation and as organs of communication. I don't require that they always perform the same function simultaneously any more than I require the mouth to speak and to eat at the same time.
I will say it even more succinctly: I am much more concerned with responsible love between two individuals than I am with the plumbing of their bodies.
Now get some sleep, Thomas. After you wake up, have a cup of coffee, then sit down at your computer and write My words as best you remember them. Then post it onto your blog for the instruction of all. It may be that few will read it; it may be that the majority of those who do read My words will dismiss, even despise, what I have said through you. No matter. I will read it--and I will be pleased.
The essence of My law is this: love your neighbor as yourself. Any infringement of this law is morally and religiously wrong. I have been distressed of late that some of My children not only have been disobeying my greatest commandment, but claiming to do this in the name of religious freedom. I have given human beings the freedom to obey or to disobey me; I have also given them a moral sense to know the difference.
There are more betrayals today than there are people; many, many aspects of the world you live in and are responsible for make me sad. I could mention many, such as this one, which I find especially troublesome, namely, the sin of treating one of my children differently because he or she was born somewhere and not somewhere else. Tonight I will, however, address only one: the mistaken belief that opposition to gay marriage can be justified on religious grounds. Religious opposition to marriage equality is an oxymoron. I am now here and there and everywhere to explain why.
My great commandment is found in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and is thus thousands of years old. Although it is a perfect formulation, it was at first understood imperfectly--it is still understood imperfectly, but much less imperfectly than it was when first written. The Ancient Hebrews thought it only applied to their Jewish neighbors and kin. Later on, the Talmud made it clear that My intent is to include everybody, including the foreigner. Only recently, however, has humanity become aware that loving your neighbor as yourself entails gender equality and other forms of equality as well. There will be future extensions of this law also, provided that humankind acts more according to My law so as to have a future.
What exactly do I mean by this great commandment? The first word, "love," is what is essential, but it needs commentary. The love I mean is reciprocal--if you don't love yourself, you won't love your neighbor; conversely, if you don't love your neighbor you won't love yourself. I don't require that you love everything that you do, else there would be no need for repentance--and there is a great need for repentance. Similarly, I don't require that you love everything that your neighbor does, else there would be no need for moral behavior--and there is a great need for moral behavior. It's important to be a neighbor to yourself and to criticize your own bad behavior for your own sake as well as for the sake of others; it is equally important to be a neighbor to one's neighbor in a similar way when a fellow human being acts inhumanely. However, to the degree that you are acting according to My law, that is, according to the law of love, you must support yourself even in adversity as I support you even in adversity; similarly, when a neighbor acts according to My law, you must support him as I support him--even if it makes you uncomfortable.
If My law were interpreted to apply merely to mirror images of oneself, it would be nothing more than a parochial solipsism. You must also love those who look different and act differently. You must love the individual despite immoral behavior, which you must oppose. However, when an individual behaves consistently with the law of love, you must love that individual and her behavior. I repeat: even if that behavior makes you uncomfortable.
Now it's time to turn to the question of marriage equality. Is love in the deepest sense of that word possible between two individuals of the same gender? I have seen many examples of a man holding another man's hand as tenderly as Romeo ever held Juliet's. I have seen many examples of women living together and of men living together for decades in a spirit of love and devotion. I have seen children raised in loving, same-sex households doing as well as children living in loving heterosexual households.
The answer is clear. To oppose gay marriage is another way of opposing Me. Forgive those who are ignorant and direct them to My law; if they persist in their opposition, lovingly and firmly oppose their flouting of My commandment. I reveal to you once and for all: to oppose gay marriage on "religious" grounds is an abomination.
Having said that, your inner voice--and everyone else's--will let you get some sleep now, Thomas Dorsett; you have a lot of work to do tomorrow. I will end by pointing out the falsehood of a very common argument that is used as a "religious" objection to marriage equality, namely, that I created the sex organs for procreation and any way that the genitalia are used in which procreation is impossible is against My original design. This is not correct; I will briefly explain why.
First of all, the penis has a dual purpose, namely, the elimination of waste and the ejection of semen. But there is even a better example that illustrates My multi-purpose designs: that of the mouth. The mouth is the first part of the digestive system, but it is more than that. It is also an organ of speech, rendering into language thoughts received from the brain. Since it contains the tongue which itself contains the taste buds, it is also the organ of taste. Since it is also involved in sexual intimacy, the mouth is also an organ of intimacy. It is certainly not contrary to My will to use the mouth in any and all of those functions. What makes one think that I designed the mouth with great complexity and the sexual organs in a simplistic, dogmatic way? I hope I make Myself clear: I am for love, I am for intimacy, I am for marriage, I am for decency. I have designed the genitalia as organs of procreation and as organs of communication. I don't require that they always perform the same function simultaneously any more than I require the mouth to speak and to eat at the same time.
I will say it even more succinctly: I am much more concerned with responsible love between two individuals than I am with the plumbing of their bodies.
Now get some sleep, Thomas. After you wake up, have a cup of coffee, then sit down at your computer and write My words as best you remember them. Then post it onto your blog for the instruction of all. It may be that few will read it; it may be that the majority of those who do read My words will dismiss, even despise, what I have said through you. No matter. I will read it--and I will be pleased.
No comments:
Post a Comment