Please invite the Holy Spirit for interpretation, thank you. Text in bold. Comments*
(Specific question raised by WT re sex under existing conditions) (HS raised previous question about the past, which has just been answered.)
*I love how freely Helen and Bill were able to speak to one another. At least in the beginning.
The other question, however, I am more than willing to answer, because it is appropriate for NOW.
*It must have been emotionally charged what with NOW. And is this a clue that this was very private information, or was it very pertinent information? Pertinent to the understanding of ACIM.
You and B. both chose your present sex partners shamefully, and would have to atone for the lack of love which was involved in any case.
*I think that we want to be careful not to misread this. I know I have on several occasions. There was nothing shameful about the choice of their present sex partners. It was that they chose their partners from a place of shame. Thinking themselves lacking. There is a big difference in the two interpretations.
*Atone, bring to a place of oneness.
*Remember that the ego that governs our life, when not led by the Holy Spirit, seeks to attack and destroy the self. So we would pick companions that would do this and do so in a way we could tolerate and endure. If it were meant to be a long term relationship. There are those that are obviously for attack purposes. Here, rape or even death result. Verbal and emotional assaults are not so easy to see, but can be very damaging.
You selected them precisely BECAUSE they were NOT suited to gratify your fantasies.
*Said another way, they would allow you to have suffering.
This was not because you wanted to abandon or give up the fantasies, but because you were AFRAID of them.
*AFRAID of sexual fantasies.
You saw in your partners a means of protecting against the fear,
but both of you continued to “look around” for chances to indulge the fantasies.
*There is an ego image that must be projected to society, to be allowed to be a part of society. Yet, who you really are, will not be denied.
The dream of the “perfect partner” is an attempt to find EXTERNAL integration, while retaining conflicting needs in the self.
*While retaining the DNA of Christ’s Guilty Conscience. I wonder if, society wise, that concept has not shifted some. This was in the 60’s and while “free love” was a big deal, homosexuality was not spoken of. Bill never came out of the closet in his lifetime.
*The 60’s and 70’s was still very much marching to the acceptable tune of social protocol.
B. was somewhat less guilty of this than you, but largely because he was more afraid.
*I wonder if he had the appearance of having a girl friend at the time.
He had abandoned the hope (of finding a perfect partner) in a neurotic sense of despair of finding it.
*Because it would be unacceptable as a professional; not to mention that his profession as a psychologist.
You, on the other hand, insisted that the hope was justified.
*Because Helen accepted the Judaeo/Christian moral ethics in society that said that a heterosexual relationship was ethical, acceptable, and desirable.
Neither of you, therefore, was in your Right Mind.
*They were not yet lined up with the Holy Spirit’s perspective of themselves.
As was said before, homosexuality is inherently more risky (or error prone) than heterosexuality, but both can be undertaken on an equally false basis.
The falseness of the basis is clear in the accompanying fantasies.
Homosexuality ALWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both.
Penetration DOES NOT involve magic, nor DOES ANY form of sexual behavior.
It IS a magic belief to engage in ANY form of body image activity at all.
*Here is where humanities foundation is rocked. Read it again. There is a lot that goes into that statement that we consider to be who and what we are.
*Our very lives then, appear to be a belief in magic, in this world.
You neither created yourselves, nor controlled your creation.
*Yet, does that mean that we simply are NOT?
By introducing levels into your own perception, you opened the way for
*Or, are we the split personalities of a single individual?
The lack of love (or faulty need-orientation) which led to your particular person (not OBJECT) choices CAN BE corrected within the existent framework, and would HAVE to be in the larger interest of overall progress.
*And would HAVE to be corrected…
*Jesus appears to be saying that LOVE could be interjected into the equation of the coupling. So that the joining was not for the purpose of an outward pursuit but of an inward acknowledgment. Perhaps then the “coupling” would disappear. Bill’s relationship was ended, Helen’s was not.
The situation is questionable largely because of its inherent vulnerability to fantasy-gratification.
*The fantasy gratification being that two bodies con come together and that brings inner peace and tranquility or satisfaction.
Doing the best you can WITHIN this limitation is probably the best corrective measure at present.
*They were not ready for the information that coupling would not lead to completion. It was a false, temporary fix.
Any relationship you have undertaken for whatever reasons becomes a responsibility.
* And a responsibility is not yours to undertake for another, not really. We are each our own entity, or rather we are the magical mirage of a deluded god. Well, hopefully, you catch my drift.
*Here are some definitions of responsibility:
- a moral obligation to behave correctly toward or in respect of.
- the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization.
- the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.
- the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.
*It may be that we are responsible to all, universally, being that we are all one in Christ. This makes sense to me. The weight of this seems huge, yet it is taking care of our own acceptance of the Atonement that serves the Whole.
Till next time, God bless, Namaste~
Leave a Reply