{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (15)] – The definition, measurement, and recognition of Evil [continued]]}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:186-187][19871129:2107q]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (15)] – The definition, measurement, and recognition of Evil [continued]]}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

Naturally, if reproduction depended upon such refined considerations*, Man would have died out long ago.

On the other hand, at this stage, we might end up with a population whose quantity as well as whose quality were more appropriate to Harmony,** Christ's Earthly Kingdom.

*[See last 14 previous entries from [Redbook4:180][19871129:2107d]{The Weight of Sin (1)}[29th November 1987].]

[BUT cf. [Redbook4:188][19871130:0920]{The Weight of Sin (2) – Sexual Intercourse and Love}[30th November 1987]ff;

& especially [Redbook4:190][19871130:0920e]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (6)] – Homosexuality: Summary}[30th November 1987]]

**[I think this is also the name of a sex shop. <20170126>]

[PostedBlogger31032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (14)] – The definition, measurement, and recognition of Evil]}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:186][19871129:2107p]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (14)] – The definition, measurement, and recognition of Evil]}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

Once again*, in this matter of Evil, Separation defines it; Selfishness and Selflessness measure it; and Con-science recognises it.

*[See last previous entry.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger30032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (13)] – Sexual Selflessness]}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:185-186][19871129:2107o]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (13)] – Sexual Selflessness]}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

*The point is that marriage demands a degree of self-sacrifice, of self-less-ness, from both parties[,] whose full extent only becomes apparent when children are contemplated, as it is primarily for the benefit of neither party, but for them**. Great sensitivity is required in the asking of the question*, both to oneself and to the other, which is one reason why*** pornography is evil: because it blunts the sensitivity and obliterates the question.

But in the face of such a question*[as “Am I prepared to have a baby with this person?”], [male] homosexual [anal] intercourse**** seems hardly better than bestiality. Tenderness is no better expressed in the sexual than in the merely physical:# sexual sensations are strong meat for tender feelings. Mutual gratification is not#* to be confused with the self-less-ness contemplated in procreative marriage.#**

Not that any of us achieve perfection, of course; and many have#*** children for their own satisfaction, which I suppose is a kind of fornication.#****

*[“Am I prepared to have a baby with this person?” – See last previous entry.]

**{i.e. the children.}

***(?the intention behind) <891037>

****[Presumably, as defined in [Redbook4:183][19871129:2107k]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (7)] – Homosexuality}[29th November 1987], i.e. 'the anal bonding of stable relationships'? This whole series of entries seems unnecessarily harsh in its conclusions. <20170123(20170313)>]

[BUT cf. [Redbook4:188][19871130:0920]{The Weight of Sin (2) – Sexual Intercourse and Love}[30th November 1987]ff;

& especially [Redbook4:190][19871130:0920e]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (6)] – Homosexuality: Summary}[30th November 1987]]

#But intimacy can be expressed in sexual (and perhaps therefore in homosexual?) penetration to an intensity possible in no other way – in Love. <930511>

[& See [Redbook4:188][19871130:0920]{The Weight of Sin (2) – Sexual Intercourse and Love}[30th November 1987]

#*(Train of thought lost here.)

#**But sexual intercourse can and should be selfless: each struggling for the gratification of the other. <930511>

#***i.e. produce[!] <891003>

#****V. [] 277, 303; VI. [] 13, etc.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger29032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (12)] – Sexual Intercourse [continued (4)]}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:185][19871129:2107n]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (12)] – Sexual Intercourse [continued (4)]}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

There are subtle distinctions and gradations, mostly in the mind. Long ago,* I think I wrote that a couple having [sexual] intercourse should ask themselves: Am I prepared** to have a baby with this person? If the answer is Yes, the chief question for Marriage has been answered, and I doubt whether sexual intercourse in these circumstances would be separatist simply because the formalities had not occurred.

This takes into account the origin of Evil within the mind of Man, so that no action or external circumstance can of itself bring about Evil. It allows pre-marital intercourse of effectively engaged couples, during a trial period (or simply a waiting period). It allows a certain kind of intensely felt (and intensely rare) brief encounter.

In theory, it even allows adultery, but other factors have to be taken into account: the effect on existing marriages and relationships; and, can the question – Am I prepared** to procreate [sic] a baby with this person? – genuinely be answered 'Yes' in those circumstances? Here I think we return to the quality of the experience, actual or anticipated: lawful impediments may be experienced as spiritual obstructions.

But the one thing it does not allow is homosexual intercourse: no sophistry over adoption can match the essential unity by fusion involved in physical procreation, and the question cannot therefore be meaningfully asked.***

*[[Redbook1:272][19721219:0111]{Pre-marital Sex}[19th December 1972], where the question is for the woman.]

**disregarding the circumstances, I think. <891003>

***[The implication of this is presumably that while the question does not allow, neither does it forbid something about which it cannot be meaningfully asked.

And what of heterosexual couples reproducing by artificial insemination?

<20170126>

And what about heterosexual adopting couples? <20170327>

& See [Redbook4:188][19871130:0920]{The Weight of Sin (2) – Sexual Intercourse and Love}[30th November 1987] <20170130>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger27for28032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (11)] – Sexual Intercourse [continued (3)]}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:184][19871129:2107m]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (11)] – Sexual Intercourse [continued (3)]}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

*But is it fair to describe as gratification the satisfaction of a biological need? In a word, yes: because it is neither purely biological, nor an absolute need. Note that the treatment of homosexuality here applies (as I think the Essex Vicar at the Synod** intended) equally to sex outside marriage. On the whole I think that this is right.

*[See last previous entry.]

**[The Church of England Synod] recently before this [journal] entry, I presume. <891003>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger27032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (10)] – Sexual Intercourse [continued]}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:184][19871129:2107l]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (10)] – Sexual Intercourse [continued]}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

To cut a long ramble* short: homosexuality** does not help the production or rearing of children, on the one hand; on the other hand, its purpose is primarily gratification, satisfaction of desire for sexual stimulation. I know that sexual intercourse can enrich love and can have a bonding effect, and I am prepared to speculate that homosexual anal intercourse can also do so, although I do not know; but I suspect – strongly – from observation and experience – that in the absence of{,} and the absence of expectation of{,} children,*** the sexual bonding effect diminishes, leaving (as in due course, in old age, will probably happen anyway) the bedrock of a good marriage: companionship, for which sex is not necessary.

*[See last two previous entries.]

**[Presumably, as defined in [Redbook4:183][19871129:2107k]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (7)] – Homosexuality}[29th November 1987], i.e. 'the anal bonding of stable relationships'? This whole series of journal entries seems unnecessarily prescriptive and restrictive in its conclusions. <20170123&0326>]

***I am not convinced of this! <930511>

[BUT See [Redbook4:188][19871130:0920]{The Weight of Sin (2) – Sexual Intercourse and Love}[30th November 1987]]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (9)] – Sexual Intercourse}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:183-184][19871129:2107l]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (9)] – Sexual Intercourse}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

*Sexual intercourse is (in the Divine purpose, I guess) for reproduction, and the family for child-rearing.** These are inter-related: so that contraception is not wrong. Nor is marital intercourse, without constant intent to reproduce, wrong: if sexual intercourse helps to preserve family life for the children's benefit,*** I doubt if it is wrong.**** As evidence I adduce experience: the quality of sexual intercourse is better during marriage than before it – whoever the partner before marriage# – and better still when the agreed intention is to produce children (contraception is not a factor in this distinction). This is a real difference, and it was in both instances unexpected. No doubt if we had feared conception, rather than intending it, negative emotions would have complicated our feelings.

*(↑rather distracted throughout↓)

**{cf.III.[[Redbook3:134-138][19870406:2300](SEX AND GENDER)[6th April 1987],] 134

***(& so motivated, i.e. by mutual and family love.)

****(i.e. separatist)

#I have not committed adultery#*: I have often considered it, but expectation of a lack of this quality restrains me. Does polygamy solve the problem?

#*[This is no longer true. <20170126>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger25032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (8)] – Homosexuality}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:183][19871129:2107k]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (8)] – Homosexuality}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

*So what about homosexuality? What about the anal bonding of stable relationships? Surely this is not Separation?

First, let me declare an interest. Anal intercourse – the idea – disgusts me: perhaps because I once thought I might be homosexual; perhaps because of potty training.** But is it evil?

The answer is, indeed, in Separation: in the complex relationship of physical matter and spiritual separation. This relationship is more easily observed than explained: in the deeds Men will do for worldly goods, including real estate, and in the effect of money on their minds.

Sexual gratification is*** just another worldly good: if part of the desire for it may arise from a distortion of the need for Love and inner security, the same is true of other material desires.****

*[See last previous entries from [Redbook4:180][19871129:2107d]{The Weight of Sin (1)}[29th November 1987].]

**(And I seem to recall the disgust on my mother's face when she changed one of my infant siblings' dirty nappies. [W] is good at hiding this: I, not so good.) <891003>

***(in itself) <891003>

****(↑rather distracted throughout↓)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger24032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (7)] – The Forgiveness of Sins – (1) Victim's Forgiveness}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:182][19871129:2107j]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (7)] – The Forgiveness of Sins – (1) Victim's Forgiveness}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

For sins against others,* an essential part of the transformation may be to ask the victim's forgiveness and make recompense: it is hard to see how the inner Transformation can occur without this, since genuine acknowledgement and repentance necessarily implies apology and reparation (although apology and reparation can occur without genuine acknowledgement and repentance).

It is not necessary for the victim to forgive the genuinely repentant: the same repentance will do for victim and for Christ, who is all the Victims (and all the Victors). The Victim's state of mind is part of the Victim's problem, not (or not necessarily) the perpetrator's.

*[See last previous entry.]

[Capitalisation of initial letters as in ms.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (6)] – The Forgiveness of Sins – (1) Christ's forgiveness}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:182][19871129:2107i]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (6)] – The Forgiveness of Sins – (1) Christ's forgiveness}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

What of the forgiveness of Sins? Yes, Christ can wipe out Evil, can clear away the stain* from the Soul: this is also an objective process, as Christ is always ready to do this, requiring an inner transformation by the Individual to end his Separation from God.

If this transformation is achieved, and to the extent that it is achieved, the stain will be cleared; without the transformation, no clearance will occur.

*[See last previous entry.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger21for22032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (5)] – Doing, Thinking and Being Evil}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:181-182][19871129:2107h]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (5)] – Doing, Thinking and Being Evil}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

I suggest that 'doing' and 'thinking'* Evil are simply Outer and Inner aspects of the same 'becoming'(?) aspect of Evil in Man. 'Being' Evil is something else: the manifestation, perhaps, of the stained Soul.

*[See last previous entry.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger21032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (4)] – Staining the Soul}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:181][19871129:2107g]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (4)] – Staining the Soul}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

I say 'dangerous'* because the system is objective – terrifyingly objective. By sinning, i.e. doing or thinking evil – and the evil of an action originates within the mind of the Man, no action being of itself evil, however much it may seem so – the Man corrupts himself, staining his Soul: to the extent of the Evil.

*[See last previous entry.]

**{(cf.VI. [] 18)}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger19for20032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (3)] – Lies (1)}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:181][19871129:2107f]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (3)] – Lies (1)}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

So for example* lying**, telling lies, is evil because it separates us from God the Spirit and from the Spirit of God in our fellow Men, and is evil to the extent that it does these things: I suggest that a personal lie is more dangerous than an impersonal or institutional lie, i.e. face to face is worse than nation to nation (e.g. in wartime).

*[See last previous entry.]

**[See last previous entry but one.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger19032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued] – Evil as Separation}[29th November 1987]

Redbook4:180-181][19871129:2107e]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued] – Evil as Separation}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

Evil* is a degree of separation from God. Not, I think, any degree, but a particular degree, or quality, of separation from God.**

God is manifest wholly in God the Spirit, but also in the Spirit of God within each Human; and in the Totality of created things which are a part of God, themselves separated.

Therefore we may assess the weight of Evil, and thus the weight of Sin, by the intensity or extremity of its separation, or by the degree of it separation, from God, or from the Spirit of God in Man, or from the Totality of God in Creation.***

Conscience, Knowing together, the ability to know God, and the factor which identifies us as human, enables us to recognise Evil by reference to God in these ways.

*[See last previous entry.]

**{See VI.}

***So cities become evil?

[continues]

[PostedBlogger18032017]

{The Weight of Sin (1)}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:180][19871129:2107d]{The Weight of Sin (1)}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

Arising out of a recent conversation about lies... how is the weight of sin assessed? Here is an attempt to deal with this.

Sin is wrong (i.e. is sin) because it is evil*, and insofar as it is evil.

*[See next entry. The word “sin”, despite its difficult connotations in modern ears, is used here and elsewhere in these Journals presumably because no other word quite fits. -- The use of the word “sin” has unfortunate resonances at present, including prescriptive and sometimes arbitrary “moral” judgements, censure and punishment delivered from a subjectively claimed “superior” position. The word is I think used in these journal entries because no better way (“evil” and “wrong” for example describing different aspects of the Separation) can be found to describe succinctly something which is in this model “terrifyingly objective”**** – see e.g. [Redbook4:99][19871005:0940d]{[The Dynamic Independence of Angels [continued (3)]] -- Good Spirits, evil spirits, and Men [continued]}[5th October 1987].]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger17032017]

{The Angelic Sense [continued (4)]}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:180][19871129:2107c]{The Angelic Sense [continued (4)]}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

Dozing off this evening.... I was awakened, alert, by a vision with the Angelic sense: fair faces* in flight, in that Light**; and more, which I forget. I got up at once to carry out mundane tasks in contentment. I wondered: should I try to recapture and continue these qualities and their visions?*** I am inclined to think that they do their work and at an unconscious level: if (as on the edge of sleep) I became consciously aware of them, my conscious-ness regains control, and their work is interrupted,**** for the sake of a little gratification of myself. This is, of course, only a possibility.

*(Michelangelo-esque)

**[Ref last previous entry.]

***(i.e. by going back to sleep!)

****I invariably lose the quality and vision (except as memory), as my conscious self returns to wakefulness.

#[i.e. consciousness and curiosity <20170316>]

[PostedBlogger16032017]

{The Angelic Sense [continued (3)]}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:180][19871129:2107b]{The Angelic Sense [continued (3)]}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

[continued]

*In the Light: in the Light!** I wish (a) I could communicate this to them and (b) I could be sure that they would appreciate it. The requirements are sensitivity and courage, neither of which I sufficiently possess.

*[See last previous entry.]

**Allow for a little retrospective imagination here?

***[Ref last previous entry.] Little [Pru], whom we have now seen, is tiny but seems well. <880307>

Doing fine now. <891003>

– Now walking and even talking, she has the liveliest face and eyes of the sweetest intelligence. <900807>

[She is now a multiple paralympic gold medallist. <20170119>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger15032017]

{The Angelic Sense [continued]}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:179][19871129:2107]{The Angelic Sense [continued]}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107

When I returned from the Church at [the Place of the Cross] this morning, [W] told me that friends had rung to say that their daughter's premature baby* of two weeks or so is near to death. My reaction to this was great sadness; great love for the mother and father, and for the little one unseen; and an intense sense of the Angelic in the affairs of Men, a vision filled, as it were, with the beating of angelic wings by which Love the whole sorrow was lifted up** out of darkness into joy, in the Light.

*[Names given in the ms.] <891003>

**{The ambiguity is as experienced. cf. 'The prayers of faith will save the sick person and the Lord will raise him up again.' Jm5:15.}

['And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up....'James 5:15 (extract) (King James Bible)]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger14032017]