HALF-BAKED
(PART VII)
A
RESPONSE TO “THE ORIGIN OF PRESENT-DAY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS AS PRESENTED BY THE
AUTHORS OF THE URANTIA BOOK”
by Lee Cook
The Fairer Sex
Let us digress a moment on the subject of
women. The Old Testament deals with women as a form of property; the Koran
teaches their inferiority. The scant courtesy paid womankind during the Old Testament
era is a true reflection of the mores of the herdsmen. The Hebrew patriarchs
were all herdsmen, as is witnessed by the saying, “The Lord is my Shepherd.” Woman eventually gained the legal right to own, control, and even
dispose of property, but she was long deprived of the right to hold
office in either church or state. Woman has always been treated more or less as
property, right up to and in the twentieth century after Christ. She has not
yet gained world-wide freedom from seclusion under man’s control. [82:4:3]
[84:3:2] [84:4:10]
What we have here is a repetition of portions of The UB’s evolutionary take on the institute of marriage, particularly on the history of women’s roles in society. The papers from which Ms. Cook has gleaned these passages are no doubt the result of the pilfering efforts of one “Chief of Seraphim” from an as-yet undiscovered source that ascribes marriage to a merely human institution. Papers 82 through 84 broach the topics of human sexuality, marriage, and the family. These three papers assert that marriage is the product of social evolution, a “reactional adjustment” (82:0.1) to our being sexual creatures. It is through marriage that mankind has developed the home life, “the crowning glory of the whole long and arduous evolutionary struggle” (ibid.). In fact, the sexual urge is an innate propensity from which “marriage is its evolutionary social repercussion” (82:1.1).
The UB subscribes to a naturalistic development of human society, asserting that the institution of marriage is a purely human invention, as evidenced by the following passage: “Marriage which culminates in the home is indeed man’s most exalted institution, but it is essentially human; it should never have been called a sacrament” (83:8.1). Because The UB forges ahead with its naturalistic paradigm, it must entreat us with the “fact” of human evolution from species of lower intellectual and spiritual capacity. And with this premise in full force must the institution of marriage be cast in light of its evolutionary scheme. As with all human institutions, the history of marriage must be told in terms of its development from its primitive beginnings among the savage beast that man once was:
“Monogamy is cultural and societal, artificial and unnatural, that is, unnatural to evolutionary man. . . . [T]he Christian error of regarding marriage as a sacrament [has always fostered monogamy].” (83:6.2,3)
As the biblical Adam and Eve, the first human beings created by God, have been supplanted with a pair of extraterrestrial beings of superior genes who came to planet Urantia for the express purpose of biologically improving the already-existent human races, so goes the God-ordained covenant relationship between one man and one woman known as holy matrimony.
In stark contrast, the Bible tells us that holy matrimony was sanctioned by God to be practiced by mankind: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Moreover, it was none other than Jesus who affirmed this passage that states marriage is indeed sacred:
“‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’” (Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9; citing Gen. 2:24)
In fact, whenever Jesus
discussed the topic of marriage, He clearly implied that it is a binding
covenant and not a man-made social institution (Matt.
We can easily dispense with The UB’s notion that that marriage is a “reactional adjustment” to the human sexual urge with one simple observation. The evolutionary paradigm that the “celestials” embrace provides no explanation for the incredible intensity of the human sexual experience. Take, for example, the mystery of women’s orgasms—a phenomenon that is totally unnecessary and irrelevant according to the evolutionary model, since the propagation of the human species does not require the female to achieve orgasms in order for her to conceive and bear children. On the other hand, in the biblical model, said capacity is a supreme gift of God, who created human sexuality as a unique experience distinct from that of the animal kingdom.
Name Your Price
Let us take a closer look at The UB’s attack on the Old Testament’s position on women in society, as cited by Ms. Cook. One particular section of Paper 82 deals with the evolutionary phase that the “human” institution of marriage went through under the property mores, whereby the securing of a wife was considered a business transaction between the suitor and the woman’s family, rather than a matter of the heart. The “Chief of Seraphim” slips in a quick derogatory remark in an attempt to cast the Bible in this light: “The Old Testament deals with women as a form of property . . .” (82:4.3). Faw’s Paramony lists two Old Testament accounts in defense of the Chief’s remark, but neither one applies. The first referred account is where Jacob works seven years for Rachel’s father in exchange for her hand in marriage (Gen. 29:18-20). However, from Jacob’s point of view, the working arrangement was offered on the basis of his love for Rachel (Gen. 29:18), in exchange for the right to marry Rachel specifically. Jacob had already been working for Laban, Rachel’s father and Jacob’s uncle, at least a month for simple room and board (Gen. 29:14-15). And even from the perspective of Laban, and as the rest of the story tells us, the offer was accepted on the basis of utilizing Jacob as cheap labor for as long as possible, not on the purchasing of a wife as though she were property. For as it turns out, Laban ends up giving Leah, Rachel’s older sister, to Jacob after the seven years had expired, knowing full well that Jacob would be willing to work another seven years in exchange for Rachel. The fact that Laban cited “tradition” as the reason for his decision to offer Leah, the eldest daughter, instead of Rachel after seven years is an obvious excuse for detaining Jacob an additional seven years. Otherwise, Laban would simply have forewarned Jacob of this “tradition” by informing Jacob beforehand that he would be working those first seven years for Leah instead of Rachel. Finally, although the Bible records this incident involving the exchange of a commodity (indentured servitude) for a bride, nowhere in the Mosaic law is this custom condoned. Rather, it was a custom invented by men during early Patriarchal times, and not one that was necessarily endorsed by God. Likewise, many murders are recorded in the Bible; however, it is obvious that none of them were condoned by God. The same recorded incident tells of polygamy (Gen. 29:23-28), but I would think that a “chief of seraphim” would not be so brazen as to suggest that God would endorse such practices.
The second biblical case cited by Faw
in support of the Seraphic Chief’s assertion is the one in which Boaz marries
Ruth (Ruth
Star-Crossed
Let us take a quick look at the other UB passage offered by Ms. Cook that provides commentary on the Old Testament’s view on women:
“The scant courtesy paid womankind during the Old Testament era is a true reflection of the mores of the herdsmen. The Hebrew patriarchs were all herdsmen, as is witnessed by the saying, ‘The Lord is my Shepherd.’” (84:3.2) [Psalm 23:1]
We can see a couple of problems associated with the above
statement. First, Psalm 23 was written
during the Davidic reign, long after the age of the patriarchs, which include
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve children of Jacob who fathered the twelve
tribes of Israel (cf. Acts 7:1-8). Even The UB acknowledges that the patriarchal age began with Abraham: “The
ancestry of the father of Jesus went back to the days of Abraham and
through this venerable patriarch to the earlier lines of inheritance . .
.” (122:1.1; emphasis added). To call the patriarchs herdsmen on the basis
of Psalm 23 is therefore untenable. And
second, The UB implies elsewhere that Psalm 23 was taught
from on high by a “seraphic evangel” (48:6.4) to David, not a patriarch:
“Even on Urantia they [seraphic evangels] counsel the human teachers of truth and righteousness to adhere to the preaching of ‘the goodness of God, which leads to repentance,’ to proclaim ‘the love of God, which casts out all fear.’ Even so have these truths been declared on your world:
The Gods are my caretakers; I shall not stray;
Side by side they lead me in the beautiful paths and glorious refreshing of
life everlasting.
I shall not, in this Divine Presence, want for food nor thirst for water.
Though I go down into the valley of uncertainty or ascend up into the worlds of
doubt
Though I move in loneliness or with the fellows of my
kind,
Though I triumph in the choirs of light or falter in the solitary places of the
spheres,
Your good spirit shall minister to me, and your glorious angel will comfort me.
Though I descend into the depths of darkness and death itself,
I shall not doubt you nor fear you,
For I know that in the fullness of time and the glory of your name
You will raise me up to sit with you on the battlements on high.
“That is the story whispered in the night season to the shepherd boy. He could not retain it word for word, but to the best of his memory he gave it much as it is recorded today.” ( 48:6.8,9 )
If, as the “Archangel of Nebadon” informs us,
the 23rd Psalm was first taught to David (a shepherd boy who lived
during the age of kings) by way of cosmic epiphany, why then does the “Chief of
Seraphim” claim the phrase “The Lord is my shepherd” to be attributed to
patriarchal herdsmen several centuries earlier?
Somebody up there does not have their facts straight!
Ad Nauseum
And now, back to our main program, still in progress:
In an effort to recruit more converts to his new
religion, Paul made the decision to compromise with the Mithraic
cult which resulted in numerous of its beliefs being incorporated into the
Christian religion. But Paul’s compromised teachings of Jesus were superior to
the best in the mysteries in that:
[1] Paul taught a moral redemption, an ethical
salvation. Christianity pointed to a new life and proclaimed a new ideal. He
forsook magic rites and ceremonial enchantments.
[2] Christianity presented a religion which grappled
with final solutions of the human problem for it not only offered salvation
from sorrow and even from death, but it also promised deliverance from sin
followed by the endowment of a righteous character of eternal survival
qualities.
[3] The mysteries were built upon myths.
Christianity, as Paul preached it, was founded upon a historic fact: the
bestowal of Jesus, a Son of God, upon mankind. [98:5,6]
[121:5:6-16]]
More Mithraic madness (see Part VI, under “The Magical Mystery Tour”), only now The UB is engaging in classic passive-aggressive wordplay, launching patronizing platitudes in Paul’s direction. Nothing much to comment on here, except to say that The UB is now making a case against itself, delineating the stark differences between Mithraism and Paul’s Christianity.
The practice of the sacrifice of animals as a part of
worship began almost one million years ago with Andon
and Fonta, the first two humans. Early in
evolutionary religion the lamb became the typical sacrificial animal and the
dove the symbol of peace and love. The idea of sacrifices as a part of worship
was elaborated by Moses in the Hebrew ritual and was preserved, in principle,
by the Apostle Paul as the atonement for sin by “the shedding of blood.”
Christians still depend upon blood for salvation, but it has at least become
figurative, symbolic, and mystic. In Paul’s improved system of religious
belief, he started out to build a new Christian cult on “the blood of the
everlasting covenant.” At Hebrews 13:20 Paul states “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our
Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the
everlasting covenant . . .” Although he may have unnecessarily encumbered
Christianity with teachings about blood and sacrifice, he did once and for all
make an end of the doctrines of redemption through human sacrifices. According
to Paul, Christ became the last and all-sufficient human sacrifice; the divine
Judge is now fully and forever satisfied.
[63:6:4] [85:3:4] [89:9:3]
Again, we have dealt with the topics of Andon and Fonta, the “first two humans,” and the origins of sacrificial worship (see Part I, under “The Soul that Sinneth”). And regarding The UB’s apparent lack of conviction on whether Paul was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, see also Part I, under “The ‘Origin’of Sacrifice?”.
The savage was a food hunter and the results of
hunting must ever vary. He lived constantly on the ragged edge of a precarious
and harassed existence. Early man lived in uncertainty and in constant fear of
chance—bad luck. He was impotent before the mighty forces of nature and the
visitations of sickness and death. Therefore, something—he knew not what—must
be done to change bad luck into good luck. Who, or what, is tormenting
me—causing all this bad luck? Unable to find a material source for his
miseries, he settled upon a spirit explanation. As man progressed, he
associated good luck with good spirits and bad luck with bad spirits.
Obviously, something must be done to win the favor of the good spirits and
appease the bad spirits, who were thought to be the more active and numerous group. According to the thinking of savage man, good spirits
required little from human beings. It was the malevolent ghosts [spirits] that
primitive man must fear, placate, satisfy, and buy off from birth to death.
Countless ceremonies, tricks, and stratagems—too numerous to list—were employed
to influence spirit behavior. Among them were fasting; various forms of
self-denial, especially of a sexual nature; self-torture, self-mutilation; food
offerings; sacrifices—including humans; the use of holy water in which the
priests had washed their feet; magical charms of numerous objects; the practice
of magic--both black and white.
[Papers 86, 87, 88]]
Man eventually believed he began his career in
perfection, and that sin—the transgression of countless taboos—brought him down
to his later sorry plight. Primitive man regarded himself as being in debt to
the spirits, as standing in need of redemption. Further, community calamity was
always regarded as punishment for tribal sin which increased the debt of each
member of the tribe. All members of the tribe were held to be equally guilty,
even the newborns. Because of the erroneous belief in the fall of man in the
distant past, primitive man believed each soul was born into the world under
forfeit and in debt—original sin. This meant each soul must be ransomed. These
twin beliefs—original sin and the necessity for providing each soul with a
ransom--acted as an albatross around the neck of primitive man, beliefs that
made a slave of him from birth to death. The belief that something special must
be done day in and day out—eternally—to win the favor of a horde of wrathful,
vengeful, jealous, and greedy spirits led to countless kinds of sacrifices.
These onerous beliefs required the efforts of priests, rituals, and sacrifices
throughout an entire lifetime to get primitive man out of spiritual debt, a
debt he inherited simply by being born. [89:4:5,6]
[Paper 89]
In time, fasting became a common practice. Fasting
was supposed to earn extra credits on the self-denial ledgers of the gods. The
ritual of the fast was deeply rooted in many ancient religions and has been
handed down to practically all modern theologic
systems of thought. Property came to be viewed as a spiritual handicap. It was
believed that property hindered spiritual development and so tens of thousands
of earnest souls began to court poverty. To those who believed that prosperity
and righteousness went together, the apparent prosperity of the wicked
occasioned so much worry that it was necessary to invent hells for the punishment
of taboo violators. [89:2:4] [89:3:2,3,5]
More prattle taken straight out of F. Washburn Hopkins’ Origin and Evolution of Religion (see Part III, under “Copycat”).
Paul the Prude
The UB’s derision of Paul’s religious convictions does not end with his alleged
Mithraic pilfering.
As Ms. Cook points out below, the celestial revelators have a bone to
pick with what they view as Paul’s extreme views on human sexual ethics:
The continence cult, which originated among soldiers,
in later days became the practice of “saints.” This
cult tolerated marriage only as an evil lesser than fornication. Paul was a
devotee of this cult and he fastened his belief onto Christian theology: “It is
good for a man not to touch a woman.” “I would that all men were even as I
myself.” “I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them to
abide even as I.” [I Corinthians 7:1,6-8] Paul admits
in verse 6 that his views contained in I Corinthians 7:1-9 are his personal
beliefs and not those of Jesus. Jesus never taught these unreasonable views to
his followers. Paul’s personal beliefs have fostered the formation of celibate
priesthoods in many religions.
The continence cult led Paul to look down upon women.
His statement at I Corinthians
The key passages cited above by Ms. Cook derive once again
from a section of Paper 89 which, as we have seen, is a presentation of
religious history from a wholly naturalistic perspective. Accordingly, renunciation of physical
pleasures, specifically sex and food, and physical
humiliation were subsequent steps in religious evolution (89:3). Paul’s “endorsements for celibacy” are
especially hard-hit, portraying Paul to be a devotee
of an ancient “celibacy cult” who advocated celibacy not just for himself, but
for everyone:
“It was only natural that the cult of renunciation and humiliation should have paid attention to sexual gratification. The continence cult originated as a ritual among soldiers prior to engaging in battle; in later days it became the practice of ‘saints.’ This cult tolerated marriage only as an evil lesser than fornication [1Cor. 7:9]. Many of the world’s great religions have been adversely influenced by this ancient cult, but none more markedly than Christianity. The Apostle Paul was a devotee of this cult, and his personal views are reflected in the teachings which he fastened onto Christian theology: ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman [1Cor. 7:1].’ ‘I would that all men were even as I myself [1Cor. 7:7].’ ‘I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them to abide even as I [1Cor. 7:8].’ Paul well knew that such teachings were not a part of Jesus’ gospel, and his acknowledgment of this is illustrated by his statement, ‘I speak this by permission and not by commandment [1Cor. 7:6].’ But this cult led Paul to look down upon women. And the pity of it all is that his personal opinions have long influenced the teachings of a great world religion. If the advice of the tentmaker-teacher were to be literally and universally obeyed, then would the human race come to a sudden and inglorious end. Furthermore, the involvement of a religion with the ancient continence cult leads directly to a war against marriage and the home, society’s veritable foundation and the basic institution of human progress.” (89:3.6)
One might come away thinking, after reading this diatribe, that Paul was a proponent of an extreme view of human sexuality. The passage further asserts that “the involvement of a religion with the ancient continence cult leads directly to a war against marriage . . .” (ibid.), implying that Paul was an “enemy of marriage and the home.” Such a policy would, if it could be carried out, lead ultimately to the extinction of the human race, as the Brilliant Evening Star of Nebadon correctly asserts. But Paul was not promoting such an obviously flawed concept. The order in which Paul’s verses are cited in the paragraph recited above leaves room for suspicion. Let’s look at these verses from First Corinthians Chapter 7 in their proper context.
Verse 1 states that “It is good for a man not to touch a
woman.” This statement is true enough,
if taken in the context that Paul meant premarital sex or fornication. But is this the correct context to take for
this verse? In several other of his
epistles (Eph.
“Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1Cor. 7:2-4)
As an added note, these verses tend also to affirm the sacredness of the marital relationship, in that two bodies are shared as one, in much the same way Jesus endorsed marriage as the union of two into “one flesh” (Matt. 19:5,6).
The context of verses 6 and 7 of First Corinthians is better understood when they are not presented in fragmented fashion:
“Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.” (1Cor. 7:5-7).
It should be clear, then, that the “this” to which Paul was referring as a concession in verse 6 is the temporary suspension of sexual relations between a married couple for the purpose of spiritual devotion. To take this verse as meaning permanent abstinence would be self-contradictory, the advocating of celibacy within a marriage. What would be the point of marrying in the first place?
In verse 7, it does seem at first that Paul was advocating celibacy for all men, but in the second half of the verse (missing in The UB quote, by the way) he comments on different gifts from God. What is he getting at? We can understand Paul’s point of view if we read further into the chapter:
“But I want you to be
without care. He who is unmarried cares
for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things
of the world—how he may please his wife.” (1Cor.
Paul does not take this position because he looks down upon women, for the same admonition is given to women in the verse that follows. What’s good for the gander is good also for the goose. I can attest personally to the concept of divided time because I am hopelessly devoted to my beautiful wife and love to please her (the feeling is mutual, so far as I know). Not that I think I am in constant disfavor with God because of it; we all have our stations in life. But there are doubtless other avenues of stewardship that are afforded an unmarried man for which I have chosen not to take. Paul’s “talent” apparently was such that he could live a fulfilling life without entering into a marital relationship.
And now for verses 8 and 9. Again, in their contiguous and unfragmented form, they read thus:
“But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (1Cor. 7:8-9)
This passage sounds less a choice between two evils and more of personal preference, all things considered.
Was Paul advocating
something contrary to Jesus’ teachings?
Was Jesus not celibate also? Does
this mean that we should all follow His example and thereby threaten the very
existence of humankind? Doubtfully so. Keep
in mind that Paul was called personally by Jesus on the road to
Listed below are a few other passages from Paul’s epistles that the alleged “Brilliant Evening Star” apparently chose to skip over in this flimsy attempt at reinventing Paul as a repressor of marriage:
Keep your marriage
vows (1Cor.
To the unmarried
and widows (1Cor.
Marriage should
reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph.
Forbidding people
to marry is a “doctrine of devils” (1Tim.
4:1-3)
Marriage commended: “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife . . .” (1Tim.
This last statement of Paul’s does not at all sound like a declaration of “war against marriage and the home,” but rather a ringing endorsement for same. I don’t know about you, gentle reader, but I get a bit warmed up when a book that claims to be divinely inspired attempts to persuade me of its views by overtly lying to me. This portion of The UB appears to be guilty of gross misrepresentation at the very least. Either that, or the views expressed reflect the extreme ignorance from which they were forged. I will leave it to the reader to decide which description most accurately fits the author’s incentive.
An Original Thought?
Ms. Cook offers one
original piece of insight in all of this (which Faw’s Paramony does not provide), in that
paragraph 98:3.6 is referring to a passage in First Corinthians when it states,
“The continence cult led Paul to look
down upon women.” The passage cited by Ms.
Cook reads as follows: “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they
are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also
says” (1Cor.
There is more than one position on the
proper interpretation of this passage.
Some believe that there is a God-ordained order such that women are to
be in submission to their husbands both at home and in the church, regardless
of their particular culture. According
to this view, a timeless order was established at creation (see Gen. 3:16), and
thus Paul is not viewed as the author of this directive based solely on his
personal opinion. Moreover, opponents of
this view point out that it is clear from the context of the Fall that Genesis
3:16, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you,” does
not announce God’s created design for “male leadership” but is the statement of
a cursed existence because of sin.
Others maintain that Paul’s concern is that believers show respect for
others and for God as they exercise their spiritual gifts. Such respect must necessarily take account of
accepted social practices. Thus Paul’s
purpose, according to this view, was not to define the role of women but to
establish a fitting and orderly way of worship.
Still others say that in this context Paul is discussing primarily the
disruption of worship by women who become involved in noisy discussions
surrounding the prophetic practice of speaking in tongues. Instead of publicly clamoring for
explanations, the wives were to discuss matters with their husbands at home
(cf. v. 35). Paul is not altogether
forbidding women to speak in church; what he is forbidding is the disorderly
speaking referred to in these verses.
Any way one looks at it, the allegation that the verse in question
reflects of Paul’s supposed predilection to “look down upon women” is
unfounded.
All’s Fair in Love
and War
We have surveyed the passages that refute The UB’s notions that the Old Testament and Paul disparage women. In keeping with the old saying that turnabout is fair play, let us now take a closer look at The UB’s position regarding the fairer sex.
Granted, one paper of The UB, in describing the cultures of supposedly advanced sentient beings on other inhabited planets, portends equality among the sexes as the norm:
“Sex equality prevails on all advanced worlds; male and female are equal in mind endowment and spiritual status. We do not regard a planet as having emerged from barbarism so long as one sex seeks to tyrannize over the other.” (49:4.4)
And yet, there are other passages in The UB for which even this eloquent portrayal of how things ought to be provides no excuse. For one thing, a “Chief of Seraphim” disagrees with the “Melchizedek of Jerusem” who provided the assertion above that “male and female are equal in mind endowment,” at least on this planet: “Forever each sex will remain supreme in its own domain, domains determined by biologic differentiation and by mental dissimilarity” (84:5.13; emphasis added). Either the “Chief of Seraphim” is implying that our planet will never achieve the advanced status of true gender equality enjoyed by other planetary civilizations, or the inconsistency remains. But this incongruity aside, there are numerous passages in The UB that would be considered by most to be of a decidedly sexist flavor, painting women as inferior to men in one way or another. These passages reflect the views expressed by the “celestial” authors themselves, and are not merely the observations of human opinion. The appurtenant UB passages cited below are followed in brackets with the means by which women are considered by a “Chief of Seraphim” to be inferior to men:
“In hunting and war man had learned the value of organization, and he introduced these techniques into industry and later, when taking over much of woman’s work, greatly improved on her loose methods of labor.” (84.3.10) [innovation]
“Woman’s status has always been a social paradox; she has always been a shrewd manager of men; she has always capitalized man’s stronger sex urge for her own interests and to her own advancement. By trading subtly upon her sex charms, she has often been able to exercise dominant power over man, even when held by him in abject slavery.” (84:4.2) [sexual ethics]
“Innate maternal affection will never permit emancipated woman to become man’s serious rival in industry.” (84:5.13) [initiative]
And because the celestials insist on promoting an “evolutionary” perspective on the institute of marriage, they reap the harvest of the sexist attitudes inherent with a naturalistic perspective:
“The early home was founded upon the sex restlessness of the male when deprived of frequent gratification and upon that devoted mother love of the human female, which in measure she shares with the females of all the higher animals. The presence of a helpless baby determined the early differentiation of male and female activities; the woman had to maintain a settled residence where she could cultivate the soil. And from earliest times, where woman was has always been regarded as the home. Woman thus early became indispensable to the evolving social scheme, not so much because of the fleeting sex passion as in consequence of food requirement; she was an essential partner in self-maintenance. She was a food provider, a beast of burden, and a companion who would stand great abuse without violent resentment, and in addition to all of these desirable traits, she was an ever-present means of sex gratification.” (68:2.6,7; emphasis added)
Just as with the case of the blatant racism and the promotion of radical eugenics that is to be found in The UB, it is no less amazing to see this alleged celestial author so casually exhibit such obtrusively sexist attitudes. One would expect such gibberish to gush from out of the mouth of a dyed-in-the-wool bigot, but not from a “celestial revelator.”
And then there is the other side to this sexist coin: the notion that women are the only gender that seeks to enter into a marital relationship out of love for her children:
“Woman, because of physical and emotional attachment to her offspring, is dependent on co-operation with the male, and this urges her into the sheltering protection of marriage.” (84:1.2)
These are telling passages, in that the prevailing attitude
in the early 20th century regarding home life was such that men were, by and
large, aloof when it came to expressing affection toward their offspring. We know better today, and have apparently
outgrown the
Keep in mind that the intended context of all the above passages is not the recitals of human opinions, but those of the alleged celestial authors. It is a Chief of Seraphim, and not disenchanted bigots or frustrated feminists, who views women as willing sex slaves that circumvent their natural lot in life by wielding sex as their weapon for personal gain. To be sure, many individuals (and even some societal structures) have indeed held to these views throughout history. But to assert that these opinions were ever the acceptable norm is to stretch credulity.
If it is true that marriage is an invention of man and not an edict from God, then we can imagine the base circumstances under which this invention eventually came about as man evolved from his beastly ancestry. Again, the Chief of Seraphim provides us with an effective description of said effect:
“It is because of the sex urge that selfish man is lured into making something better than an animal out of himself. The self‑regarding and self‑gratifying sex relationship entails the certain consequences of self‑denial and insures the assumption of altruistic duties and numerous race‑benefiting home responsibilities. Herein has sex been the unrecognized and unsuspected civilizer of the savage; for this same sex impulse automatically and unerringly compels man to think and eventually leads him to love.” (83:0.3; emphasis original)
Under the premise of human evolution, it seems so simple to understand and accept the degrading circumstances by which mankind supposedly came to equate sexual gratification with love, and by which the urge to merge doth soothe the savage beast. But what if mankind did not evolve from lower creatures? What if, as the Bible states, Adam and Eve were the first human couple, whom God personally married and exhorted to uphold the marriage covenant? Then the Chief of Seraphim’s observations, despite the heights from whence they supposedly hail, have got the whole issue turned upside down. Despite God’s initiation of the marriage institution with the very first human couple, humans have abused and misapplied the sexual urge and the exclusive context by which God had designed for its expression in every way imaginable throughout the ages since. If there is anything that history tells us, it is that some members of the human race have consistently maintained an appetite for the “promiscuous matings of the herd through many variations and adaptations” (83:0.1) to one degree or another since recorded time. But such practices are rarely, if ever, condoned on a societal basis.
In Heaven, as it is on Earth
Not only are things not well for the fairer sex on terra firma according to The UB, but gender bias also appears to rear its ugly head among the stars with certain celestial overseers:
“It is at the enthronement of the Creator Son as a Master Son . . . that the Universe Spirit, before the assembled hosts, first makes public and universal acknowledgment of subordination to the Son, pledging fidelity and obedience.” (33:3.5; emphasis added)
We even see inklings of sexism in The UB’s portrayal of Adam and Eve, the noble celestials who supposedly were a primary influence for making things right between the sexes:
“It was farthest from Eve’s intention ever to do anything which would militate against Adam’s plans or jeopardize their planetary trust. Knowing the tendency of woman to look upon immediate results rather than to plan farsightedly for more remote effects, the Melchizedeks, before departing, had especially enjoined Eve as to the peculiar dangers besetting their isolated position on the planet and had in particular warned her never to stray from the side of her mate, that is, to attempt no personal or secret methods of furthering their mutual undertakings.” (75:2.4; emphasis added)
The Melchizedeks, then, are of the opinion that the Material Daughters are more impulsive and less capable of seeing the consequences of their actions than are the Material Sons.
And of the 24 Jerusem Counselors described (45:4), who represent the exemplary models of service on Urantia throughout the ages, all are male except for Eve, which suggests that only males are worthy of such a position with rare exception. So much for emancipation in the heavens!