Monday, April 14, 2014


Slavery of this age?

All contents copyright © 2014 by M.L. Wilson. All rights reserved. No part of this document or the related files may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher.

* * *

There are certain subjects regarded as so untouchable, so sacrosanct that to address them in any other manner than that which is thought as “orthodox” is akin to committing the worst of any crime against humanity. Whether the subject discussed is from a perspective of religious faith or secular ethic doesn’t seem to matter. The message through the howls of protest coming from the masses makes their intent clear; do not to attempt to change the parameters of certain subjects lest one desires to be pilloried. As readers of my commentaries must be aware by now, such vitriol hurled at me due to my perspectives doesn’t much intimidate me. When we as a people can no longer debate topics because we might “offend” someone, you might as well stick a fork in us because we’re done. Freedom of thought and expression is how we as a society and a people grow. A mature individual doesn’t shrink back from such diverse opinions as a mature person is well secure in their beliefs already. Only a child runs crying to “mommy” to make it stop.

The title of this commentary is certain to inflame and enrage many. How dare I, after all, conflate abortion with slavery? Aren’t they two totally separate issues? Well having studied the impact of both evils, I feel that the comparison is not only appropriate but extraordinarily accurate. In both cases a specific class of people are singled out for no other reason than as a consequence of their birth and are then set apart; set on a lower standard than those enjoyed by their fellow man with virtually no rights at all. The perpetrators of slavery—not only in the United States but historically worldwide—have always dismissed the rights of the individual and relegated them to the status as mere property. In this diminished position, the owner of the slave could do whatever they pleased to the individual. The individual’s feelings were absolutely irrelevant and rights non-existent.

In 1857, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision regarding the matter of a slave named Dred Scott. The Court voted 7-2 to deny Scott’s suit in which he attempted to assert his freedom. Because he was of African Ancestry, the Court decided that he had no legal standing to bring such a suit, to begin with, irrespective the fact that he resided in a state where slavery was illegal. By mere virtue of race, he was stripped of his basic human rights. This decision resulted in an outcry which no doubt caught the Court by surprise as Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had intended to use the matter to settle the question of slavery once and for all. As history has shown, there were far more people of conscious residing in the United States at that time than the Court had anticipated. Within five years, President Abraham Lincoln had set aside the Courts decision by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, thus freeing the slaves. Once the Civil War had been concluded, these now freed slaves were given full citizenship. Men, women, and children who by the stroke of a pen in 1857 were regarded as subhuman by our nation’s highest court, were now legal citizens on par with any other human being within the borders of the United States.

Today in the United States, we look back on that time of slavery as something totally barbaric. There is a stain of shame over the behavior of slavery which is still visible today. It seems inconceivable that we could think of enslaving another human being as something “God ordained” as was thought at the time by a majority of people. And yet here we are in the year 2014 killing children in utero and calling it something good; babies who for no other reason than as the result of actions on the part of their parents, are sentenced to death and summarily executed. We call it many different things, but even a state-ordered execution is labeled a homicide on the death certificate. The irony in that situation is that those condemned, regardless the heinous nature of the crime, are at least accorded the dignity of having once been regarded as a human being; the slave and the aborted child never enjoyed that luxury.

Let us get to the nugget of the argument which has been fostered by Feminists and various Progressive Liberal Women’s groups since long before the Supreme Court decision in 1973 which attached greater import to a woman’s privacy than that of a human life. I word the argument in such a way because that is how Justice Harry Blackmun worded his majority opinion. To allow the murder of a human being, the rights of the mother had to take precedence, but only insofar as the decisions made concerning abortion. In every other area, the woman’s rights were subjugated by those of the state. This is nothing to dismiss blithely. A woman’s rights to her body are not absolute in any other way. If a woman decided that she wished to have sex with someone for an exchange of cash, she is committing a crime. She has no right to sell herself for sexual favors. Why is that?

If a woman desires to sell her organs—a kidney, for example, she is prohibited from doing so. She can give it away, but she cannot sell it. The same holds true for surrogacy. A woman cannot “rent” out her womb for cash. The workaround is that any monies the woman receives are for inconveniences and medical purposes. A woman cannot ingest any drug without obtaining a prescription (read permission) from a doctor licensed by the state or by simply abridging a law. A woman cannot commit suicide. Suicide is illegal almost everywhere in the United States.

We place these restrictions not just on women, but on the populous at large because not to do so has been determined to be harmful to society as a whole. Since we all must live together in something resembling a cohesive, ordered society, wholesale anarchy is seen (correctly, in my opinion) as a terrible thing. Thus, we all enjoy certain rights to privacy, but when it is deemed as harmful to society, we set limits. In the case of abortion, this restraint has been completely obliterated. The unborn is a burden not deserving of such rights.

As I pointed out above, a woman’s rights are seen as more important than the rights which would be given to the unborn child. Interestingly enough, this right the woman enjoys does not extend to the father of the child. In tailoring the argument in the manner he did, Blackmun completely ignored not only the rights of the unborn child but also the rights of the father. Again, this is not something to dismiss blithely, yet we always do. But why? Why indeed.

Here is a dirty little (not so) secret: Women can be incredibly vindictive. There is a quote from English poet William Congreve which says, “Heaven has no rage, like love to hatred turned; Nor Hell a fury like a woman scorned.”  Very often a woman will opt to have an abortion despite the wishes of the father. Many a young man has had to stand by while their child was murdered simply because the woman didn’t want it. Should a woman’s rights where only abortion is concerned (I have already illustrated that as a point of law, such are the extent of a woman’s privacy rights) trump the rights of her partner without whom there would have been no pregnancy, to begin with? I offer this only as a point to ponder before I continue.

Aside from the argument of a woman’s rights over her “reproductive health” (a euphemism since an abortion has absolutely nothing to do with promoting health, but everything to do with murder), there is the argument that abortion is a necessity in cases of rape, incest, or medical reasons where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. As far as arguments go, this one alone is so exceedingly weak, it is a shame modern feminists can bring themselves to utilize it as an argument at all.

The statistics respecting abortion show that collectively, these three—rape, incest, and life-threatening medical condition to the mother—comprise less than 1% of all abortions performed in the United States. This is a chilling statistic which was first published by a survey conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in 1989. In the 25 years since these statistics have not moved much despite billions poured into sex education and awareness. To any rational thinking person, one has to ask the question of why?

Here is a rationale which is promoted by feminists and others who support abortion on demand as a result of cases of rape, incest, or medical jeopardy. When one combines the real numbers of such incidents and then places them against something else such as injury or death from auto accidents, one would quickly see that there are far more incidents of auto accidents than are the need for abortion for rape, incest, or medical jeopardy. Yet despite those paltry numbers, abortion advocates insist that we must allow abortion for all, on demand, without restraint. The rationale used with cars would be something along the lines of eliminating the use of an automobile to all because there is one person who died in an auto accident. Of course, I am aware the analogy will not please those who are pro-abortion, but I do hope it will at least help to put things into perspective.

In the age of the Internet, people have greater access to information than ever before in human history. Based upon the literal flood of information available to anyone with a smartphone alone, we should be seeing a statistical move away from abortions performed as a form of birth control. Abortion in the United States today should be exceedingly rare, but it is not. In fact, it has grown, and one of the largest segments of our population to suffer under the cruel lash of abortion are those of African ancestry. Based upon the plethora of social networking evidence, the argument promulgated by Progressive Liberal feminists that there is a gap in education for our teens and young adults respecting how a baby is made is specious at best. What we are witnessing amongst the youth is a complete disregard for human life which has been taught to them by their parents and the newly emerging culture of Liberalism.

The founder of Planned Parenthood is little known to many of the youth who avail themselves of the services of Planned Parenthood. This is especially true in the inner cities where young black girls are routinely using the services of abortion clinics. Again, I ask the question: If after all the Billions spent to educate our youth about sex education still results in 1.21 million abortions a year (2009 statistic), 35.4% of which were black babies, then isn’t it time we concede the fact that the direction of our sex education is counter-productive?

In New York City in 2012, 37% of all pregnancies ended in abortion. For most, New York City is regarded as anything but the backwoods; the most eminent scholars of our age reside within that city, and there is a tremendous emphasis on education with budgets to match. New York State and City are both Progressive Liberal enclaves which make for an abortion-friendly atmosphere. Given the startlingly high number of abortions in light of the education, one has to conclude that the Progressive Liberal leaders of New York are actually encouraging abortion. If so, why would that be?

This brings me back to the founder of Planned Parenthood, a woman named Margaret Sanger. As I mentioned earlier in this commentary, most of the youth who avail themselves of the services of Planned Parenthood know little to nothing about its founder. I won’t delve too deeply into a biography as Sanger can be found easily with a web search. I will offer some of her thoughts on race and reproduction, however. I must wonder how many blacks who trumpet the virtues of Planned Parenthood are aware that its founder thought them little better than savages who ought to be exterminated?

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
- Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

Sanger was an adherent of Malthusian eugenics. This from the Black Genocide website (

Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th-century cleric, and professor of political economy believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation, and hunger as evidence of this "population crisis." According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

“All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to the desired level, must necessarily perish unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.”

Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more "scientific" approaches to education, contraception, sterilization, and abortion were more "practical and acceptable ways" to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.

It is stunning to me that a political party which attempts to present itself as the Party of the downtrodden and the helpless supports a movement which exploits for monetary purposes the most helpless amongst us all. When the hard statistics concerning the overwhelming numbers of black children being slaughtered is then added to the mix, such duplicity on the part of the leaders of this Party is hard to see as anything other than evil. Which party am I referring to? The United States Democratic Party.

Now I don’t like to necessarily bring politics into a blog which is supposed to be primarily faith-based in nature, but in this instance, I clearly see one particular political ideology promoting this culture of death with no allowances made ever for the life of the unborn child. To me, this is curious. It is the reason which I first thought to conflate abortion with slavery. From a political perspective, it was the Liberals of their day who fought hard to retain slavery. This is a fact that few Progressive Liberals today wish anyone to recollect, but it is a substantiated fact. Today this same political ideology is again fighting to prevent basic rights for another segment of humanity. The arguments behind their reasoning are startlingly similar and begin with, “Well they aren’t really human.”

Here are some facts about humanity good, bad, or indifferent: Our bodies are designed to propagate our species. When a male comes together with a female and both are mature enough physically for reproduction, very often a child is going to be the result. This is not an arguable point by any reasonable thinking person. Becoming a parent is a tremendous responsibility, but it is also a precious gift. Our present culture is an anomaly in the breadth of human history with respect tour view of children as a curse. Before the 19th Century, societies always welcomed children and the family. Today, such is viewed as a burden and is to be avoided for the most part. We tend to denigrate families with many children even when the parents remain together and take responsibility for their families. This is a cultural view which has been fostered. It is not a good thing.

With modern medicine, the infant mortality rate in the industrialized world has dropped tremendously. In my own family lineage, my great-great-grandfather lost his entire family of seven save for his eldest daughter to Yellow Fever between 1857 and 1864. He married my great-great-grandmother, a young Mohegan Indian girl who had come to work for him as a housekeeper, and they together had seven more children. Disease was a common reason for premature death in the age before modern medicine. A large family bolstered the possibility that a family line would survive. It also was a pool of workers from which to draw. Children worked for their families starting at an early age. This is a good thing as it taught necessary skills and fostered strong familial relationships.

Today infant mortality doesn’t come close to reaching the levels of just one hundred years ago. Our society and culture have changed dramatically as a result of modern innovation. We now see a type of idleness in our youth today which simply did not exist back then. It must also be noted that such idleness we see today is also a historical anomaly.

Woman and the New Race, Ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” Here, Sanger argues that, because the conditions of large families tend to involve poverty and illness, it is better for everyone involved if a child’s life is snuffed out before he or she has a chance to pose difficulties to its family.
“[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

“Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)
Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

“Give dysgenic groups [people with "bad genes"] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.”

April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

For anyone who regards themselves as champions for human rights, I must ask the obvious question: Do you regard some humans as more worthy of life than others? The Democratic Party long ago attached themselves to the ideology of Progressive Liberalism which has determined that society is best served when certain types of people are completely excised from the gene pool. When one examines the subtext of the ideologies supported and promulgated by today’s Democratic Party and its leaders, one can come to no other conclusion. In addition to abortion on demand, these are a people who also embrace euthanasia. In Europe—Belgium in specific today—this Liberal approach has resulted in children now being targeted for death because their quality of life is deemed as “not worthy enough” to continue living. Killing them is being presented as a compassionate move.

So-called Ethicist Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, has proposed that children should not even be granted rights as human beings until they reach the age of one month. (There are some who have asserted that Singer advocates for a limit of up to two years of age before a child is granted the right to life.) Singer holds that it is the duty of an attending physician to kill some disabled babies on the spot. He sees no difference between a child in the womb and a month-old infant; his position is that either should be allowed to be terminated if society is made better as a result, or it is the parent’s desire without any legal consequences.

Singer is regarded as somewhat radical even by members of the Democratic Party so some may think me unfair to introduce him into this argument. However, Singers’ thoughts are shared by many within the Progressive Liberal leadership in power in the United States today as I will quickly show. When the President of the United States cannot even make a personal comment as to the obscenity of partial birth abortion but instead hails the act as a “woman’s right,” Peter Singer becomes very relevant to this argument.

In fact, when one looks at Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, and her views on partial-birth abortion, it is difficult to separate Singer’s views from those of the First Lady’s. In a letter, speaking of the partial-birth abortion ban, Michelle Obama wrote, (emphasis mine)

“The fact remains, with no provision to protect the health of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned.”

As a Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama voted three times to oppose the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act.”  Essentially this is the now President of the United States advocating the exact same position that “extremist” Peter Singer has long advocated. Sadly, this is the path the Progressive Liberal Democratic Party has decided to walk. Given the spiritual direction of my commentaries, this most definitely sets me in direct opposition of not only the President but his political party. But is such an antithetical position for me as a Christian fair to the Progressive Liberal Party? Is my taking such a starkly opposite position being … Christian? In a word, yes. Let me explain.

I had earlier written a commentary on the Christian Pro-Life movement and how I believe that they are suffering from cognitive dissonance. (that commentary can be found here: )

As Christians, we are aware that life comes from our Creator. God is not a bumbling, stumbling old fool as is portrayed by His detractors. Too often those who mock God, spend the least amount of time possible putting forth the effort to understand the subject of their ridicule. This position of ignorance does nothing but make fools of them to others. However, such ignorance is displayed to all with blissful unawareness. These are people who continue pontificating to all in their profound ignorance as though they possess the wisdom of the great sages. Sadly, however, I see this same level of ignorance and arrogance displayed by my fellow Christians on related topics. Again, I’ll not delve too deeply into those reasons as they have been covered in the aforementioned commentary. However, I will reiterate that unless and until we as Christians adopt a consistent view on Life, we will continue to lose the pro-life argument. People do not like hypocrites.

Returning to God for a moment, it is so vitally important that Christians—and people in general—not anthropomorphize God Almighty. God is not a human being and suffers from no such limitations in thinking. Consider for a moment that God exists in eternal time. What that means is that while we must suffer in linear time, experiencing each moment as was determined by physicist Max Planck ( ), God Almighty IS time, both eternal and temporal. Consider that such a being has “designed” circumstances which on this temporal plane of existence may not make much sense to us but will reap much for us in the eternal realm. As Christians, this is the hope we are supposed to cleave to through a little something called faith.

“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”
                                         - Hebrews 11:1

I do not expect my fellow human beings who have decided not to believe anything of a Creator to understand this obscure concept we call faith. Truth be told, few Christians understand the concept. They liken it to mere belief, but as the Apostle James once pointed out,

“You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”
                                         - James 2:19

Faith is more than belief; faith is Supreme Confidence. When Christ said that if we had faith, we could tell that mountain to throw itself into the sea, He was speaking of this Supreme Confidence. (Matthew 21:21) How many of us lack such confidence concerning the power of the Spirit? I would boldly declare that most of us do … myself included, unfortunately. Faith is an elusive concept while we are trapped in the temporal. It is this lack of faith which causes us to lean upon that which we are familiar: The flesh. But the flesh is temporal and finite. Relying on the flesh leads us to make decisions which yield a temporal solution.

Consider you are a young girl who has given into your boyfriend and had sex. Predictably you find you’re pregnant, but your boyfriend whom you thought loved you wants nothing to do with being a father. He pressures you to have an abortion, threatening to leave you if you don’t. Though you don’t want to do it, everyone around you—friends and family members you’ve told—encourage you to do so. Your parents have always said that they’d disown you if you came home pregnant and now that it has happened, you can see nothing but a bleak future if you decide to keep the baby. There seems to be nowhere to turn. Suddenly life went from being carefree to very serious. You’re sixteen years old and in High School. The last thing you’re capable of dealing with is a child.

You visit the Planned Parenthood clinic and are told that an abortion at your stage of pregnancy will cost $950.00. (Source: Planned Parenthood: You’re shocked at the cost, but not as much as your boyfriend who offered to pay half the cost. You ask why there is such a price disparity as your friend had an abortion only six months earlier and it cost her only $300.00. The woman behind the counter explains that at such a low cost, it was most likely a pregnancy in the first trimester. You find out that you are just into the second trimester and thus are going to have to undergo a surgical abortion rather than take a pill.

Now the situation has been ratcheted up considerably. You didn’t anticipate having to get up on a table and have things put inside of you … or taken out of you. Your friend took a pill and was given a list of instructions. You pulled the $150.00 out of your savings account, money you intended to use for clothes. That along with the $150.00 your boyfriend was going to contribute, and the entire episode would soon be concluded by the afternoon. Now it was clear there would be no abortion without a lot more money and an invasive procedure.

Your boyfriend balks at the additional cost and angrily leaves you in the clinic alone, threatening you with a paternity test if you have the baby, intimating that he’s not even certain he’s the father. Your life is now shattered. You don’t know what to do as you don’t have the money for the abortion, you no longer have the support of the only boy you’ve ever slept with, and your parents are sure to disown you if you tell them.

You finally confide in your friends and together they help you scrape the needed funds together to get the abortion. The entire procedure has left you feeling dispirited and depressed. On top of having had to endure the indignity of a stranger invading you in such an intimate manner, you find that you are regarded as nothing more than a product by the people who had earlier welcomed you with a smile. You find that they are unsympathetic to your plight if you do not have the money to pay for the abortion. The depression will not lift for a long time … if ever. You have taken a life and found out just how much you actually meant to your “boyfriend” in the process.

It would be easy to believe that the above scenario is pure fiction, but I have been associated with a Crisis Pregnancy Center for almost twenty-three years. The above scenario is not only common but one of the milder scenarios. One of the facts which are continually downplayed by the Pro-abortion lobby is that Planned Parenthood is primarily a business. They do not give away their product for free. To compound matters, Planned Parenthood is a government subsidized business. In fiscal 2012-2013, Planned Parenthood received 45% of its revenues from Taxpayer subsidies which worked out to approximately $540.6 Million. (Source: Planned Parenthood Annual Report 2012-2013 )

A local Crisis Pregnancy Center receives no such government subsidy but must constantly defend themselves against a government monolith with an endless supply of cash. Given the overt racism and ageism displayed by a business such as Planned Parenthood—a business that as part of its model discriminates against males, calling their opinion in the matter “irrelevant,” one would think that not only would Planned Parenthood be put out of business, but its directors placed on trial. Sadly, this is not the case because Planned Parenthood provides a vital service for many people of power within our country.

As was pointed out earlier, Both Margaret Sanger and Peter Singer believe that certain human beings are simply not worthy of life. United States President Barack Obama has publicly declared that human life has no intrinsic worth and should be disposed of when proven to be inconvenient. In a speech, he once declared that he didn’t want to see his daughters punished with a child for making a mistake. (Source: Presidential candidate Barack Obama to a Town Hall Meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, March 29, 2008) That statement alone shows so much of the man’s base character, I still marvel at how he was elected much less re-elected. Imagine the intimate relationship he’ll have with his grandchildren should his daughters marry “the wrong type of man.”

At the end of the day, the entire abortion argument comes down to a matter of the heart. We ‘re not going to eradicate abortion on this planet any more than we’re going to eradicate other types of murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. People are people and absent a contrary direction, they will do what feeds the body. The body is incredibly needy. Such need without proper context seems completely appropriate regardless of the means. The flesh does not naturally operate from a perspective of selflessness, but rather of selfishness. Such is as a result of the flesh understanding the finite limitations of resources and time; the flesh well recognizes its surroundings and naturally behaves accordingly. As the flesh is needy and selfish as a matter of natural course, a child—whether planned or not—is seen as an intrusion. A decision then has to be made as to whether this is to be regarded as a welcome intrusion or something which needs to be corrected to return the flesh to its naturally selfish mode. Under present law, the child has no advocate and is utterly helpless.

Contrast this with the position of the spirit. Our spirits do not naturally exist in a finite, limited realm. We are eternal spirits, so the concept of limitations is antithetical to the spiritual nature. Selflessness is actually seen as of benefit to others as we all one in Spirit through Jesus Christ. This is a belief which those who are not in a relationship with Christ cannot accept, much less understand. The sad thing is that many who are suffering this dearth of spiritual understanding claim to be Christians. This is the other dirty little (not so) secret. Many Christians welcome abortion because they agree with the Margaret Sangers and the Peter Singers of the world; they do not want certain types here on earth … or in heaven.

One of the hurdles the small Crisis Pregnancy Centers have had to overcome is the vitriol hurled at them from certain local churches. Despite my best efforts, I cannot see how they can reconcile the killing of babies with the love of Christ. They have tried to explain their rationale, but their attempts fall woefully short and bespeak not a compassionate heart, but one that is totally selfish. The local Crisis Pregnancy Center I have been associated with is seen by these people as exacerbating a societal ill which could be best dealt with by allowing “nature to take its course” via abortion. If young, poor girls are getting pregnant and then having abortions, there is no harm, no foul. But if they actually have these children, what are we then burdened by as a society? More mouths to feed which will statistically also remain poor and most likely drift into drugs and crime and either impregnate others or get pregnant themselves.

Such is a bleak outcome, and on the surface, abortion could almost seem a truly compassionate response to an ever-growing crisis. But killing is never a solution.  As Christians, we all are here for a specific purpose. To believe otherwise—especially as a Christian—is to diminish God; to make Him human. If we didn’t constantly seek to destroy the fabric of the family unit, the incidents of pregnancy would surely diminish. Such true unity, however, takes work and a great deal of selflessness. Few are willing to offer that much sacrifice even for those they claim to love. For this, orthodoxy can claim much of the blame. Why do I say that? Let me explain.

Along with the aforementioned mindset by many within the church towards people they believe are “beneath them,” orthodoxy paints a portrait of God which is one of wrath and vengeance. The god of the Old Testament loves his human creation but at a very high cost and only a select few. All others are regarded as a burden and are essentially extraneous. Since orthodoxy believes that this god is God Almighty, they take a page from his practicality towards one another. The entire concept of Manifest Destiny came out of this primitive, juvenile understanding of God. The Apostle Paul was very clear that such division was absolutely not the teachings of Jesus Christ, who I hasten to add is God Almighty.

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
                                         - Galatians 3:28

If a Christian sees the poor in crisis, rather than killing their children, step in and help. That help can take many forms from actually forming a relationship and mentoring these people to teaching them life skills, to monetary aid, to prayer. There is an almost endless list of ways upon which those who have been given much can help those with less and who are in need. The one whose solution is to compound the unexpected pregnancy with the error of murder will face their Creator one day and be pressed to give an account. On that side of the veil, any temporal explanation will faint before the Creator of all things. “I thought they would be better off.” As an excuse might be answered with, “So why didn’t you do the same thing seeing as it was such a good idea for them?” But that’s the irony, isn’t it? We always seem to know what’s best for people who are prohibited from answering back with their own opinions.

It is far easier for humans to kill rather than create. Orthodoxy finds it far more expedient and practical to engage in what I call “Hit and Run” Christianity rather than invest the time in a relationship. Relationships take time, are far too involved and can become problematic. “Saving” someone, having them recite the “sinner’s prayer” and then sending them on their way is far, far easier. This is what passes for righteous Christianity in today’s world. It also is the perfect template for a soulless, uncaring world. Those same people--who would just as soon see every Crisis Pregnancy Center closed because they are exacerbating the situation by helping to bring undesirables into the world--would actually be doing what Christ commanded them if they would take do what He asked. They need to take leave of the useless mid-week Bible studies at church and instead volunteer their time at a homeless shelter; at a Crisis Pregnancy Center; tutoring the illiterate, teaching parenting skills on a volunteer basis, etc. The list of Christian a substantive way is nearly endless. 

The heart is our spirit created by God Almighty. The flesh is a wall to the heart. Killing is a selfish, destructive act which takes no skill and little thought. Creating is a cherished skill which reaps the rewards not yet seen by any of us this side of the veil. Creating a relationship with others has a payoff one will not find within the cold, echoing halls of today’s empty churches. If the church were to actually practice what Christ commanded in Matthew 28:18-20, it is quite likely the abortion situation would resolve of its own accord. Instead of each person looking out for themselves, each person would have seven billion people looking out for them. In such a world, where would the need for an abortion come from? This is the desire and lesson Christ has for each one of us. Are we Supremely Confident enough to go, and do it?





Thursday, April 10, 2014


Is one destined to Hell, or is God bigger than that?

All contents copyright © 2014 by M.L. Wilson. All rights reserved. No part of this document or the related files may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher.

* * *
There is little doubt that with this commentary, I feel as though I have just stepped on a Claymore pressure trigger landmine. I’ve already heard the “click” and once I move my foot, it’ll blow me to smithereens. Alas this is the topic I’ve decided to take on as it has become something of a contentious issue of late. Not that this subject hasn’t been addressed time and time again by much deeper thinkers than I, but (if I may be so bold) it hasn’t been addressed from the perspective I’m going to introduce to you. Does this unique perspective I offer really matter? Well it might and it might not; that is up to the reader, but my goal is to simply allow for some reasoning to be applied to the argument where thus far I have seen only partisan bickering from a perspective of bias and bigotry. For example, as a general rule those who are anti-religious generally tend to take a pro-homosexual attitude. The converse is true for those who hold more religious views. As one who has spent a great deal of time disassembling religion and its attendant thought vis-à-vis the Bible, I thought it was time to weigh in on this topic.

Suffice to say no one is going to come away from my commentary completely happy with what it is I’m going to say. Some in the religious community will only be encouraged to sharpen the tines on their pitchforks all the more while some in the secular community are going to call me a homophobe just as sure as the sun will rise in the morning. I am aware of this, but the United States is still a free country so until I’m bundled off and become part of the “disappeared,” I’ll write what I know and believe. Hopefully it will be received as intended to the benefit of all. Now on with the show.

Homosexuality is an uncomfortable topic for many. It was and largely remains, “The love that dare not speak its name” as poet Lord Alfred Douglas once opined. But why? When all convention is stripped away, why are we as a people uncomfortable with a homosexual union? This is an interesting question and one that has fascinated me for decades. When one bores down on the “why” aspect, the “why” starts to unravel. What we uncover really isn’t so much a legitimate reasoning, as much as it is a bias. Such, to me, is fascinating all the more.

I like debating contentious issues. I like asking somewhat leading questions because in so doing, people reveal their true natures and thought (or lack thereof). When I am discussing the nature of homosexuality with my religious friends, invariably the mention of the prohibition by God comes up. Very quickly they will cite God in Genesis chapter two.

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.          
                                            – Genesis 2:24-25
This is buttressed by further quotes from Leviticus which read:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.                                              
                                            - Leviticus 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.    
                                             - Leviticus 20:13
The quotes from Leviticus are part of what is called the “Holy Code” due to the repeated use of the word Holy. This Holy Code is covered primarily in Leviticus chapters 17 – 26. I do not want the reader to in any way misconstrue my respect for the Bible or the Old Testament, but as readers of my earlier commentary on Bible inerrancy are well away, I view scripture and the Word of God differently than most of my fellow Christians. This is important to understand while reading my rationale for the conclusions I reach. (That commentary can be found here: 

I’ll delve further into the Old Testament reasoning later on, but first let us look at the converse viewpoint. What is the reasoning by my secular friends who see no problem with Homosexuality, or if they do, why they do so without their being any sort of religious component.

I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area which even back in the day (1970s) was an eclectic mix of people. In many ways we were far ahead of the rest of the country with respect to the evolution of societal mores, placing us on a par with Europe. My friends were decidedly irreligious, but I suppose no more than I. While I believed in Jesus from my earliest memories, we were in and out of the church while I was growing up and by my teens, the trend had been towards the Baptist faith. I will admit that while much Baptist teaching seeped into my consciousness, I had major problems with much of their doctrine. It is most likely the reason I look for the rationale behind any religious teaching so closely today. It could legitimately be said that the Baptist faith is the reason this commentary can be written at all. God does work in mysterious ways…

I was well familiar with the Homosexual community even if I didn’t completely understand the allure. My friends all took a dim view of homosexuals and the typical epithets were liberally sprinkled in their phraseology when the subject came up. Interestingly enough as we all grew a little older from our early and mid-teens and into our late teens, this bias began to fade. Soon enough, there were a few homosexual men that were a part of the group. It is from this base that I draw a great deal of my anecdotal experience.

There were two individuals I remember quite clearly. One was a rather engaging individual who seemed to take a perverse delight in making me as uncomfortable as possible. I as the naïve “Christian boy” was a perfect foil for him. It was good natured teasing and I actually didn’t mind. We had many, many in-depth conversations about a host of subjects which I found valuable. He gave me an insight on his thought process and I did my best to give him an insight into mine.

The other man was quite the opposite. He clearly did not like me and the feeling quickly became mutual. This had nothing to do with his sexual orientation, but rather had everything to do with the fact that he was a straight up jerk. (It’s true, folks. Just because you’re gay, doesn’t mean you can’t be just as unpleasant a person as any heterosexual.)

After I left High School and joined the military, I lost contact with this group. It was in the military that I got my first real taste of predatory behavior from a homosexual male. There were a couple of incidents when I was younger where older men had tried to “get to know me better,” but I ignored them and moved on. This was different as this man began to actually follow me. It gave me a very interesting insight into how a woman must feel who is being stalked. It is interesting how sometimes life can give you a glimpse into an area otherwise unknown.

My anecdotal take away is that at its core, homosexuals are really no different than heterosexuals. One group is attracted to the opposite sex while the other is attracted to their own. Beyond that, I can see no difference personally. I’ve met stalkers of both genders, I’ve met jerks of both genders and I’ve met great people of both genders. So where does that leave us? We’re back to the “why” of the negative feelings most of us by and large still have towards homosexuals. In can only assume these feelings come from a perspective of the unknown.

Those who hold a hard Biblical view will often go on to explain that the pairing of a man and a woman is designed specifically for the propagation of the species; it is a natural pairing therefore. Thus, two men or two women would be an unnatural pairing because they cannot have children. Now to be completely fair to the logic of that rationale, such thought would also negate the heterosexual pairing of couples who are sterile, who desire NOT to have children, or are at a post-menopausal state. In each example, the pairings are not designed for the propagation of the species. Why should your seventy year old grandmother bother to marry her seventy-five year old boyfriend if they aren’t planning on having children?

Similarly we are told that such heterosexual pairings are a Holy institution before God Almighty. When a homosexual couple comes together, it sullies the institution of marriage. I’ve given this particular criticism a great deal of thought. I am of the belief that the union of marriage from a faith standpoint is as an example for us human beings. Jesus Christ uses such language when describing His relationship to us as the church. He calls us His bride with He being the bridegroom. But he also refers to us as His children and calls us joint heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven. Are we engaging in a bit of incest here? No, these are analogies which Christ employed so that we could understand the depth of the relationship aspect from an empathetic point of view. Most of us have someone in our lives we care about deeply be it a spouse or a child. The selfless care we show to those people is what Christ wanted us to see in the marriage analogy. One will note that neither analogy remains relevant once we enter into eternity with Him. There is no marriage as the concept as we understand it as human beings is far too remote and isolating. Our relationship with one another irrespective of sexual orientation will be far more intimate. Our children here on earth will then be our peers.

If one utilizes the Bible to underscore the fact that Homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death, then one must also acknowledge that Homosexuality is as old as the Bible. In fact, homosexuality is as old as mankind. I’ll hasten to remind the reader that the Bible is but one chronicle of one tribe of people in one part of the earth. There are ancient chronicles of other peoples about the earth which gives us insight as to their societal mores as well. Perhaps some history is in order.

When one looks at homosexuality in Ancient Rome for example, one must acknowledge a different relationship structure than the type enjoyed by the homosexuality community which is predominant in today’s culture. Rome, like many societies before it, engaged in a pattern of same-sex relationship based on age-dissonant sexual dominance; an older man (not always very much older by the way) will take a conventionally "male" role in a sexual relationship with a younger male, but will not, in doing so, be regarded as any different from other "male" men in general society.

Ancient Sparta was thought to have encouraged older men to take young boys at about the age of twelve as protégées. These two would enter into a relationship whereupon the older would teach the younger. Sex was certainly a part of this instruction, but was not the only reason behind the mentoring. Sparta was a military society and there was a clear point and purpose to this relationship structure. These younger boys were brought up to not only trust their mentors, but to also learn all there was no known about how to navigate through life. To be certain, much of what is known about Sparta is colored by the victors in history and allowances have to be made for error, but that these male to male relationships existed seems without a doubt.

Ancient Greece was similarly accustomed to such male to male relationships, again owing to ritual rites of passage under the umbrella of the military. In the 21st Century we may be aghast at the union of an adult male taking a young boy for sexual purposes, but ancient Athenian Law recognized no consent or age as factors in regulating sexual behavior. In the ancient Grecian culture, pederasty has been understood to be educative in nature. In this, it would appear to be on par with the Spartan and Roman cultures. 

Ancient Chinese culture also shows evidence of the acceptance of homosexuality. Ruan Ji (210 – 263 AD), the male lover of King Xi Kang was one of the most famous poets to apply his brush to a homosexual theme. English historian Edward Gibbon (1737 – 1794) observed that all but one of the first fourteen Roman Emperors were either bisexual or exclusively homosexual. In like fashion, he found that for two centuries at the height of the Han Dynasty, China was ruled by ten openly bisexual emperors beginning in 206 BC. The names of the emperors, with their acknowledged favorites were recorded in the official histories of the period by Sima Qian and Ban Gu. It is also of note that in ancient China, there seems to be no idea of a homosexual identity. Male bedmates of rulers were described merely as men who received “chong” or favor (which might be equally bestowed upon women) or, in Han texts, as “ning xing,” those who obtained love or favor through artful flattery.

So the history is firmly established, but just because mankind is okay with homosexuality, doesn’t necessarily mean that God is okay with homosexuality, correct? Mankind seems to be okay with a great deal of that which God is not so favorably inclined. True enough. The Chinese religious point of view is varied, but Taoism which is the oldest of the religions seems less concerned about homosexuality than it does with one’s purity; preaching a life of simplicity free from striving after power and wealth. For the devout Chinese, sexuality was not an activity hedged about by taboos or divine prohibitions, but a challenge to achieve well being by proper management of what we might call physiological economy. (“Homosexuality and Civilization”  by Louis Crompton)

Citing religious understanding from other societies is of interest to me primarily because such people were largely ignorant of the Torah or the subsequent New Testament scriptures. All things being equal, how can one be held to a standard God imposed if God had not given them the same information? Western religion is quick to condemn, but they can do so from the comfort of having the needed information at their disposal. Would they be so quick had they no such information? I think the answer is obvious.

Native America Indians are another mysterious group who had their own view of God which was quite divergent from that of the ancient Hebrews. Native Americans believe something similar to the ancient Greek Philosopher, Plato insofar as they believed that God created three types of people; Male, female and Two-spirits. This from Wikipedia:

"Two-spirited" or "two-spirit" usually indicates a Native person who feels their body simultaneously manifests both a masculine and a feminine spirit, or a different balance of masculine and feminine characteristics than usually seen in masculine men and feminine women.
Two-spirit individuals are viewed in some tribes as having two identities occupying one body. Their dress is usually a mixture of traditionally male and traditionally female articles, or they may dress as a man one day, and a woman on another. According to Sabine Lang many tribes have distinct gender and social roles. Some specific roles sometimes held by male-bodied two-spirits include:

·         Detail of Dance to the Berdashe, painted by George Catlin
·         Healers or medicine persons
·         Conveyors of oral traditions and songs (Yuki)
·         Foretellers of the future (Winnebago, Oglala Lakota)
·         Conferrers of lucky names on children or adults (Oglala Lakota, Tohono O'odham)
·         Nurses during war expeditions
·         Potters (Zuni, Navajo, Tohono O'odham)
·         Matchmakers (Cheyenne, Omaha, Oglala Lakota)
·         Makers of feather regalia for dances (Maidu)
·         Special role players in the Sun Dance (Crow, Hidatsa, Oglala Lakota)
To be certain, there are other cultures about the world and their thoughts respecting homosexuality going back to their origins, but such is for a more comprehensive look not germane to this particular commentary. I endeavored only to give a broad overview of the subject and how these “other gods” looked upon the topic. Based upon the behavior of their people, these other gods either didn’t care, or didn’t get around to addressing the issue.

Respecting the laws of the Ancient near East and northern lands, the Codes of Urukagina (2375 BC), Ur-Nammu (2100 BC), and of Hammurabi (1726 BC) don’t mention any specific prohibition on homosexuality. The Hammurabic Code is of special note as it is often seen as a model for the Mosaic Law. King Hammurabi was given his law from his god in much the same way as was Moses. Many archeologists believe that Moses’ story is a copy of that of King Hammurabi as the Mosaic Law was not given until approximately 1586 BC; some one hundred, forty years before Sinai. This brings me back to the Torah and then onto Christianity.

I had mentioned earlier that it was important to remember that the Torah is but one chronicle of one tribe of people. We must not forget that when we are looking at the history of humanity. Too often we regard the Bible as a complete history of humanity, but it is not. The Torah began as an oral history passed from one generation in one family to the next. Like any family history, these stories were not concerned with that which was not relevant to them. Thus, Genesis chapter one deals with the creation of the entire universe and the entire earth and all the people placed upon it. Beginning with chapter two, the story becomes more focused on just the tribe of the people who would later become known as the Hebrews. The “Others” about the whole of the world had their own stories and chronicles which are largely ignored by the accounts in the Torah unless there was some overlap. The Old Testament records no interactions with people of Nordic ancestry or those of Native American ancestry for example. It is unlikely that there are any interactions with those of Asian ancestry. It is clear that there were interactions with those of black ancestry, but this seems to be later on in the chronicle.

I mention this only because it is very pertinent when one is looking at the breadth of human history on this planet. In my commentary on the races, I delve into this topic in greater detail.  That commentary can be found here:

Within the tribe of the people who would become the Hebrews, it is important to remember that they are ruled by their god. This is not God Almighty, but rather a mighty spiritual entity referred to as a Celestial being by both the Apostle's Peter and Jude. (2nd Peter 2:10 and Jude 8) The Celestial being who rules over the Hebrew people as their god is named Helel. His name in Hebrew means, “Light Bearer” for his job is to bring the Light of God Almighty to the Hebrew people. It is because this Celestial being failed to bear the Light of God Almighty to the Hebrews that he was cast down (Isaiah 14:12). Helel shone only his light to the Hebrew people rather than God’s true Light. It was left up to Jesus Christ to be the true Light to all humanity, not just the Hebrew people (or any other select group of people on the earth).

Thus when the Old Testament calls such specific acts as homosexuality into question (Leviticus 20:13), we are reading the admonition of a Celestial being and not God Almighty. Why do I say that? Well in addition to the information I have already outlined, let us look at the character of the Celestial being, Helel and juxtapose that with the character of Jesus Christ who is God Almighty.

In Deuteronomy 20:10 – 20, we are given a listing of how Israel is supposed to comport themselves when attacking an enemy in the Land of Canaan. These are not instructions specific to one group of people who have already shown violence against the Hebrews; these are generic instructions against any who would present resistance. Verse 14 states:

 “As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.”
War is rarely transcendent; it is vicious and cruel. The outlook for these women and children taken by the Israelites was stark. Historically in war, rape of women and children is common place. It had been perpetrated upon the Hebrews by those who had conquered them in war, and it is clear the Hebrews returned the favor with the blessing of their “god.” Rape was common place and knew no age limit if such was given as plunder. Thus, many young children suffered indignities they otherwise would not have at such a young age. It could be said that the women and children as part of this particular battle strategy got off easy as later on when the Celestial Helel ordered the annihilation of the Amalakites as outlined in 1st Samuel 15:1 – 4, not even the women and children were spared. Imagine justifying the killing of a small child because “god” said so? Just believe me when I tell you no such order ever came from the mouth of God Almighty. For proof of this, please note the character of God Almighty as outlined by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 5:22:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Further, God Almighty describes Himself as love. (1st John 4:8) The Apostle Paul describes love in this manner:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.                                               
                                   – 1st Corinthians 13:4 - 8
This is God’s true character. If one can reconcile the actions of the Old Testament god with the character displayed in Galatians 5:22 and 1st Corinthians 13: 4 – 8, that would be a neat trick. My guess is one could only do so by presuming that which is not mentioned in scripture. God is love. This is how He describes Himself and how He wants us to know Him. He desires an intimate relationship with all mankind, not just the Hebrews and not just those who have had the ability to go to church and get “saved.” The parables of Christ with respect to the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11 -32), and the parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1 – 7) should give any Spirit-filled reader the understanding that Christ is reaching out to all of us. The age of the Celestial rule over humanity is done ... as is their exclusivity.

In my commentary on Matthew 27:51 – 54, I outlined this spiritual structure and the Celestial hierarchy. That commentary can be found here:

When the curtain in the inner Holy of Holies was torn from the top down, it was a signifier that humanity was no longer under the rule of the Celestial beings, but now we were under the Grace of Christ. When my Christian brothers and sisters refuse to acknowledge this paradigm shift, they not only diminish Christ, but they relegate him to the back row. Thus when they become apologists for the mass killings sanctioned throughout the Old Testament, they are siding with the enemy rather than with the work of Jesus Christ upon the cross. This is nothing to take lightly as a Christian. Our primary function on this earth is to be a Light to others. When we spend our limited days in the flesh spreading condemnation, how are we a light? Christ did not come to judge the world and neither should we.

This brings me around to the status of homosexuality in the Old Testament. It must be understood that such admonitions are from the mind of this particular Celestial being and not God Almighty. If that is understood, then we can proceed to the New Covenant and see just how Christ viewed homosexuality. One might be surprised at the conclusion.

In Romans 1:26 – 28, Paul is discussing the hearts of those who have turned their backs on God. He speaks on their depravity, explaining that the men and the women have exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, abandoning the natural desire for the opposite sex and instead opting for relations with the same sex. We seem to focus on that part of the scripture and ignore the rest, however. Context is everything and when one looks at the context of what Paul is talking about, the picture becomes just a bit more clear.

Paul was addressing the infant church in Rome. The Book of Romans was thought to have been written by Paul while he was still in Corinth approximately 56 AD. This was still early in Paul’s over-all ministry. (Paul thought to have been martyred in Rome around 67 or 68 AD) This was also in the very early reign on Nero, but prior to his more horrific acts against the Christians. This period of time in Rome was better for a short while under Nero, but over-all Rome was in a moral state of decay.

Prior to Nero, Rome had been ruled by Claudius who had actually managed to steer the ship of state out of the rut his nephew, Caligula had placed it. Scandal didn’t miss his house as it is thought his death was caused by his wife, Agrippina the Younger, so that her son from her relationship with Roman Consul, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, could ascend the throne.

Caligula had reigned only a little over three years, but the Empire reeled under his antics. He nearly bankrupted the Empire with his extravagance and his debauchery seemingly knew no bounds. In 41 AD, Caligula was stabbed thirty times by conspirators.

Prior to Caligula, the Empire was ruled by his great uncle, Tiberius. Tiberius was a great general conquering much of what is today England, Germany and France for the Empire. But Tiberius was not well suited as an Emperor and soon retreated to the tiny Island of Capri, never setting foot in Rome again. While on Capri, Tiberius was able to give in to his lusts of pedophilia, having his swimming pool filled with little children to swim with him naked and pleasure him sexually.

This was the atmosphere which Paul had waded into. These were the cultural norms which he was addressing. When we fail to understand just what it is that Paul had to put into context in his letter to the church at Rome, we do everyone a disservice.  Writing from Corinth, Paul was already well familiar with that port city’s dark peculiarities. Rather than focusing on the mere fact of homosexual relations between the men and the women of Rome, Paul addressed all manner of evil. The entire Empire was corrupt and it was this heartlessness which Paul was attempting to address.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

                                              - Romans 1:28 – 32

Paul essentially covers every aberrant deed known in this conclusion. Why is it that we as the church seem to ignore that which is a part of our lives and instead focus and that which is not? As a church, do we give more license (read grace) to the adulterer than we do to the homosexual? Historically that is indeed the case. It is almost looked upon as a certain fait accompli that men cheat with women. The patriarchs did so and in fact, had multiple wives all with God’s seeming blessing. (King David had multiple wives, yet is described as a man after god’s own heart in 1st Samuel 13:14) How is it that we can excuse this bastardization of the marital bed with the Old Testament patriarchs, but then condemn a committed, monogamous homosexual couple? We can do so because the Old Testament “god” tacitly approved of adultery by a man and the multiplicity of wives while calling homosexuality an abomination worthy of death.

Here is what I see as the point Paul was making. Sexual immorality—ANY sexual immorality—creates a barrier between the intimate relationship God wishes to have with his creation and Himself. Sexual immorality can be found amongst the heterosexual population just as well as the homosexual population. When a young woman announces on the internet that she is going to set a record for having sex with a thousand men in twelve hours, what is that saying about her ability to allow room for God in her life? This woman, an X-Rated star named Lisa Sparxxx nearly accomplished her goal in October 2004. She fell short by eighty-one men. That is an extreme example, but the converse is also true. Men parading about at Gay Pride Parades in almost nothing, waving their “parts” at others are just as egregious.

Human beings are not the sum total of their genitalia. Absent the body, we are spirit. While we will retain our identities of our time in the flesh once we transition to the spirit, the limitations of sexual identity will be gone. The intimacy which will be experienced will make the sex act seem distant and remote under the best of circumstances. Sex is a necessity to propagate the species as designed. (Mitosis wouldn’t give us the individuality which makes our world so interesting) I believe sexual pleasure was given in order to ensure that propagation. Given the rudiments of the act, we either would proceed upon instinct—which robs us of our individual free will, or we would find ourselves enticed through reward. Absent either inducement, I would find it curious as to why anyone would ever engage in the sex act. Deep intimacy with others can be attained without sex. Such intimacy is of the spirit, not the body.

We look upon our bodies with such disrespect that we think nothing of polluting them with not only thoughts, but actions which are not at all good for us. As the Apostle Paul had said, “All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial…” (1st Corinthians 10:23) We are given charge over our fleshly shells for just a little while; they are not eternal and will perish soon enough. However when we take care of that which has been given us, it speaks much to the love and respect for the one who gave them to us to begin with. You wouldn’t accept a cherished gift from a friend and then proceed to smash it to bits before their eyes if you loved them … and the gift given. The same holds true for the gift of the bodies we’ve been given while here on this planet.

My theology has led me to conclude that the Celestial Helel (once again, Lucifer as outlined in Isaiah 14:12) is enraged over homosexuality because he constructed our fleshly shells to operate in a specific manner and sees us as misusing them for their intended purpose. Consider an engineer designing a car to run only on paved roads, but the owner of the car LOVES off-road driving. Now off-road driving isn’t necessarily wrong per se, but the designer is going to become unhinged because the car wasn’t designed to operate that way and won’t enjoy full efficiency. 

The analogy isn’t perfect, but hopefully one will see what I am trying to say. A homosexual couple—male or female—cannot propagate the species in their desired pairing; the design doesn’t allow for that. Never the less, the couple can have a relationship which for better or worse fulfills all the other aspects of a traditional relationship. It must be understood by all that this is not an argument as to whether or not homosexuality will keep one from Heaven. God has already answered that question. If one believes that because homosexuals engage in sexual intimacy God will damn them to hell, one doesn’t really understand the nature of Christ or what Paul was attempting to explain to the Church at Rome. Again, it is not JUST about homosexuals; it is about the position of the heart before Christ for all of us. How we as Christians treat anyone—homosexuals included—speaks to the position of our hearts before Christ.

God created each and every one of us with purpose and seeks to have a relationship with us; He loves all of us regardless our sexual orientation or identity. While He utilized His Celestial agency to be His face to us in the Old Testament times, He now uses US for that purpose. For those of us—heterosexual or homosexual—who have experienced the very worst of God’s human agency, one must not look towards such people to establish a relationship with God. God does not want us to have a relationship with Him through proxy; God wants a relationship with each one of us individually; we must all come to Christ individually.

Don’t be led astray from such a relationship because one of God’s ambassadors is off-putting. I have been similarly consigned to the same fiery pit of hell by these errant folks for the theology I propagate. I realized long ago they may be well meaning, but they approach the situation from a point of fear and ignorance. You see, God is as mysterious to them as he may be to you. God uses others to be His face for a very specific reason; human beings learn to be more like Him when we have to be His spokesman. This isn’t always going to lend itself to a smooth ride. Christ told us that we need to count the cost of becoming a disciple. (Luke 14:25 -34)

“Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and the greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”                     
                                       - Matthew 22:37 – 40
The Hebrews have 613 Levitical Laws and the 10 Commandments. This comprises the breadth of the Law. There are further instructives which permeate the teaching just as with any denomination, yet Christ took all of those rules and regulations and distilled them down to two … TWO. These two cover everything irrespective of religious affiliation. When one denigrates Christ, is one approaching Christ from a position of fear and ignorance? Did one enter into a relationship with Christ through proxy, or is one entering into their own personal relationship? There is the primary problem on earth today. We insult, denigrate, malign, and hate that which we’ve never bothered to understand.

The homosexual community feels attacked and desire to have the same freedom to exercise their sexuality as any heterosexual couple. However they have cleaved to examples to represent their interests which are as bad as the worst of heterosexual smut peddlers. This may not be a popular opinion, but it is a correct one: have self respect for who you are as a person. I’ll reiterate: Human beings are not the sum total of their genitalia. Rather than behave as adolescents with a new toy, the homosexual community needs to understand that with freedom comes responsibility. To be taken seriously, the antics have to cease. This is an admonition not only to the homosexual community, but to the heterosexual community as well. The serial philandering, whoring about and general disrespect for one’s sexuality irrespective of sexual orientation has to stop. As the Apostle Paul once said:

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.                       
                                        – 1st Corinthians 13:11
A Christian seeks a relationship with Christ and then to usher others into that same intimate relationship. This is what it means to make disciples of all nations. Once others enter into that relationship for themselves, the Spirit of the Living God will work on their hearts and give them instruction. We cannot SAVE anyone as that was the job only of Jesus Christ. Be the face of Jesus Christ to your fellow man, help them to enter into that right, intimate relationship, and then allow the Spirit to do the rest.