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.

No comments:

Post a Comment