|
A
Question of Identity?
The
purpose of this page is
to present human sexuality in its correct context as a gift of
God and consequently to affirm the Divine intent therein. This
is not simply pleasure; the expression of emotional love; or reproduction.
It concerns the very nature of God in relation to mortal
humanity. References to Biblical Wisdom otherwise known as Sophia,
refer to Proverbs chapters 4 and 8; Ecclesiasties; The Song of
Songs; certain of the Epistles, and to Revelation chapter 12.
This is not a comprehensive listing.
This
section of the site is the text of an email response to an article
entitled "What does The Bible say on Homosexuality"
published on the personal website of Bill Loader, Professor of
Theology at Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia. Bill's
site is linked to the university site. The email was sent around
October 2004. Bill's response was --- silence.
Please
use the following hyperlink to access Bill's article before proceeding.
It is two A4 pages in length and may be printed off as follows.
Select the entire article and copy to the clipboard. Open a word
processor and paste the article. Change the text to ten pitch
and print it double sided on a single sheet. This enables references
to be taken up without repeatedly changing screens. Please note: The two hyperlink website addresses appearing at the end of Bill's article are simply that -- part of Bill's article!
Bill's
Personal Home Page
If
the link dosen't work enter the name "Bill Loader" in
a search engine.
Select the article from the heading "Articles and Papers"
on the vertical navigation bar.
Bill,
I
write as the vessel of the Holy Spirit. Thus, for the most part
when the pronoun "I" is used it does not refer to the vessel but
to the Author, AS Witness. Amen.
I
shall firstly discern the true context and expression of your
article Bill which may give you cause for reflection. I shall
then relate this to the unspoken need in your article - namely
the recognition and acceptance of Reality as Hieros Gamos, The
Mystical Marriage. In the temporal
domain as we know recognition may not embrace acceptance. This
fact is of even more significance concerning the individual and
collective human Spirit. Amen.
It
is necessary to affirm (the) Reality of our subject and thus our
context. Sexuality is shared by three of the four earthly Monarchies
(Kingdoms). All Monarchy being of The Lord Most High. Amen. The
word "gender" as distinct from sexuality embraces the universal
(Cosmic) Reality of Divine Love as the marriage of Logos
and Sophia in western culture. Jesus The Christ did not teach
Christianity as the west perceives it. He taught The (Universal)
Way - the way of Cosmos as I AM. Thus the Way is Divine Unity
identifying and experiencing its Self as Cosmos. The union of
the flesh is but a dim reflection (as an earnest) of (this) Reality.
Cosmos as Being is the Common Unity of opposites ,
the exception being that of good and evil. Thus we have
the yin and yang of Taoism. Such Unity is expressed in the profundity
of the first sentence of Psalm 46.10, which gives rise to the
second sentence. Amen. Thus Cosmic Law is experienced as the attraction
of opposites resulting in their union as Spirit Who is indivisible
and yet retains individuality. This can be considered as a fire
composed of individual coals fused together by the living Being
of the flame. Amen.
Let
us now move to the details of your article whilst retaining our
individual perception of (the) overarching Reality. There is also
a need to retain this awareness in relation to Sophia as Holy
Wisdom. This is so as She will never be manifested through the
apostate church temporal of any global religion or denomination
thereof. Religion is of man as distinct from the One global faith
of The Way, as I AM.
I
shall start with a question addressed to you Bill. Does your article
answer the question asked in the title of your article?
My
approach is to comment on points arising in your text as the occur.
It may help you to arrange these in a different sequence in considering
a response. This
is not solicited, but would be received in friendship. Amen. Thereafter
I shall discern human sexuality in its assigned nature relative
to (the Being of) Cosmos as The One (androgynous) Being.
Para.1,
line 3: "Its writers deplored homosexual acts as a deliberate
perversion of human nature - a flouting of God's intent in Creation".
At face value this reads as Biblical truth. Your interpretation
of this text however is not revealed until the fourth paragraph
in which you state that reference is only being made to those
who deliberately seek to pervert human nature as distinct from
expressing sexuality, and affection for another of the same sex.
This is opinion expressed as fact. Therefore the third line of
your first paragraph contains a subtle half truth. As the expression
"half truth" is self contradictory your entire logic falls. Therefore
the entire article is spiritually void. These words are not said
aggressively, they are stated as Witness. Amen.
Para.1
line 5: You confirm the references of Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13
as "clearly prohibiting homosexual acts". You thus contradict
your yet to be disclosed non acceptance of this Scriptural statement
which has no "yes but" qualification clauses as you subsequently
suggest. Amen.
Para.1
third last line: You cite Romans 1.26 and 27 as confirming
a perversion. Verse 25 which you chose to omit states the cause
of verses 26 and 27! I define the term "worship" as the acknowledgement
of supremacy. Thus sin is self worship and worship of self. The
former relating to the physical body, the latter to the human
ego. This is complex and arises from the fact that human life
is not simply a matter of three score and ten. The significance
of the difference between homosexual and heterosexual lust will
be summarised later.
Para
2. second last line: "many people see the debate as a non event,
or something which should be a non event". In the context you
establish, the "many" is inclusive of heterosexuals. In my opinion
your phraseology and grammatical construction lends itself to
the suggestion (direction ?) that homosexuals as part of
common-unity may (should?) also regard the debate as a non event.
Relative to the entire community how many people is "many"?
I
agree with the body of paragraph three in the sense that it is
(almost) impossible to sublimate far less reverse one's sexual
orientation. I can understand an individual's struggles in coming
to finally accept themselves as they are. I therefore accept that
for many there is no deliberate intention to pervert God's Will
which we must remember is Her / His Perfect Will - for US! Does
this mean however if only by default, that Jesus says homosexual
acts are acceptable?
If
this is so, then in logic which has nothing to do with
Spirit this means that the human homosexual desire for physical
penetration is God ordained. This is to say that but for the modern
convenience of a condom it is in God's order of things that the
male organ of reproduction (as part of human Spiritual
evolution) should come into contact with faecal matter - an agent
of dis-ease representing that which is eliminated by the physiology
of human life. This may be considered an obvious and somewhat
hackneyed argument. Firstly, it is not an argument, it is Witness.
Secondly, if it be hackneyed it is no more so than the generality
of your submission in paragraph three which is that homosexuality
is present in nature as part of "natural" (God given and thus
Blessed) behaviour. It is salutary to recall that cancer is also
"natural" in this sense.
Still
in paragraph three in my opinion you cite the god of science which
the intellect would use to measure, explain, and ultimately control-
God! To use secular language sexuality is a subset of gender.
The former is of the flesh, the latter of the Soul. You reveal
your Freudian slip in this regard in the (subliminal?) typing
error of the insertion of a capital "I" as in your last line "a
personIs physical and psychological makeup ---".
Para4.
line 1: "When we turn to The Bible we must ask the question were
the writers of the Bible aware of such people" (ie those who do
not seek to pervert.). Do you really mean we must
ask or you , Bill, must ask? Please consider this point
for a moment here and now. Thank you.My
response to the question asked is this. You are referring here
to a modern (fully developed) society, not a Neolithic society.
Your response is an opinion expressed as a fact. Amen.
Line
4: "this makes it difficult" - a generality - difficult for whom?
Last line - opinion. .
Para.5.
Not so much throwing the baby out with the bath water as
trying to get the baby to swallow all the dirty water. Your submission
here in logic once again implies by default that Jesus says its
OK! Jesus says or does nothing by default as we know. Amen. Here
surely is the unsolvable dilemma. Unsolvable that is by human
will individual or organisational; temporal or (apparently) spiritual.
It
is my conviction that the fires which have raged all down through
human history since the fall will continue to burn overtly or
beneath the surface (deed and thought). Recalling that as Spirit
the thought is equivalent to the deed seems to leave no hope for
those of us who chose to occupy the flesh vessel with
a confused orientation to gender and thus sexuality as the outworking
of previous incarnations.Not until the coming of the global Church
Spiritual as The Bride (Sophia)and Jesus The Christ as
Groom will this and many other imponderables of humanity be addressed
and resolved as part of the continuing Spiritual evolution of
humanity. Humanity being female and male - as
above, so below. Amen. I do not seek to prove or justify reincarnation,
there is no need. I accept that this statement may be regarded
as opinion. As a generality the statement becomes self evident
(evident to The Self) when applied to any (aspect of) Truth temporal
or Spiritual.
You
broaden your submission by referring to our need to examine "what
the rest of the Bible has to say", and remind us of The Bible's
central message of tolerance and love for all. In
my opinion it is worth remembering that love does not always show
itself as sweetness and light. Love also admonishes and expresses
righteous reproach using positive phraseology. The latter
may be perceived as aggressive eg turning over the tables
in the temple) but it has to be forceful not to destroy, but to
resurrect. This is the nature ofLove.Jesus stated that He came
not to bring peace (initially) -- but a sword! Amen.
Para.6
For your submission to be correct it follows that you understand
Jesus to say that homosexuality is in nature and is therefore
part of His Ordained Order of Creation. This in turn is to suggest
or even imply that the incarnated Christ would Bless homosexual
penetration in society at large and thus render Himself a participant
therein by His act - of Blessing. Herein the Cosmic differentation
between same sex and heterosexual acts of and in the flesh are
specifically identified. For a sexual act to be Blessed it must
be "seen"not by humanity, but by Jesus Christ, to be Christlike
after His own image and likeness.
You
use the word "evidence" in the third line of this paragraph. Matters
of the Soul and Spirit do not lend themselves to evidence in the
sense that they are not contained (encompassed) by, in, or through
the intellect. This word, and therefore the content thereof in
thiscontext is therefore void. I am aware that this may be taken
as opinion. Put another way, what evidence would convince someone
ofthe Blessing of romantic love their never having experienced
it, and therefore not believing in its "existence"?
Para.7:
I do not intend to be unkind when I summarise this paragraph with
the quotation "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him". By this
I mean that the paragraph is a sequence of facts presented
perhaps in an ascending order of "goodness and acceptability".
The exception buried amongst the crowd being the opinion
expressed as fact in the words "whatever its orientation".
Paragraph
8: I accept all
you say here. I discern this as an insurmountable dilemma for
humanity at present. The earthly time frame here is vast. I am
not being dramatic (for me) in once again referring to the detail
of the sexual act wherein the lie of same sex relations is exposed
in its physical manifestation. I assume
there will always be in most cases the desire for physical penetration
or to be penetrated, bothbeing possible for each partner in a
homosexual relationship. This is likely to add to a role
confusion conscious or otherwise; accepted or otherwise. It is
my opinion that the personae of same sex partners reflects the
heterosexual orientation and thus mimics the basis of attraction
therein - namely - the attraction of opposites . This again
suggests an underlying falsehood and the personal tragedy therein.
This arises from the denial of Self as the image and likeness
of The Christ ---- within. Were the Christ unisexual (Christ is
not "homo" as in man) He could not also be (in) The
Father, as by definition to be a father requires a heterosexual
relationship. In this regardas you know, Proverbs describes Wisdom
(Sophia) as God's darling with Him from the beginning.
Para.
9: Your one example of homosexuality being (perhaps?) contrary
to nature is that it produces no offspring.
Here
I affirm Witness that neither the penis or rectum are Blessed
in (designed for) homosexual coitus. I recall by chance seeing
part of a TV programme in which the "female" participant in such
coitus described it as similar to the pleasure of passing
faeces for as long an interval as you desired. It was stated that
it was also necessary to learn to accommodate the penis in stages
over time. I accept that there are relationships which will stop
well short of coitus and others which may be platonic. The basic
denial is still present however.
To have (?) to defecate
before the sex act says all there is to say on the matter as far
as I am concerned.
This
is said without revulsion, it is the neutral statement of a presumed
fact on my part. I speak candidly and with friendship in my heart
and with complete non attachment as distinct from detachment.
Para.10:
" - values of Biblical times, and these have changed". All? -
generality and thus potentially leading.
Line
5: "as in the call for slaves to obey their masters". Shallow
interpretation. This Biblical text does not condone slavery as
I assume you know. It describes the God intended working relationship
between a righteous mistress or master and a dutiful slave who
may thus aspire in her or his heart to be a servant of God therein.
Amen. In my opinion this one interpretation exposes the hidden
nature of your entire article. In the context of human Spiritual
evolution, the wearing or otherwise of hats by women in church
is not relevant to the magnitude of a topic such as human sexuality!
Para.11,
line 6: "it means doing so in the light of what Biblical writers
meant ". Part of your methodology is to cite evidence or to
imply evidence.You neither confirm nor affirm "evidence" with
Jesus Christ as your fellow (second) Witness. Thus NO human being
establishes or dismisses what Biblical writers meant or did not
mean. This is to question God. Amen. We are all entitled to our
opinions, however to profess our opinions to others in a world
wide publication (the internet) is quite another matter. You present
"facts" which on two occasions include a double meaning. In the
first occurrence of this referred to earlier the existence of
the double meaning only becomes apparent by backward referral.
Line
6: "present day understanding". It is humanism almost without
exception which is the architect of "present day understanding".
The present day (age) is still that of the prince of this world.
This is evidenced in the ever increasing rate of apostasy in church
temporal, society, and state inclusive of monarchy as the people
call out "give us a king", not knowing upon whom they call. Amen.
Para.
12: I accept that a large proportion of homosexual people are
a genuine minority within society at large in terms of their intent
in expressing their sexuality in that these human beings do not
actively intend or seek to pervert Creation or deny God's Will
therein. As human beings any sin is a denial of God ---- and therefore
of our S elves. The usage of this last
word may be meaningless. So be it. Amen. The question is therefore
not whether minorities should be heard (as they should be), but
whether any minority within society considers the impact of their
views or acts upon the majority and themselves in that order.
No person, and no act is an island. Let the question be put another
way. Christ liveth within us all --- as so choose, having been
first chosen . A choice in any context results in the exclusion
of the "other". We are not all therefore Children of God, other
than in the sense that we are creations of God. I assume
you accept this as basic theology. The question then arises do
we honour God in the homosexual relationship inclusive of the
sexual act or not? In as much as we honour ourselves, we honour
God. If we honour God, then we honour the members of our physical
body. God isjudge of humanity, not man. You are a man Bill - here
and now God asks you to present your evidence for the honouring
of the physical members, and thus physical body, and thus Soul,
and thus Spirit, and thus - God Her and Him Self in the homosexual
act. Amen.
In
response to the question you put in the first line of para.11.
"How do we decide which Biblical statements still apply today?",
I say that; in Jesus Name and therefore in the Gift of Divine
Grace alone we PRAY as though the answer all depended on God (which
it most certainly does!) and then act as though it all depended
upon us. In the context under discussion this may seem like cold
comfort. The subject is vast however and the timescale equally
so. I only summarise some aspects of Reality in this email.
Line
5: " all (?) minorities": Thus perhaps
some minorities become the majority in an amoral free for all,
sexuality aside!
Sexuality - It's Context and God's Purpose
Therein.
Human
sexuality is a subset and earnest of Hieros Gamos, The Mystical
Marriage. Heterosexual and same sex relations are two very
different expressions of lust. Lust correctly experienced is a
gift of God, and thus a Blessing. Sexuality is a subset of gender,
which is a subset of Unity Who is Divine. The purpose of life
is to find Life (God), that is to experience one's inner Self
as (the) Being of Unity.
This is to be possessed
by Unity, and thus to possess Unity. This is The Servant
as King/ Queen, and the King / Queen as servant of All.
Amen.
The
entire Cosmic order is based upon the absence of all dichotomy
as the fusion of opposites as Unity.
Individuality is still retained as Spirit as "part" of I AM, in
contrast to mortal individuality experienced as the human ego
(king / queen) of which intellect is the servant. The
sexual act is but a dim reflection of (this) Truth. Truth itself
being indivisible as One. It is the lie which creates dichotomy
and thus the Biblical fall of "me" (the king/ queen) and
god. This god has a small "g" as it is our self,
small "s". The sex act is therefore humanity's attempt in the
flesh to reclaim Eve and Adam as humanity before the fall - the
Divine Androgeny as individuals. This act, perceived and experienced
as flesh; will ever be in vain. Androgeny is not to be confused
with the hermaphrodite (hermes + aphrodite) state which is a physiological
dis-function reflecting immaturity in the context of the aeons
of Spiritual evolution of humanity. It is however the natural
state in the plant Kingdom, and in certain animals eg. the earthworm.
Self fertilisation continuously produces a clone except as a result
of spontaneous mutation. Thus in the flesh there is unlikely to
be any growth in the sense of development. How much more so in
the Spirit Realm!
Even
the Breath of (AS) Life itSelf , as distinct from breathing is
the fusion of inhalation and exhalation. The tabernacle between
the breaths referred to in the first sentence of Psalm 46.10.
in which (as Whom) The Christ awaits us. This is mirrored in the
inhalation and exhalation of Black Holes as The Breath of Brahman
(Sophia and Logos) and thus Creation and Re-Creation. Amen. Thus
humanity is made in the "image and likeness" of God as Cosmos
- as our Identity
-from Whom (our) consciousness arises and subsequently
manifests. The word "consciousness" is not synonymous with awareness.
The former is (a state of) being, either human or Divine.
Cosmic
Androgyny is the fusion of the two as One. Amen. This state of
Being is impossible as a human
being , but not
for a human
Being. It (I
AM; is not an "it") is to walk the earth in the flesh, but not
to be of it. The last word in the previous sentence refers both
to the flesh and the world. Amen.
The
subject upon which you wrote Bill calls into question the very
Nature and thus Identity of God; and thus of Sophia and Logos
as the Cosmic fusion of Divine Will in Self Creation. The fusion
of the Divine Womb and Seed. Known to the Hindu for example as
the union of Shakti and Shiva, and to the (Christian) Church Spiritual
as The Mystical Marriage. As such an experience we, that is the
human Soul impregnated by The Divine Seed become co-creators.
This is the central message of the entire
Bible not only (just) the Gospels, which in one sense are
over emphasised. This is NOT to deny Truth as the mortal life
and crucifixion of Jesus The Christ - quite the reverse!
This
is why lust is SO strong, it is the vain attempt of the flesh
to reclaim Unity as the experience thereof through sexual
union of the flesh. Please note the word reclaim.
As Unity here
refers to having like Nature as a partaker of the Divine Marriage
Feast of which the wedding at Canna is an earnest. Partakers in
this context are not guests - They are The Bride and Groom as
One. This One is inclusive of all present. This is Common - Unity
of Whom earthly community is an earnest, and as yet a very faint
shadow. As servant Queens and Kings we are (apparently) beggars
by the roadside. We recall that it was only the people of the
streets who accepted the invitation to another wedding described
in The Bible. As individual males and females these "guests"are
symbolic of the Brides of The Christ. Amen.
Thus
the homosexual and lesbian sexual act is a denial of God's Nature
and thus of God. It is therefore a sad act of self
denial in terms of the continuing Spiritual development
of Humanity.
Spirit does not evolve, evolution is a concept of the finite intellect.
Amen. I accept that much of this section of the email may be perceived
as opinion. This is not my concern in both senses of the word
concern. Nor is any expression used aggressively despite its apparent
tenor. This would be to have judged and thus to be judged. Amen.
This paragraph perhaps sheds light on the opinion (?) expressed
earlier that the partners in a same sex relationship mirror the
heterosexual relationship.
The
same sex relationship was stated to embody (mimic) the heterosexual
relationship and thus bears witness to its own falsehood before
(the Heterosexual Nature of) God as described above. Amen.
This
is why the Bible describes
same sex relations as an abomination with no qualifications whatsoever.
The Nature of God does not change as we know, unlike the human
cultural values and perceptions which you mention in your article.
Amen. Which is to say -- we do not change
God, God changes us if we so choose having been chosen before
the illusion of time began. Amen. Regarding same sex relations,
the change can only start with a prayer acknowledging and accepting
BEFORE GOD how we perceive ourselves to be in our sexuality.
This
as distinct from before our "self" as subconscious ego. It is
not a question of HOW we are
- it is the case of WHO we are.
Amen. This will result firstly in our accepting our need for God's
help. Not until there is this acceptance can the prayer be answered.
Acceptance in all things can be vastly different from acknowledgement.
This domain speaks firstly of the intellect (acknowledgement)
and secondly of the Soul (acceptance). The resulting change takes
a measure of time, recalling that to Spirit time is an illusion.
The
topics of human sexuality and The Mystical Marriage are both vast.
They are also closely linked and related. It surprises me in one
sense (if I perceive correctly) that a professor of Theology is
not aware of this perspective. Again, this is not said unkindly,
it is however said with resolute conviction. We have not even
touched upon The Mystical Marriage. In such matters Truth speaks
for its-Self when the Soul is not only ready to listen -- but
to hear.
In
professing we all profess our own ignorance (non emotive usage)
together with our knowledge, not to say Wisdom? I include myself
in this statement in relation to this email. It is sad that university
education has long since ceased to aspire to Universality and
thus not so much to teach, as to Witness to and AS Reality as
the Microcosm within - (the) Macrocosm.
All
else merely solicits as the false god of dichotomy as birthed
by and at the fall. Thus as already stated we have (at Murdoch
for example) theology as a subset of humanities - God as a subset
of humanity - reduced to an "ology" that is, of the intellect
alongside anthropology; psychology; Christology and perhaps even
pathology -- whether of the intellect and / or Soul we must each
discern for ourselves - in the humility of a child before The
Silence of The Lamb of God. Amen.
Such
is the (apparently) lonesome striving of humanity after death
in life, and Life in Death. Amen.
Thank
you Bill for reading this - what exactly? No response is solicited.
Regarding myself, I mis-quote the words of Paul:-
I do not say I have
as yet won the prize -
Although I run the race which is set
before me -
Even unto to Death.
Amen.
Which
prize might this be? Is it a prize awarded for effort and achievement;
or a gift to an apparently helpless child from his mother? Who
cares? (rhetorical)
Current
Issues Nos. 9 and 10 on The Wind of Change website are related
to this email an. The Issues are a manifestation of the content
hereof.
Finally
Bill it is said - "Ye shall know them by their works." Amen.
Regards,
Ian.
|