Human Sexuality

Home Introduction Current issues The bride Manifesto The heart of community Let the people speak Links Latest updates Poetry and photo library The common-unity of one

A Question of Spiritual Identity?


In Jesus Name I speak.                                                                                                                                                                         2004

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 bodily pleasure; the expression of emotional love; or reproduction. It concerns the very nature of God in relation to humanity. All else is an identity confusion in the immortal Soul. References to Biblical Wisdom 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. It is understood that both hetrosexual and same sex relationships can be platonic, and that sexuality is a continumn from "100%" male to "100%" female. It also involves the immortal Soul in whom the seed of sexuality is planted by our own hand.

Preface (Added in July 2014)

Please bear in mind that the email was sent to an individual who was in good faith actively promoting homosexuality with reference to the Bible. Some of the text of this response to Bill includes graphic descriptions. This is not included to shock or upset. It is Witness to the nature of the spirituaIity involved which inflluences the human Soul. Thus no judgement or animosity exists towards anyone. I assume that almost everyone knows these detials. Therefore they should not shock. Equally, if all variants of sexuality are consittent with the teachings of Jesus then there is no issue for humanity that should be of concern to anyone. The definitions of the six main categories of sexuality other than hetrosexual (LGBTTI) are in some instances confusing enough without considering the sub-canegories. The ultimate perspective in the attempted rationalisation of these categories is global. It arises from the base spirituality of the attempted global marriage of the religion of politics to the politics of religion. Thus the resolution (as distinct from rationallisation) of human sexuality requires the primacy of Marriage as ordained by Jesus Christ to be restored upon earth. Therefore, the will of man in the politica arena, the church temporal and the legal system will be set aside. cf "Heiros Gammos" on "The Bride" page of this site. This is accessed from the menu on the first page of The Bride element of the site.

The emotive Biblical word "abomination" is used in this exposition. Herein this refers to the spirituality associated with the actions of individuals, not to anyone as an individual. Therefore it is not used vindictively or in judgement. We bear in mind that anger or subsequent rage is the manifestation of the emotion of fear which always turns inward upon itself. Thus, the coinage, nature and use of the word "homophobia" is seen in its true "light" as a projected fear, not of others but of one's own true nature and iidentity.

I recommend the reader to the following book. "Making Gay Okay" by Robert R. Reilly. Briefly summarised this is an exposition of the attempt to rationalise that which cannot be rationalised in relatilon toThe Law of God. World wide in our times this ideology is supported and instilled in the minds of the public by spiritual deceit eminating through and from like spirited beings in the temporal domains of State / Government; the religion of man; politics and the legal profession. Whilst there are "Lords" in the last two domains can they also be regarded as part of The Lord's House? Such a question is meaningless in the temporal domain and thus also in the finite mind (ego) of man. Not so in The Spiritual Realm of The Infinite Cosmic Christ as the Law of Divine Love expressed in and through The Unity of The Divine Masculine and Feminine. Herein, the terms Feminine and Masculine relate to the Soul, not the flesh. Which is the determinant of the characteristics of the other?

We recall that "the Gift of Perfect Love  castes out all fear". Amen!This global issue is Spiritual in nature. Therefore the "soul" resolution in our times will be of The Holy Spirit and none other. We recall that ""the Gift of Perfect Love  castes out all fear"


The dilema is an identity confusion in the Soul. The issue is the survival of the human species. We struggle with miriad global problems in the temporal domain. By default or deliberate ommission The Spiritual domain is denied almost universallly. Today, the religions of man are not necessarily of The Holy Spirit. They represent the unholy marriage of the religion of politics to the politics of religion.

The focus of Christian rhetoric in this regard must be Jesus and his teachings. In our times the only resolution of this issue will be through the intervention of The Holy Spirit initially on a national basis and consequently in individual Hearts as so choose. The writer aclnowledges that gender as distinct from sexuality relates to the immortal Soul which by definition has a very, very long "memory" for both good or ill. Thus by oiur own choosing all individuals are not born equal by our own choosing.Equality refers to opportunity; not to the outworking of the human ego in relation to these God given opportunities. Thus we all in one sense create ourselves. Thus sexuality is a continuim from one extreme to the other. Our true identity is in The Christed Soul. Many same sex relationships will be platonic in nature. Great Blessings arise from interacting with others irrespective of our varying sexualities as far as our different characters and individuality enables us to share our perspectives and experiences.

Bill does not use Jesus Name anywhere in his article and yet he maintains by defalut that homosexuality is consistent with Jesus teachings. Bills conclusion contains the unspoken implication that Jesus personally and in His teachings embraced homosexuality. This in turn could be said to imply that Jesus could have been, or was homosexual! Humans were created male and female whereby all species are maintained. The seeds of any corruption of this Truth are now firmly planted in all world governments. This religious / political issue is outwith the scope of this webpage. Our language is also corrupted as a means of mass manipulation. Words such as gay, marriage, cool, and spin are but a few examples. Gay marriage is thus seen to be a re-definition of the word marriage which is seen to be a spriutual attack on most religions, not least Christianity. The word "abomination" is used in the response to Bill's email. This refers to the Biblical usage, which focuses upon the act or object,, not upon the individual's heart. It thus stresses the Cosmic consequence to the individual. It is used herein without judgement, anger or ill will to anyone. The "liberation" of homosexuality and casual sex in general in modern times has been the condom.

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. Graphic language is used in context. The purpose therein is not to be dramatic or shock. Rather it is to speak plainly and openly of facts of which we are all aware. If all is well in your argument then no offence can or need be taken.

Please note: The two hyperlink website addresses appearing at the end of Bill's article are simply that -- part of Bill's article!


Click here for  Bill's Personal Home Page  2004

                                                             ( This can be printed off to avoid excessive cross referending on screen.)


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's piece can be printed off to avoid excessive screen changes when cross referencing.


Bill,                                                                                                                                                                                                       2004

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 of Love.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 this context is therefore void. I am aware that this may be taken as opinion. Put another way, what evidence would convince someone of the 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, both being 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 regard as 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 quite by chance recently 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 further 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.

 This is said without revulsion or judgement, 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. Indeed I have experienced mutual respect and brotherly love for someone of the same sex who was homosexual without any element of sexual attraction on either part. This was during a Spiritual retreat which took place in The Abbey  on the Island of Iona off the Scottish west coast over one week. The relationship was very deep in our Souls and purely of The Holy Spirit.



Para.10: " - values of Biblical times, and these have changed". All of  them? - a 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 is judge 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.




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.










Home | Intro | Issues | Bride | Manifesto | Community | People speak | Links | Updates | Poetry & photos | Common-unity