random but connected God thoughts

I know many people are works obsessed, even while proclaiming being saved by grace alone. Likewise non-believers (and those of hybrid beliefs, some God, some pagan, which is just as bad) have world views that include the delusion that one can assign to one's self and to others "grace" bestowing chores and "to do" "checklists." It was when thinking about that problem when I was on Twitter this morning that I started to collect in my mind a few random scriptural references and explanations about God that will help you to detox from that mindset, which is dangerous and cruel, to say the least.

1) Be sure to understand that love and fear of God, and one's relationship with him alone, comes before ANY works, whether those that are "recommended" in the Bible or not. To explain let's go to the heart of the instruction of Jesus, where he added the commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself. He ADDED that commandment TO the others. In other words, you still have to obey the first ten commandments, most particularly 1-4 which proclaim and worship God alone.

Most Christians have understood that full well. It's only in modern times that people have a kind of Chinese menu attitude toward "achieving" salvation, where they think they can "specialize" and make "to do" lists that will get them saved. Thus they think that they can do a lot of "good deeds" related to the new Commandment, and that will earn them points. Wrong. When Jesus talked to his disciples or the crowds he knew he was speaking to God's Chosen People, people whose entire life and indeed their government was based on their faith and relationship to God! You, dear friends, are far from being in that boat. So let me digress a bit with some Old Testament perspective.

I've blogged before that no one knows God like the Jews do. It's a fact. The Jews "grew up" alongside of God's continual presence. They know in their soul, in their heart and in their guts the essence of God far more than any other person can ever do, no matter how pious. When Christians speak of a personal relationship with God, usually through Jesus Christ, that is still not the same as people who traveled side by side with God in a tent.

It is with that familiarity with the real presence of God that is the baseline situation, the baseline culture, the starting point for all the Law and the Commandments that follow. So each Commandment (and other Law or instruction in the scriptures) is built upon the reality of the pre-existing knowledge both personal and community wide of God being real, of being ever present, and his un-judgable via human means Truth.

Let's give an example, just for a mental air freshener exercise. Imagine an Israelite of the time of Moses who, just for the sake of argument, broke all Ten Commandments and never actually followed them at all. He is still, in one sense, better off than every modern Christian. Why? Because he knew for certain God is real, as he had to just glance over at the meeting tent and see Moses emerge from speaking with God! That guy might be an idiot for assuming the God he clearly could witness to every day is going to not punish him at some point for disobeying, but he never doubts the reality of God, because he can see him! I mean, duh, think about it. That guy is a gambler, assuming he can sneak worship of an idol in here and there, skip keeping the Sabbath holy, covets all day long, etc, even kills the occasional person, but he knows God is real because he can see him, and he travels with him.

All Jews carry inside them that *sigh* of reality, which is that God is real, and that their ancestors walked with him, and that sin will result in punishment and suffering sooner or later. But see, Christians, even the good ones, are constantly testing "if God is real" and "if he hears me." They don't have that core spiritual DNA, for lack of a better term, that the Jews have, which is a long history of direct interaction with God himself, here on earth. Believing Jews, even the most lukewarm, have like a unique understanding that you can espy sometimes, even when they are not aware of it. It's when they talk about God, or about a Jewish tragedy, or about the state of Israel (arguing usually) and someone gets philosophical. You can see the look in the eyes, fleeting as it may be, as they think back over the obey-disobey-obey-disobey relationship they've had with God, but all happening against the backdrop of God's actual existence and presence among them.

In the Bible you can read how the Israelites became anxious when several hundred years would go by and God would not bring them a prophet, a genuine prophet (prophet is someone who speaks God's words, not is foretelling futures and so forth like moderns think). Jews were anxious, angry and melancholy for exactly that reason during the time of John the Baptist and before... as they had been centuries without a prophet. But they didn't run around "testing" to see if God was "still there," as just about every Christian I know actually does (if you strapped a lie detector test to them). Oh boy, Jews know God is there, has been there, and will always be there, but they also know he often is silent to individuals and communities.

So back to Jesus adding the new Commandment. Jesus was telling those people who I described right above here that Commandment, adding that to their already framework of understanding the every minute reality of God.

Thus the new Commandment is not a checklist item for getting in good graces with God. Rather, you can think of it as the test, not of God by man, but of man by God, because if you have the first Ten Commandments right, the new Commandment will flow from you naturally.

This is why you have to run from people who imply they can give you a list of chores or any checklist based on the new Commandment and that this will in any way "earn" anything for you with God. Absence of being like the new Commandment is a problem yes sir, but you can't "earn" points by pressing the new Commandment good-deed charity button over and over because if you are doing that you are demonstrating you don't get at all Commandments One through Four.

How can I show you this another way in the scriptures? Easy, by looking at Jesus with Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus, who were disciples and early followers and friends of his. Everyone loves the story where Martha is slaving in the kitchen serving Jesus and the others while lazy Mary is able to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn from him. When Martha expects Mary to be rebuked by Jesus, Jesus kind of sighs and says basically, "Don't blame Mary for choosing the better part."

Now, here's where modern people miss the point that everyone else (pre labor saving devices and first world prosperity) knew to a T. That is that it's not like Mary sat around all the time! It was that one time that she sat and listened to the important teachings of Jesus. The rest of the time she was working at providing for the household, and probably in the fields too, just as hard as everyone else. See, moderns think that the "enlightened" people can sit around (Jesus "said so") while "other" people serve them, and that it's kind of their fault anyway for choosing that "life path." This scripture has gotten a gooey New Age taint. People forget, what I explained above, that all Israelites, including the Jews of Jesus' time, already GOT the reality of God. They didn't think in terms of works and brownie points, what to do and what not to do, to earn being on a better "life path." So with those soot colored glasses they read this scripture and totally miss the point. On this one occasion Mary was so moved by what Jesus was telling to those around him that she sat at this feet, rather than doing her USUAL WORK. That's why Martha complained, as she too wanted to listen, but felt she had to do the work.

But see, Jesus is telling her to just trust and learn from him, rather than fret the meals and the cleaning. Remember that Jesus twice led thousands into the desert with no food or water, and he provided for them. The people trusted him. How much more so could Martha have trusted him to let people go without food or water or a clean house for a few hours or a day while Jesus was teaching? That's why Jesus gently rebuked with a sigh.

But see, just like the new Commandment, the story of Martha and Mary is fodder for those who do not understand the reality of God, unlike the people who knew full well the reality of God right then and there, throughout the times of the Bible. So certain modern people glean the Bible for checklist, scorecard, chores and brownie earning point activities, thinking that "puts them and others on the right path." It does not because the right path is knowing one hundred percent God exists and is there all the time and that YOU need a relationship with him first. It does not matter a mouse behind or any other body part if you are making someone wash dishes, or not, read scripture, or not, throw dirt around for someone else to pick up, or not, and all, like an accountant, "applying" to one's "checklist" of "what the Bible says to do." You will DO the things that are right, in their season and time, IF you FIRST understand and obey God's reality.

2) I cannot possibly overstate that you must understand when Jesus tells the disciples about the rich man who went to hell, described in Luke 16. You need to understand that was a PIOUS BELIEVER who probably did all the right things in every other respect, but ended up in hell, to his total shock. (Believe you me, sinners know why they are in hell. Those who think they are square and OK with God and end up in hell are those who are shocked, as that guy was. That's why he wanted to warn his brothers, not because they were obvious sinners, duh, but because they probably thought they were wonderful, worthy, pious people too! Remember that during Jesus' time the Jews had degenerated so that they thought the healthy and rich were rewarded by God for being good, while the poor and the sick were punished for being "sinners.") Everyone who heard that story from Jesus totally understood that, unlike today. The rich man was punished in hell because he ignored the ONE person God expected him to save from illness and starvation. So believe you me, that guy in hell (he's still there) had a long "good deed" checklist, but oops, he left out the one person that he should have saved. James warns that to know to do good and not to do it is a sin.

3) Here's some blunt truth. You know how in the Apocalypse Jesus tells those who "did not know him" (because they did not feed, clothe, visit etc others in his name) to begone and not be saved? The only reason that Jesus is having that conversation at all with them is that those folks did believe in Jesus. Nonbelievers and those who deny God don't even get to that point of conversation, as they are rejected just as they rejected God. So again, the people who are rebuked by Jesus for lack of good deeds were ALREADY Jesus believers. You have to believe and obey God in the first place before you even get a shot at meriting through your natural sanctity appropriate good deed leadership. It's not like Jesus is saying that good deeds earned them the right to approach Jesus upon death. Belief in Jesus, in God, earned them the right to approach him, but what they did with that belief (or not, as is this case) is what gets them rejected. It's the fact that they did not follow through with their total and accurate belief in Jesus by now exuding that sanctity toward God into service toward others that got them in the hot place.

I hope these thoughts help.

Cussing, cursing, oaths, etc sin or not?

I'm not really in a mood to be blogging today on Sunday, but this topic came up in Sunday school and once again I'm dismayed how little people understand both the Bible (the scriptures itself) and the human context/human history and actual usage that God is talking about (directly, through his prophets, or though Jesus Christ).

The discussion starts with the problem of taking the Lord's name in vain, and how that is prohibited. Yes, it is a sin to do so, and a breaking of one of the Commandments.

Here is the problem: thousands of years later, people have come to think that either cussing or potty mouth is what God meant. Now, this is a very recent misunderstanding because as recently as our great grandparents they certainly understood the original meaning of God's word on this matter.

When I was in school, and believe you me, I did not attend some fancy expensive highly accredited school system, they taught a great deal about what life was like through human history, including patterns of speech. Further, Christians used to understand quite a bit about Jewish thought and times (when the Bible took place, duh), but lately even the basics are lacking. So I'm going to share with you a high level gloss of the line of faith and reasoning that is missing today. It all hinges on trusting the Bible as it is and as it was intended by God, including understanding what people actually were doing "back then" when God was addressing them and admonishing them.

Let's start with what they did not do. Neither Jews nor most of the ancient world used "potty mouth." It would not even occur to them to do so. Thus God is not talking about things like scatological or sexual "cussing." (Let's use the word "cussing" to cover the whole gamut of coarse language, including both potty mouth and those that use God's name casually in exclamations). People did not "cuss" the way they do in the last century for a number of reasons, and they most certainly did not do so during the time of Moses (Commandments) up through the time of Jesus Christ, and also into medieval times. We know that because there is extensive documentation, both religious and secular to study.

The basic two reasons that people did not cuss is 1) it would not even occur to them, since poo, pee, and sex acts did not even have that taint by which someone would utter an exclamation and 2) people of all level of society were much less coarse in their speech than they have been in the past fifty years or so of human history. So God did not have to "worry about" telling people not to drop the "f-bomb" or to exclaim "sh**" since it would not even cross someone's mind to do so!
It's like today, would it occur to anyone to potty mouth someone by yelling "flour, flour, flour" at them? I mean, think about it. Back then people had no hang ups about either pooping or peeing and certainly not about sex. They wanted modesty, yes, but it never occurred to them that they could insult or vent by shouting potty mouth cuss words on that subject to each other.

So you cannot claim that scripture refers to either the "f-bomb" or sexual acts, or scatological acts, when the Lord's name being used in vain is prohibited.

OK, got that? Now, the second thing most people retreat to is then thinking, well, if it is not the f-bomb or poo/pee/sex cussing that God is referring to in his Law, well, then using his name in vain must mean any mention of God's name in a casual way, or exclamation, or in any way except to praise him or to discuss his teachings. You are getting closer, but that is still an error. How do we know that? Again, you must look at linguistics and what people were actually saying then. People did not do, for the same reasons I mentioned (both it would not occur to them plus societal decorum) to exclaim in surprise or anger using God's name. What people do today, such as exclaiming using the name of God or Jesus Christ, and which is such concern to many of the devout was simply not what folks were doing in Biblical times at all.

Thus, when someone dropped something, or balled out someone else, they neither shouted "sh**" nor did they exclaim "G-d, you are clumsy!" People's minds and speech simply did not work that way. So yes, while casual usage of God's name is in poor taste, it is also not the sin that God is referring to.

Doubters and haters, ha, I know you are out there so let me demonstrate what I mean so you understand I am not saying this, but simply helping you to recall what your ancestors knew.

Look at the case study of someone who shouts at a co-worker who drops something valuable on the floor, and it breaks, and yells, "God, you are clumsy!" The devout might think that is an example of taking the Lord's name in vain. It is not. Why? Because it is shorthand for what people used to say, which is "As God is my witness, you are clumsy!" Read any literature of previous devout times and you will understand that. When people exclaim using the name God, they are calling upon God as a witness. That is not using God's name in vain. What is it? A lack of charity, ha. The presumably clumsy co-worker does not need you implying that God is also noticing how clumsy he or she was in that instance! It is not "cussing," "cursing," or "using God's name in vain" to mention God, as people most commonly do, in such types of exclamations. It is a shorthand for thousands of years of speech where people frequently exclaimed "As God is my witness....[fill in the blank]...." and now they just yell (or sigh) "God.....[fill in the blank]." It may be tacky and it may be offensive and it may demonstrate a real lack in charity, but it is not using God's name in vain, as it is acknowledging, even casually, God's reality as being constantly in witness of all that is done and said, or thought in one's mind or one's heart.

So how do we know what God really meant by the prohibition of using his name in vain? Whenever one is in doubt, do two things. One is observe what people were actually saying and doing throughout history and then secondly, trust Jesus (the red letters in the Bible) to explain it to you.

What were people doing in the Biblical times when God spoke? How were they either doing so or tempted to take the Lord's name in vain?

1. They were tempted to be false prophets, claiming to speak the word of God when they were not his authorized agents, so to speak, to use a modern term. For thousands of years people who claimed that God spoke or managed actions and deeds through them, but were not genuine prophets or Holy Spirit "guided" were, indeed, "taking the name of the Lord in vain." They were claiming authority in his name that they did not have. This, by the way, is the using the name of the Lord in vain format that the disciples thought the man who was not "one of us" but who was casting out demons' in Jesus' name was guilty of. Jesus then told them that this person was not doing a wrong thing because all he is doing is bearing witness to the authority of the name of Jesus, and thus cannot be against him.

2. They were tempted to combine God's name with other pagan and occult beliefs. That was a tremendous problem then and now. That is taking God's name in vain. (Humorous but serious example for today's times so you understand: "God would not have invented astrology if it wasn't meant to be used.") That, my friends, which I have heard people say, is taking the name of the Lord in vain big time.

3. They were tempted to make solemn promises (also called oaths), for either "good" reasons or bad reasons, using God's name. This is the form of using God's name in vain that Jesus Christ put the serious smack down on, exhorting people to never make such oaths or promises, ever, ever, EVER.

OK, now that you understand the three forms of speech that one might query regarding if they are or are not what God meant by using the name of God in vain, let's look at an actual example of Christian use of God's name in vain through history and how they wiggled around it.

After the death of Jesus Christ there was no more solemn vow that a Christian could make than on the wounds of Jesus (the wounds he suffered in the Passion and Crucifixion). Very unwise to do so, but I am now just teaching history. Prior to Jesus the most solemn vow or oath a person could make was with the most Holy Name of God (exactly what God prohibits). After Jesus died and resurrected, Christians realized that the wounds of Jesus were the most visible manifestation of God's power on earth. Those who are tempted to either vow or "cuss" therefore transferred the object of their temptation from the Holy Name of God to the Wounds of Jesus.

Example (easily found in early English literature): "By the wounds of Jesus I will....[fill in the blank]" and/or "By God's wounds I will.... [fill in the blank]."

You see the difference? These are hair raisingly presumptuous and directly against what both God and Jesus said to do. "God, you are clumsy" is mild (God as witness) compared to "By God's wounds you are clumsy" or "By God's wounds I am going to slay you for being insolent to my sister."

So Christians are demonstrated in English literature and actual documentation as taking the name of God in vain by using reference to the wounds of Jesus Christ.

Realizing that, people started shortening the offensive and sinful reference to "God's wounds" to the expression "'swounds.'" They figured by not actually saying the name of God they are cool. They aren't, but that's what they figured. Again, if you look in someone's heart (which God most certainly can do), saying "God, you are clumsy" today is much less offensive and not a sin of using the name of the Lord in vain than someone in the medieval times saying "'swounds," even though God's name is not actually used in that version! This is because in one's heart and mind one is still profaning the sacred nature of the wounds of Jesus by linking them to one's everyday deeds or speech, even without saying either the words "Jesus" or "God."

Further trying to keep the right to use God's name in vain, but not actually use the word God, "'swounds" became "zounds." You see that a lot, too, in even recent English literature, up to modern times. Do a google search on 'swounds and zounds and you will observe these facts and can read more. You can also find similar origins in archaic expressions such as "egads."

Shakespeare, in Hamlet, I guess, uses the "'swounds" expression.

That, my friends, is taking the Lord's name in vain.

I hope that you have found this helpful.

Fruits of the Holy Spirit(4): Continence (3)

Continuing, now, our study of the fruit of the Holy Spirit called Continence. Remember that the Bible is a record of living people and living events, as they interact with each other and the living God, not a book of magic formula. As such the books of the Bible having been written in various languages, rely on common sense in the "how to apply" department of the study of God's word. So we can turn to the Bible and better understand the fruit of Continence if we remember two things. One is that the realization that the Holy Spirit yields a fruit called Continence is the result of many centuries of study of God's word, not because on page xyz of the Bible is there a "recipe" and "instructions" about how to receive or develop "Continence." In fact, the relatively modern word "continence" might not even occur in the scriptures, but that does not mean it is "put in there" or "made up" or "ex-scripture" or, heaven forbid, that dreaded Roman Catholic habit of "tradition" ;-) Rather, generations of Christians, just as the Jews before them, having studied God's word are able to glean from its richness many guidances and conclusions, all based on God's truth.

Here's a quick analogy to tell you what I mean better. Suppose you have just read an instruction booklet about a new set of children's toy building blocks you have purchased. You have read about the materials they are made from, what the designs or lettering mean, and how they can be assembled, either placed alongside or on top of each other, or even latched together. There may even be a sample of a building that you can make using the building blocks, such as a house. The Bible is like that, whereby you understand the "what" and the "how" of God's truth. In Bible figures and events you even see an example of what is built, what is wrought, within the context of God's truth. So you are, to use the analogy, reading in the Bible the building blocks God has provided, and a sample of how these blocks were used, such as a house.

Once one really understands the building blocks and example, you realize other buildings you can build. You or your child might now build a toy school using those building blocks, even though the instruction book does not mention anywhere in the text "how to build a toy school." You can build a lighthouse, or a store, or a toy fortress, or a castle, even though the instruction book does not use the words "school, lighthouse, store, fortress" or "castle." You are not going "outside the Bible" if using God's word and your own well discerning brain if you realize that you apply the word of God (the instructions) and what the Prophets, such as Moses, did (the toy house example) to now recognize that other good things can be constructed (the school, the lighthouse, etc) using those principles and example. Thus it would be silly to expect that the instruction book included word by word every example of every possible thing you can do and construct with the toy blocks! Likewise people should not expect to flip open the Bible and "believe" in "fruits" of the Holy Spirit and one of them being "Continence" only if those exact words are used, for obviously they are not. God's word is revealed over thousands of years of scripture and then pieced together, prayerfully and honestly studied, and then gleaned.

Therefore to understand Continence in the scripture you have to look for examples of Continence, as it appears under all its similar verbiage and meanings. Continence is thus examples of self restraint, moderation, self denial and, here we have it..... not coveting. Ah ha, you see, there is a certainly familiar bona fide scriptural word, coveting. Continence means the ability to restrain, be moderate, and put boundaries around what one may desire to do or to have. So the fruit of the Holy Spirit of Continence has, of course, the most firm foundation when one studies what God instructs, and what is shown as examples, of coveting. Naturally we have seen the first terrible example of lack of Continence (Adam and Eve) and the perfected example of the purest Continence, Jesus Christ during the temptation, and so we can realize the actual meaning of two of the Ten Commandments in what is basically their prohibition of a lack of Continence.

Exodus 20:17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

God is giving you the building blocks (telling you not to covet) and then providing instruction manual "examples" that are pertinent to the times, but apply to ALL things that are capable of being coveted. People did not have cars or tractors or trucks, in those times, obviously, so God explains that not only should the house or spouse or servants not be coveted, but also the means of travel, plowing the field, food and livelihood of the household, such as oxen and asses. Just because God does not "list sheep," for example, does not mean it is "OK" to covet them, to say nothing of not being "OK" to covet something that had not yet been invented, such as trucks, tractors and cars! That is why God says "nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." We no longer, hopefully, have slaves those in servitude in modern times, but we have employees, students and followers, and obviously we should not covet them in modern times any more than in those times the examples of man or maid-servant are given by God.

This is also the reason that having what we call "spiritual envy" is also a sin that breaks one of the Ten Commandments. When someone envies how spiritually blessed (either in reality or because the person is perceived as being blessed but is not) someone else is, one is coveting, because when God says "nor any thing" he means "nor ANY thing." Any jealousy and any envy is prohibited by these Commandments, whether it is a person, a possession or a personal quality.

In theory, God could have made this a "Do" instead of a "Don't" Commandment. He could have said, in theory, "Thou shalt have Continence at all times." But in God's constant perfection He understands how things must be expressed to people, to all humans, who are constantly thick-headed and stubborn in their sin. God has to first simply and plainly define what people are NOT to do, when it comes to sin. The person who strives to perfect their "not" doing that sin, in this case coveting, becomes a person with a "do" with a gift of grace, which is the fruit of the Holy Spirit of Continence. Adam and Eve envied (and thus coveted) God's knowledge and they ate the apple. Jesus Christ did not, of course, covet, envy, seek, want or need any of the earthly powers that Satan demonstrated to him during the temptation, and thus Jesus is the model of perfect Continence. When one does not covet one has the fruit of Continence.

The Commandments would be reiterated by God, and thus spoken to the people by Moses, and so this Commandment is repeated in Deuteronomy 5:21.

Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-servant, his ox or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Notice the different order from Exodus 20:17 and also the inclusion of "his field." Again, this is the living and breathing word of God, not rigid magic formula. It does not mean that the Bible is "inconsistent" or that it was "OK" to covet someone's field during Exodus but it became a "new don't" during Deuteronomy! God says do not covet ANY THING, and in the course of his very real dialogue and conversation with his followers that takes place over time and in their own language, God says with perfection the words that the people need to best comprehend and serve him in God's perfectly consistent message.

So now that you have seen the Biblical basis for the "Don't" in the Commandments (the instructions) now let us look at how God hates covetness (the examples provided with the instructions)!

Psalm 10:3
For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth.

So David, who composed this Psalm, observes that wicked people boast about their wants and cravings and that they, going further, bless people who share their desires and actions of coveting. David then states that God abhors (hates) those who are covetous.

Genesis 14:22-23
And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread even to a shoe-latchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich.

Abraham is held up, thus, as an early example of one who would not accept nor desire even the smallest item as gift from anyone, and thus is free of covetousness. Therefore Abraham is one of the highest examples in the Bible of one who has Continence.

Jeremiah 8:8-11
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is vain.
The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?
Therefore will I give their wives unto others, and their fields to them that shall inherit them: for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying Peace, peace, when there is no peace.

The prophet Jeremiah is conveying the word of God condemning that entire generation for their falling away from Him in faithlessness and rejecting His word. God through Jeremiah observes that at the root of their faithlessness is coveting, which is demonstrated by everyone from the least in rank to the greatest, including even priests and prophets. Notice especially that God teaches that there is no genuine peace when the waters are constantly roiled in society by covetousness. That is what he means by the hurt of the daughter of God's people (an expression indicating a parental affection felt by God) is barely healed at all because the hypocrites all around her say "peace, peace" yet there is no peace when everyone is coveting everything that belongs to everyone else. If it was bad then imagine what God thinks of these times when it comes to coveting, and the lack of peace for the daughter of His people.

Mark 7:20-23
And he [Jesus] said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man, For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts...[he lists many of them]...covetousness...All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

The entire passage of Luke 12:13-28 consists of Jesus speaking a warning against covetousness.

Luke 12:15
And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of things which he possesseth.

Ephesians 5:5
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

1 Timothy 6:6-11
But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
And having food and rainment, let us be there-with content.
But they that will be rich, fall into temptation, and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

Acts 5:1-6
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And kept back part of the price (his wife also being privy to it,) and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
But Peter said, Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down, and gave up ghost. And great fear came on all them that heart these things.
And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

The couple Ananias and Sapphira pretended to donate to the Apostles all the proceeds from the sale of a piece of their land, but because they coveted money they held back a portion of the money from Peter, thinking he would not know. When Peter pointed out that not only did he know but more important, God knew, since Ananias and Sapphira were cheating and lying to the Holy Spirit, Ananias dropped dead. Young men witnessed this death, wrapped him in funeral cloth and buried him. In the next verses the same thing happens as his wife, not knowing what had happened, tried the same deception and she too died: And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her forth, buried her by her husband (Acts 5:10).

This is a specific example of how proclaimed baptized Christians who covet money (or anything else) risk being struck dead by God. This was witnessed by many people so that God could demonstrate the danger and evil of coveting, but also that God does indeed Know All, and is the All Knowing. God sees ALL the covetousness in ALL the people's hearts.

So the Bible is, of course, filled with cautions against coveting, including this specific real life example of consequences in Acts. It is part of the reality that in life people have repeatedly needed to be warned against covetousness (and thus to cultivate its opposite which is Continence).

In the next blog post we will look at Bible examples of the positive traits of Continence, such as self restraint.

Bible Reading: Exodus 20:1-6

Then God delivered all these commandments:

"I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall have no other gods besides me.

You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their father's wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third or fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Understanding, learning to know Jesus Christ

Few things make me happier, in the moment, than teaching people about the true nature of Jesus Christ and if not actually teaching, then just conversing about him. Thinking about Jesus and talking about Jesus is like a rest after back breaking work, or having a drink of cold water after going without anything for an entire hot day. I'd like it if someday my blog could be less in proportion of the dire warnings about all the wrongs in the world, and more of this respite in the discussion of Jesus. Well, so here is the beginning of a number of blog postings I would like to compose about Jesus.

As always I have my young readers most particularly in mind. For many of you, Jesus was not introduced to you properly, and so he has had to compete in your minds with modern day figures of good or often notorious reputation, and also when you do hear about Jesus, it is like entering a movie theater when the film is already two thirds gone. You have little idea of what has actually happened, nor the context. This series will be an attempt to help you to learn to know the true Jesus and also, even if you already know about him, and have him in your heart, to understand him even better.

The first topic I'd like to discuss with you is one of the most amazing things that Jesus did in his life, which not only demonstrate his authority to speak for God to humans, but also the groundwork that he laid for expanding "up close and personal" knowledge of God from the Jewish people (the Israelites) to the rest of the world.

Most of you know that God has had an ongoing relationship with humans starting with Adam and Eve and, through their descendants, all who are faithful to him. The Israelites, however, were the section of the descendants who were chosen by God (that is why they are called the Chosen People) to not only know about God, but also to have an ongoing, daily "working relationship" with God. That is what is called the Old Covenant and also, in Bible speak, The Law. You've read in my blog posts how Moses, who was the leader and the intermediary between the Israelite people and God, actually was able to stand with God, face him, speak with him, meet with him, and receive "dictation" from him. The most well known and important of the gifts of God's knowledge that God gave to Moses is the Ten Commandments.

Here is what is really awesome about Jesus Christ.... He gave to not only the Jews, but to all people, a new Commandment, an additional one to God's list. Can you imagine that! To do so would never have occurred to the thoughts of any person who ever lived. Not even the most inflated ego king or dictator would have thought of adding a Commandment to the "list" given to the Jews. And yet this wise man, this rabboni (wise in the Law) who seemed to come from absolutely nowhere, had such obvious authority given to him by God that not only could he raise the dead and cure even the worst of illnesses, but he was empowered to add a New Commandment to God's list.

Furthermore, this New Commandment did not fall into the categories of the Ten Commandments, which are either how to worship God or what sins not to commit. This New Commandment was orders by God about how humans should treat one another.

John 13:34-5 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Jesus used the word commandment in John 13, but he repeats this same exhortation in other places in scripture, in the context of being asked questions. For example, when asked by a lawyer who approached him in order to test Jesus who is one's "neighbor" who should be loved, per God's command, Jesus tells the parable of the good Samaritan who has mercy on and rescues a Jew who had been robbed, beaten and left for dead. This would have been quite an astonishing parable to any Jewish listeners, because as most of you know, Jews and Samaritans were something of religious "rivals" and most certainly did not get along or mingle.

So even though Jesus focused his entire ministry only on the Jews (and thus added a Commandment to the "Jewish" Ten Commandments), notice that Jesus is placing the groundwork for Jesus speaking to "all men" (all people) and calling all to be his "disciples."

Now, young people especially, let me use some modern terms to help you to better understand. Jesus did not do an "edit" on the Ten Commandments, to add an Eleventh, in the sense that he went into the Temple and the local synagogues and added onto each scroll of God's Law his "insert New Commandment." This is because even though Jesus continually affirmed that all the Ten Commandments remain valid, Jesus was not there to "improve on" or "edit" the Jewish faith. Even though Jesus preached to Jews exclusively (although of course any and all people did follow him, approach him and listen to him), Jesus was not seeking to "fix up" the problems with the Jewish faith. Jesus was, instead, bringing a new contract with the boss, God, to the people. The new contract has, of course, retained much and one could even say most of what the old contract had, since obviously God is still God, humans are still humans, and God has the constancy of being eternal, never changing, and having the same expectations of all generations of humans. But here is what is remarkable: Jesus was not only purifying human relationships with God (to eliminate the error, hypocrisy, greed and fraud that had entered into that relationship) by bringing God's "face," through him, directly to the people, but Jesus was also "hands on" improving human-to-human sanctity.

I've pointed out the term "sanctity" a number of times recently, since I've seen that it's in modern times a poorly understood word. Sanctity is not the same as holy, consecrated, "initiated" or "extra super duper 'spiritual.'" Sanctity means that a person strives to maintain their primary focus, in their normal life, on God foremost and serving God in all ways of normal life.

So here is another example of where Jesus is using logic, showing the cascading, mutual and interlocking relationship between not only God and humans, but also how humans, through mutual sanctity, role modeled through Jesus, improve their own human-to-human relationship. Here is the chain of logic that Jesus is presenting to them:

1. Jesus says, observe how I love you, not only in general but in the details of role modeling.
2. Then apply how I am with you to how you are with each other.
3. If you do that, then you are truly my disciple.
4. All people will be able to see this for themselves (since this is not hidden ritual, etc but outward, genuine behavior).
5. Thus all people will identify each person that they see living like this as being my disciple.
6. And because "all" people will know, this is an invitation to "all" to likewise become my disciple.

Now, remember that any time that Jesus spoke, many people were around him. He was rarely alone and often mobbed by crowds eager to hear him. He stayed in individual homes, and thus when he spoke to the Apostles or disciples who traveled with him, entire families, neighbors, and other villagers would also be staying in that home and hear what he said also. So even though Jesus in a given conversation that is recorded in the scriptures might be speaking to a group of the Apostles, or a mixture of Apostles and disciples, these were not "status meetings" where the information only applied to certain "departments." All who believe in the New Covenant with God that Jesus brought AND who followed this New Commandment could be considered a disciple of Jesus, AND would be visible as such to the eyes of all the world.

Further, to better understand exactly what Jesus was saying, consider how, exactly, Jesus demonstrated his love for the disciples. It is not, as anyone who reads ANY bit of the Gospel would understand, by being affectionate, considerate, remembering their birthdays, throwing nice parties for them, giving them lots of money, and feeling groovy. How did Jesus demonstrate his love for the disciples as the scripture shows? Here are just a few ways off the top of my head:

1. He chose them, even though they were not "special" and had anything to give to him in return.
2. He introduced them, through him, to God, God as he really is, and not the way the religion had become corrupted.
3. He wanted to see them saved, their souls in heaven, in places that he promised that he would go ahead and prepare for them.
4. He patiently, and sometimes impatiently, explained to them all they could understand. As Jesus said, he didn't treat them like slaves who are just ordered to come and go, but as friends who understand what he is trying to achieve.
5. He scolded them and rebuked them on the spot when they erred.
6. He gave them many opportunities to serve God and to witness to God.
7. He gave the Apostles the ability to perform miracles in his name.
8. He gave the Apostles and disciples the right to invoke his most holy Name.

So you see, this is how Jesus loved them, so ardently that he called to them, even from less than promising backgrounds and circumstances, and brought them along to not only better know the true God that has been constantly there from the very beginning, but also to prepare in advance for them their places in heaven and to TELL them that, to PROMISE them that. How awesome is that?

So the New Commandment is the "formula" for being a disciple, a true disciple, of Jesus. This means that to be a genuine disciple of Jesus one must treat other disciples of Jesus as Jesus treated them, with the love that I describe above.

Unfortunately, the word "love" has become misunderstood in the context of what Jesus gave to his disciples, which is not surprising because one cannot understand the Bible if one does not read the Bible. You can only really understand what 1) love, as Jesus gave it, means and 2) what genuine discipleship of Jesus means, if you read the Bible, understand and accept it, ALL of it. You cannot substitute in your own mind a sound byte of Jesus hanging around, washing their feet, and being fond of them as being the template for what "love" and "disciple" means! Jesus promptly kicked them out and made them proclaim God from town to town without even a second change of clothing, no money, and no food. That kind of love few understand today but, believe you me, the previous generations, who were not so wealthy as the past several generations, understood Jesus' love (with one exception, which I will mention in a minute.)

To try to summarize it, Jesus taught them how to understand and love God even more deeply and authentically, which then raised their capacity for love. That type of love expands beyond noble love of family, love of the goodness of life, etc to sanctity, where the service of God is more important than anything and thus expands and elevates even the normal tasks, chores, challenges and disappointments of life.

Now, here is where I am sad that previous generations lost some of their deep connectivity with understanding the love that Jesus brought to his disciples, and exhorted them to have for each other. And, even more grievous, this loss has never been worse than today, the past several years, and now. Those who have been called to be disciples of Jesus have become "competitors," through churches, through sects, denominations, and through vicious misunderstandings and attacks on other disciples. There is one hell of a difference between "calling out" a fellow Christian disciple who you think is in doctrinal error, and declaring war and demonizing entire congregations, say nothing of the individual people within them. Pray tell, what part of that sounds like "That ye shall love on another as I have loved you?"

God and the Church have never left the people: the people have left God and the Church and appointed themselves their own masters, able to declare other disciples "wrong" and themselves "true."

If that was OK to do, as has, grievously happened for the past several hundred years, and is gut wrenchingly commonplace today, would not that be in scripture? Surely God, who is perfect, and Jesus, who brought the presence of God to earth, would have foreseen that and shown it was "OK" to splinter, to attack each other, rather than, as the scriptures truly show, warn most urgently against that?

Would we not have seen, for example, while Jesus lived, or at least in the time of Acts, several of the Apostles fight among each other and establish rival "denominations?" If God is so good, so all knowing, so all powerful, and includes all that people need to know in the scripture, would he have not allowed that to happen, to give it his spiritual endorsement? Would we not be reading that Phillip argued with James and so they established separate denominations and God, through Jesus or divine revelation, say that "They established separate denominations, and it was 'good.'" You ought to shudder, as I do in typing this.

(Young people, I'm not yelling at you all, LOL! I deviated in order to yell at your parents and their parents, and also to kick certain skeletons from the past who got people into this mess with their many errors from their lack of understanding and humility.)

Jesus, through the New Commandment, defined a group, a SINGLE group, of people, which are his true disciples. He stated that true disciples would be so obvious that "all" would know them. How, then, is it that we not only have denominations, but warring and scornful denominations?

I got into this rant because it is essential to understanding the scripture as it is set forth, not as people have come to imagine it to be. The two great concerns regarding imagination and hence error are 1) misunderstanding that Jesus "love" means hanging around and feeling groovy, and 2) that discipleship requires that Jesus be the role model, and Jesus role models not socially acceptable "humanitarian" endeavors but closeness to God.

So I think, to wrap this segment up, you can see how one of the ways to understand the awesome love and wonder of Jesus Christ is to comprehend both his God given authority to give humans the New Commandment, but also to understand what it really means. I've used the "time sheet" analogy before, but for new readers, here it is again. When you read the Gospels, think of what Jesus is doing as a worker recording hours on different projects on a timesheet. How much of what Jesus is doing is donating to art galleries, hanging around feeling the 'love,' encouraging believers to form separate and even warring denominations? Um, not so much, huh? Rather, Jesus' timesheet is filled with prayer, fasting, moderation, teaching, preaching and witnessing to God, punctuated by tasks such as performing miracles. Look back at the list I started above and you can see what I mean (the list of ways Jesus demonstrated his love). That's kind of like a timesheet!

Jesus demonstrated his love for his disciples, and for all men, not by encouraging them to be superior to each other and draw farther apart from each other, but by drawing closer, following his role model, to God, through each other, not in competition with each other.

No one has ever gotten closer to God, or salvation, by stepping on the back or the neck of another person, either a believer or a non-believer.

Jesus was the ultimate gift from God, not only because he went to the cross, but because he told people what to do and how to do it, demonstrating it every day of his life, and then guiding even after his death and resurrection (the calling of Saul to Paul, for example, and all that was revealed to John in the Book of Revelation).

It really is as simple as the New Commandment explains, but it is also difficult to understand, because of the clouded vision of humans, and to implement, because of the many prideful temptations of humans. I hope that this has helped to restore some of the understanding of what Jesus said (the red) and how he demonstrated with the disciples how to truly follow him (the black).

Case study: why spying leads to worse information

One of the things that the cultists who stalk me are most proud of is that they "know everything about me." This was told to me by one of the head cultists in 2003. This is how I first realized that far from being just nosy neighbors of the ordinary sort, they actually have wiretapped my home for many years, being fascinated with every detail of my life including, puzzlingly, bathroom habits. That fascination continues to even today, and if only I had realized it sooner I could have started a potty blog for them and saved them the effort. It just isn't all that mysterious.

Back to my case study, though, to illustrate my main point. The past two generations believe that "knowledge is power" and they glorify spies in popular culture and so forth. That is great when done in a sane context. Yes, in armed conflict (or suspicious times), nations have great incentive to spy on each other about military capabilities and plans. And yes, knowledge is power, because a dummy should not pretend to be an expert on a subject without gaining knowledge through study, practice, apprenticeship, life experience, etc.

But here is the problem. The more "details" of activities and even thoughts that a stalker collects about a person, such as me, the more they lose sight of what is actually holistically going on. Worse, they start to draw opposite conclusions to the truth. For our case study, let's use some specific examples from my life.

Scenario one: Cultists never observe me reading the Bible.

Wrong conclusion: They conclude that I am either irreligious or that the Bible is irrelevant.

Factual truth: I read the entire Bible around the age of thirteen and retain perfect recall. Additionally, I was born with the ability to witness to the truth of what is in the Bible and the Qur'an.

So here is a stark example of how statistical and "knowledge" building data collection is totally bogus. Far from measuring my devotion to the Bible, attempting to measure my devotion by the number of times I read the Bible has drawn cultists to a conclusion opposite to the truth. I am living devotion to the Bible and it is engraved, spiritually, in my heart. I only turn to the Bible when I am blogging or when I wish to lose myself in the comfort of what is there. I was doing neither when cultists attempted to demonize me via "counting" my supposed usage of the Bible.

I could give other examples but this is the key, the heart of the problem of stalking, and I'll leave this one to my readers to meditate upon.

This, by the way, is why gossip, stalking and spying is a violation of the Eighth Commandment about false witnessing against one's neighbor. One collects judgmental and often false or gravely misunderstood information against someone who is the victim of gossip, spying and stalking, and thus comes to believe and communicate calumny, lies and distortions, ALL of which is false witness in God's eyes (remember, the Bible explains that even thoughts are sins; it is not necessary to act upon those thoughts).

Gossip, stalking and spying for "tech" reasons are also a violation, in addition to the Eighth Commandment, to the First Commandment against false gods and idolatry. Collecting power enhancing information against another person is putting that "tech" and activity ahead of God in determining the purpose and direction to that person's life. One cannot "tech" and serve God; God will not tolerate other masters.

For example, one has no way of knowing that an adulterous affair that results in a baby is not ultimately the will of God. God is not saying that adultery is no longer a sin. However, only God knows all the paths of all people who ever lived, and it is often his will that humans cannot understand how their own actions (say nothing of their "neighbors") fit into his plan. A woman who is gossiped about and demonized for having an adulterous baby is thus treated in an extremely ungodly way by the stalkers. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that people should take justice into their own hands based on evil gossip. Rather, Jesus explicitly comdemns hypocriscy and turns into disciples many who were accused by the hypocrites of "sin."

God has a plan for everyone. Why do hypocrite Christians stalk others and thus gossip, oppress and put their feet on the necks of those they spy on, harming them with their sinful thoughts and deeds, when they should confess that they know that God has a plan-known only to him-for everyone?

I blogged before that thank God the "righteous" early Christians did not decide to slay Saul, their chief persecutor, out of "self defense." If gossipers and stalkers had their way, they would have killed Saul before he became Paul.

God will not tolerate having his will hampered by spies, gossipers and stalkers.

So ponder how the "counting how many times I read or do not read the Bible" led to a complete misunderstanding and hampering of God's plan and will for my life, and think about how those deeds are in direct conflict and offense to the First and Eighth Commandments (not a good place to be in if one hopes to be saved upon death).

Understanding God: body of faithful, gay discussion

*warning, some blunt sexual terms and ideas, as usual I regret having to do so and look forward to God's coal on my lips for having to dialogue as such, but someone has to do it*

I am going to write more, here, about understanding God, understanding faith, understanding sin, and I will illustrate what I am going to explain with using the debate about being homosexual (I will use “gay” for brevity) as a case study.

One must first understand that while knowledge of God and obedience is an individual matter, faith must be and is a group matter. In other words, the faith of individuals is not enough; the knowing and the worship of God must take place within the gathering, the community of people. Why is that? Well, first of all, recognize that what I am saying is true, before I explain the “why,” by examining the scripture of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths. All of the scripture is oriented toward the “body of the faithful,” the group working united and in unison in their belief. Just because the word of God is spoken through an individual, this does not mean that God is not addressing the group as a whole, and the scriptures all make that plain. In the Book of Exodus God has Moses gathered the people together, and they “see” God in the great Theophany, even though the words of the Law, which are for ALL the people, are spoken into Moses’ ears. Likewise in the Qur’an God, through the angel Gabriel, gave the Prophet (PBUH) instruction and law for all of the Muslims as a whole, as it emerged as a faith from amidst a time of unbelief. Thus the Prophet had companions to whom he explained what God taught and required and he (the Prophet) expounded on the meanings (preserved in the Hadith) and, further, had them memorize the Qur’an, which was at first oral and then written.

Finally, Jesus taught continually in the community of the faithful. This is obvious if you only note that in his public ministry he went from synagogue congregation to synagogue congregation preaching to the whole body of the faithful: the original body of faithful assembled by Moses. Thus God’s law and his word are continually given to the entire body of the faithful as a whole, not as a matter of personal and individual endeavor.

The Muslims, despite the sad split into their sects, retain this understanding that God instructs the body of the faithful, and not individuals. Likewise the orthodox Christianities understand this quite clearly. The Catholic Church, heir to the Apostolic church, and the equally united and ancient Orthodox churches (despite the divisions among the Orthodox and their sad separation from the Catholic Church) understand and preach the unity of the body of the faithful as the recipients of God’s teaching, law and grace, not individuals. Individuals must work to remain in communion with God. This is where many have become confused, particularly among Protestants and their children. The salvation of the individual soul is of course of importance, but it is done through the entire body of the faithful, as God intended and made clear in the first place, and consistently through the orthodoxy of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths.

So why does God insist upon presenting himself to the unity, the community of the faithful, rather than allowing faith to be an “individual” matter of “conscience?” There are two very fundamental reasons, and many supporting purposes to God’s will in this matter. I will explain the two fundamental reasons. The first is that belief in God is egalitarian, as everyone is in truth God’s adopted children, equal in the sanctity of their newly made souls when they are conceived, and equally open to his love in God’s eyes. Thus God will only consistently reveal and rule to the body of the faithful, not to individuals, and further, his expectations weigh upon the entire body of the faithful, not upon individuals. When individuals fall away from the orthodoxy of the true faiths they fall away from God; it is as simple as that. They cannot “good guy” their way to God as individuals who have fallen out of communion. The writings of the Apostles and disciples, and the early Church fathers, often meditate on the difference between those who have never heard the word, compared to those who heard the word and either reject it, drift away from it, or fall from it. St. Paul in particular was a stern taskmaster in this regard and rightfully so. Here is the way to understand it. The soul is the individual “currency” of salvation, for it is the soul that like a penny is put into the salvation bank. BUT THE COMMUNION OF THE FAITHFUL IS THE MINT, the treasury that maintains the value of the penny. Thus one must never think that the entire focus of the faith is the one by one “good guy” model of finding individuals who ‘believe.’ That is how the penny is used, but it is not how the penny is made nor is it how the penny maintains its value. Someone who denounces the orthodoxy of their faith and its community has lost his or her value as the “penny,” since they denounce the mint that made that currency and its continual value. Jesus never ceased to explain that he is addressing “Ye,” the body of the faithful, and their need to stay together, worship and believe in unity.

Thus to maintain one’s place in God’s egalitarian eyes, as an equal loved “child of God,” one must recognize that this gift was given to the “child” through the community of the faithful that God enfranchised, not through individual merit or “inheritance.” God has enfranchised the communion of the faithful and given his expectations to them as a WHOLE. Thus the Law, such as the Ten Commandments, are given to the people as a WHOLE, not individuals. Jesus preached to synagogue congregations and crowds of the thousands, thus the Beatitudes and his other preaching was given to the people as a WHOLE, to be followed and members of, not to individuals. This is why as I have pointed out in previous blog postings that Jesus never did a “tsk tsk” scolding of individual sin, such as sins of passion or greed. For example, when he recruited Matthew from being a sinful tax collector, he did not give him a lecture on how immoral he had been, he simply said, “Follow me.” Jesus continually emphasized that while individuals commit sin, communities are saved. Do you understand the nuance? When a saint talked about the saving of a soul, that saint did not mean salvation is an individual matter. That saint “saved souls” by getting the individual back into communion with the orthodoxies of the communal church! This vital understanding has been totally lost in this “me” generation that has turned that understanding on its head, in total error.

The second reason that God gives faith to communities of faithful and insists upon it is that faith cannot survive individually, for humans are too weak. We only need to look at the past several decades where the more people feel they can individually “save” themselves through either trust in Jesus or through “good deeds,” the more they fall away from orthodoxy and the communion of the faithful, and the more they are likely to be the among the surprised who are not saved. Jesus warned that many will say “Lord, Lord!” calling for recognition and he will not recognize them. While Jesus used social justice and charity as the examples of people who did not recognize him among the needy while they were alive, think about who he was talking to at the time of the Gospels: the faithful who belonged to the body of the communion of the faithful. In other words, the background assumption that Jesus is using is that these are people who are among the communion of the faithful, but fail in their charity. How much more will he not recognize those who not only failed in their charity but deified themselves by taking themselves out of the communion of the faithful that God himself had created?

So you must understand that when a soul is spoken of as being “saved,” that means that soul is given faith and belief and brought back into the communion of the faithful who have authentically received God’s word and enfranchisement, for lack of a better modern word. Jesus warned how difficult it is for the rich to be saved (the eye of the needle) for example. Remember, he was speaking of a rich man who was OF the body of the communion of the faithful! How many, rich or poor, will be saved if they are “giving the finger” to the communion of the faithful, separate from them? Can you say “infinitesimally small odds?”

Therefore, let me now use an example to help you to make this distinction. Let us look at the seeming contradiction between God prohibiting the practice of homosexuality in the Bible, and the assurance that all are equal before God and open to God’s love and salvatory power. Remember that the law is given to the COMMUNITY. Thus God prohibits to the COMMUNITY homosexuality. I will explain why in a bit, but first, let’s focus on this important distinction. Look at the first Commandment, which regards that there is only one God and only he should be worshipped. That is a COMMUNION OF THE FAITHFUL commandment. Thus the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians AS a WHOLE are to believe in one God. Why is that distinct from individual sin of disbelief? Because, obviously, many humans fall into periods of disbelief, paganism, idolatry, even being raised that way as children. The community of the faithful “keeps” the first Commandment, and thus individuals who are at odds with this can “find their way back.” Likewise the second Commandment, keeping of the Sabbath, the day of God for worship, is a commandment of the COMMUNITY. It’s not like a billion people all conduct their own “service” whenever they feel like it. The communion of the faithful maintains the Mass, to use the Catholic example, even if a handful of people attend (or even if the priest must be alone). Thus is it always there for those who have fallen away to come back. The Commandments, each and every one of them, must be understand as COMMUNITY Commandments, not solely as individual “choices” and “behavior.”

Think about the ninth and tenth Commandments prohibiting coveting. Coveting is a mental stance where one craves what someone else has to the point of wishing ill or loss on the other person. One doesn’t even need to lift a finger in harm to break those Commandments. Again, while individuals perform sin it is a COMMUNITY Commandment, for God’s communion of believers must not create a society where coveting is encouraged, children are raised to covet, and coveting is even forced on others due to their suffering and being deprived of what others have. Both individuals and communities break the ninth and tenth Commandment, and that is a dire problem that, frankly, fills hell with some surprised people.

Thus one must look at homosexuality that way. God is prohibiting to the community homosexuality. God is not damning the individuals. Remember that the first and second Commandments are examples of how the communion of the faithful maintains obedience to God, so that the orthodoxy is always there for those who are not part of it at that time. God does not want humans to structure themselves as a homosexual society; it is as simple as that. This does not mean that God damns gays, or that their individuals acts are necessarily sinful or unforgivable, or that they must be closeted or they must be oppressed. If the Commandments and the Law were viewed that way, you would see, for example, the oppression of individuals while they are out of phase with the first and second Commandments. No one drags the faithful to synagogue, the mosque, or the church, and they are not damned and demonized if they do not go. They are, in the long run, individually accountable to God when they are personally judged. If the Commandments and God’s scriptural admonishments were targeted exclusively to individuals and not to the community, the scriptures would be filled with such examples. None observers would be beaten to a pulp with God nodding in approval, so would coveters, and so would gays. But there is absolutely none of that in the scriptures of the Torah, Bible and Qur’an. As I said, Jesus never so much as gave a “tsk, tsk” to individual sinners, but he brought them back into communion. More important, the purity of the communion was preserved, not succumbing, in what would be a falsehood, to “social pressures.”

God does not want, therefore, humans to organize themselves as a homosexual society. God does not want humans to organize themselves in a coveting society. God does not want humans to believe in gods, which are false, other than him, nor does God want people to work throughout the week without having a day to be in communion with him, and at rest with one’s family. God does not want an adulterous society, nor a thieving society. God does not want a society that dishonors parenthood. But that is the communion of believers, when one refers to society. It does not mean that individuals do not do the best they can with the cards they are dealt. Thus the non church goer is not damned, nor is the adulterer, the thief, the parent abuser, the coveter, nor, using our example, those who are gay or those who have conducted gay acts. God’s heaven would be empty except for the angels and the saints. No one is saved if they either 1) pull apart the communion of the faithful by appointing themselves arbiters of their own salvation or 2) “modify” the community of the faithful to suit the sin that they are engaged in. Again, by sin I mean the societal structure that God prohibits.

Gays who expect the communion of the faithful to endorse a homosexual society are out of their minds, since that is clearly not what God wants. But God wants homosexuals to come to church, to believe, to live individual lives the best that they can.

Let me be a little blunt, as I dislike doing, but I have to be, obviously. Some gays think that unless the church endorses their sexual positions that they are being slighted. Um, who else brags about their sexual positions in church, heterosexual or homosexual? I mean, do we show up to church in order to let people know how hot our partners are and where they put their genitals at what time?

If that were the case, then think about Abraham and Sarah, who conceived Isaac in their extreme old age. I’ve commented on this topic before as this was the time that God himself appeared as one of three angels to Abraham, as simple travelers. Abraham realized after a while who they were, including that God was with them and even argued and bargained with God to try to save Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction. It was during that visit that God announced that Sarah would conceive in her great old age, and bear a child, and Sarah laughed. Well, if church is the place to brag about sexual positions for equality, would we not have gotten some details about how Abraham “turned on” the elderly Sarah? I know, and I’m sorry, that the decent of you are horrified at what I just typed, as am I at my need to be so blunt and crude with moderns; you have no idea how sick at heart it has made me over the years. But unfortunately the depravity and error of this generation is so bad that, like Jesus, I have to be blunt in the vernacular of the times. If going to church, or speaking to God, or receiving grace, or witnessing a miracle related to genital body parts, believe you me, the Bible would have recorded, well, how Isaac came into being.

So it is disgusting and absurd that some gay people think that they go to church so that the church can say that where they put their genitals and with who is “great” and “wonderful,” any more than I want to know if the couple next to be do “muff dives” in their straight relationships. Shut the hell up and make it about God.

In fact, you all ought to be ashamed of bringing such thinking into the church, mosque or synagogue at all. Just show up as a believer and shut the hell up about what you do or what anyone else does.

So that is why there is no inconsistency with what God teaches, admonishes and expects. God instructs the communion of the faithful (representative of hopefully all of humanity, God willing) how humans as a whole, as a society, should function. Just as we should not have a society of coveters, we should not have a society of homosexuality. That does not mean that God exiles or damns anyone, coveters or gays, nor is the love of God, or Jesus, diminished at all. It simply means that society should not become comprised of those values in total.

If God wanted human society to be “gay” in total he would have had parthenogenesis or other biological techniques for reproduction via cloning or splitting to be the norm. God does not want society to be gay, to seek artificial human controlled means of reproduction. That does not mean that he did not “create” “gays,” as in, gays are like everyone else, born of God’s heritage and those called to be saved and join him in heaven after leading worthy lives. How can you not see the vast difference between being an open and serene person who happens to be gay and creating gay agenda gay nation? Gays bridle when some pastors try to use such comparisons as loving someone with a disability and so forth and I understand that. I don’t view being gay as a disability. It can be a cross to bear, just as, actually, being anyone in search of decent love is, straight or gay, a growing cross to bear in this insane and cruel society. I have to compare it to the sin of coveting for my analogy, though, only because we are discussing the scriptures. Just as God does not want a society of coveters (but apparently, that is what we have today) God does not want a society of gay agenda, what one could say being purposefully proselytizing of gayness for its own sake. People covet; it is human nature, and that is why God prohibits it, to curb its power. Likewise people have the desire for love, which is good, and some are straight and some are gay, which is normal, but society should not be structured to be “gay” anymore than it should be structured to be coveting. I don’t want to know what Abraham and Sarah did in bed. Why should you, and why should you force me, and our children, to know about it?

Thanks to former President Clinton many children learned what oral sex was years before they should have, especially since the media lost all self control and pushed oral sex discussion at all hours for our children to hear about. Likewise, children are not “naturally curious” to “know” what Fred and Ted are doing in bed. Shut up for the love of God.

I hope that you have found this helpful. The water’s over the dam and the horses have left the barn, and the barn has burned down, but all I can do is keep repeating myself in hope that you all will allow me to help pick up the pieces that remain.

Unfortunately, he was "one of us:" Madoff

This article describes what I explained some months ago in this blog, which is concept of a group who fervently hopes that a criminal or highly immoral scandal making person is "not one of us."

Well, the Madoff financial scandal is a larger example of such a fear coming true than I could even imagine. Here is a thoughtful look at the blemish that the Jewish community feels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/us/24jews.html

Correcting people's thinking about "Hitler"

Regarding Hitler and his dispensation to hell. Yes, this is going to be one of my informative but definitely increasingly irate posts.

I cannot believe that I have to explain this to people (how many times have I said and thought that sentiment) but it is obvious that misunderstanding only increases over time rather than clarity and sane reasoning with understanding of God’s will prevail.

Hitler was a bad man. Hitler is dead. Hitler is in hell.

OK? Is that simple enough for you? Actually, I’ve come to observe through my study of the cultists and the secular society that those statements are not enough for modern “magical thinking” pea brains to understand. Part of me is sympathetic in understanding one aspect of the confusion, and that is that I realize that because of the enormity of the Holocaust, it is difficult to grasp on a spiritual level. So I’m not mocking or discouraging talk about how the Holocaust essentially sealed Hitler’s doom and Hitler as an incredible study in evil. But notice what I said: the Holocaust sealed his doom. Yes, you read correctly that he had already merited hell before the Holocaust. Hitler's not still "hanging around." This is what it is important for you all to understand if you have ANY hope of sanity and of saving your own souls not only that Hitler has long ago gotten his final judgment and doom, but also exactly why and when he triggered this doom. In other words, what does God judge in someone like Hitler?

Here it is in summary:

Anyone who knows God exists, and defies him, his commandments and laws, AND leads others away from their belief in God merits and will find themselves in hell. That alone is quite enough.

This, incidentally, is why Henry VIII, jolly old guy as he was, "merits" hell. I’m not saying he is there or not because only God will say that. I do speak on authority from the Holy Spirit about Hitler today, though, because of the gravity of human error and warped discussion that affects salvation of people alive today.

However, I mention Henry VIII to reiterate two points: 1. he meets the "he is dead" judgment decision point and 2. that he "merits" hell (he knew God existed, he defied him and he lead others away from the faith).

Interestingly I do not mean Henry VIII’s defiance of Rome and Papal authority, wrong as that was. I mean, quite simply, the destruction of the monasteries and places of worship, and the outright killing of priests, friars and other of the faithful. THAT is what "merits" Henry VIII hell (and let me repeat, God has rendered judgment on him at his death; there is no stupid or intelligent reincarnation at all, whatsoever).

So this is what you must understand about Hitler. Hitler knew that God exists not only because of his exposure to the faith as a child but because he had the nerve, even after rejecting God and the institutional church, to invoke God’s name and intentions on occasion. What more proof does anyone need of a person who KNOWS God exists because even as he defies him he invokes him claiming, for example, that God has a purpose for him?? This observation ought to make all of YOU think long and hard. Hitler is no different than someone who has been raised or otherwise exposed to the faith and the reality of God (who can miss it in this day and age, unless one is raised in a basement as a prisoner) who then denies God as God has chosen to present himself and yet invoke something about God when it suits him or her to do so. So that is the first of the dooming criteria for hell. He was raised to know and believe in God, he rejected and defied God, yet he also invoked God on occasion for his evil purposes. (Kind of like atheists who make money off of God, but that is another story!)

So knowing that God exists, rejecting him, and yet invoking some of his power and authority as your own are the two things that put a person on a certain track to hell. That is violation of the first Two Commandments, and there is nothing more fundamentally dangerous than that to do. However, when you set a public example for your manipulative disbelief/belief then you compound it enormously because now you lead others to break the first Two Commandments. Hitler closed down religious institutions, persecuted not only priests and other consecrated religious but also the faithful themselves. He imposed a pagan state cult on the people and children were raised in this cult. If Hitler had stopped “there” and had done “nothing else,” including the Holocaust, he would have nonetheless without question been put into hell at his death.

I know how humans think, and that is not a joyful capability, believe me. So I know that some people are feeling actually a disappointment reading this, because they feel like I am implying that committing the Holocaust was somehow “optional” and "additonal" to Hitler’s already being on the evil path to damnation, not the pivotal reason. But yes, that is correct, and as hard to understand as that is, you should upon contemplation have greater faith and understanding of God, not lesser. I know this is confusing so let me be plainer. Hitler already was headed to hell even before he executed the entire Holocaust due to his actions prior.

Suppose we could rewrite history, as I outlined above, where Hitler “only” knew of God, denied him, and then imposed the cult belief, suppressing all religions, and killed the rabbis, burned the synagogues, but let the Jews live under the pagan German government. Aren’t you glad and understanding of God’s justice to know that “that alone” would have merited Hitler’s eternal damnation in hell? To put it more plainly, if Hitler had taken the ability to practice the Jewish faith away from the people under his control, but let the Jews live, he would have already merited hell, for certain.

Millions of people “did not have to die” in order to assure today’s public consciousness that Hitler merited, and got, hell. Jesus and ALL of the prophets, both in the Old Testament and New, plus the Qur’an reiterate that denial of God when one has the opportunity to know of his reality AND leading others from the faith, especially if holy and pious leaders are slain, are anathema, abomination and most certainly the direct route to hell.

This understanding, which is totally accurate and crystal clear, ought to make cult and secular leaders very nervous today. You don’t need “a Holocaust” to virtually guarantee yourself hell if you do the things that I have outlined above, either by the gun and sword OR BY THE PEN OR COMPUTER.

So why did Hitler survive so long, and why were so many people killed?

God in his mercy does not oversee human events that they do to each other with the intention of weeding out bad people by smiting them “early on” in their evil career. Honestly, God might as well get rid of the entire human race, then. Why? Because if you as humans cannot recognize evil in your midst and DEAL with it promptly YOURSELVES then why are you even alive?

Look at how much argument took place among humans, and what subterfuge Roosevelt had to use, to even get people involved in hindering Hitler in the early days! Many people dragged their feet, and all governments were complicit in complacency, if nothing else. The railroad tracks to the concentration camps were not bombed, which would have greatly hindered the Holocaust. Refugees were turned away. Those people, who did help surreptitiously, such as the Pope, are vilified by spineless publicity seekers today who only seek to second hand guess what they themselves would have pissed in their own pants if they had to defy Hitler as real people did everyday.

The Americans eventually had to pull all the weight on a two front war. If humans cannot make intelligent and merciful decisions about how to deal with a God denying mass murderer in their midst, how can you say you are entitled to life or existence at all? So God does not “weed out” the “bad guys” for you, because that is life by definition, learning how to live it and abide in God’s commandments, and dealing with those who don’t and who murder others.

The Holocaust happened simply because it became the measure of how far humanity’s indifference and outright inhumanity will extend. It’s like the levels of the ocean rising when icebergs melt (to use an example not because it is prophecy but because it is a popular topic). The ocean would rise only so far as the volume of melting ice will allow it to, because once the ice is completely melted there is no more frozen water to add to the ocean and thus it stops rising. That is the Holocaust, where it simply was a matter of “how much is too much” for humanity’s own consciousness and ability to act in defense of both the neighbor and the innocent stranger in another country.

So God certainly wasn’t “sitting out there” on a cloud “allowing the Holocaust” to happen. He was watching with dismay and grief, but in his infinite knowledge and wisdom, no surprise, how far humans will let the ocean of an evil rise before they stop it.

Reading some mystical significance into the predominance of Jews in the Holocaust is wrong, at least from God’s point of view. Killing ANYONE is wrong, and certainly for their faith, ANY faith in God that is persecuted is martyrdom, and there are not either bonus points, or demerits, if one is Jewish and a martyr.

It is outrageous how motives have been impugned to God regarding the Jewish component of the Holocaust. That is like saying he “chose” ice to melt in global warming. I mean, duh? What would melt beside ice when the evil of man, to use this natural analogy, caused global warming? So when a pagan state is imposed the pious are killed and melted, regardless of their faith, Jewish or not. Humans use it as an excuse to seize properties, try to find a way to rationalize the killing of Jews and so forth, but that is not it, in the bottom line. The bottom line is that Jews, for the most part, were a community that would have resisted a pagan government that destroyed their ability to practice their faith, destroyed their synagogues and killed their rabbis.

I rest my case and explanation with the obvious example, which is Rwanda. In a matter of DAYS hundreds of thousands were hacked to pieces and no one did anything. The USA could have flown Marines into Rwanda and shot dead the leaders of the mobs and put an end to that massacre in a New York minute.

Why did that “Holocaust” happen if oh so wise humans have “learned their lesson” from the Holocaust itself? Who cared about Rwanda? Apparently years later movie makers did, but not so much when it happened. Humans STILL need to learn how to, um, you know, identify God defying people who slaughter their own people and stop it on the spot, whether “your ox is being gored” or not. (In other words, even if there is not a “national interest.”) Hell, I think the Israeli army should have flown in and shot a few of the leaders of the Rwandan massacre, and said “Never again” on the behalf of a helpless populace humanity who did not share their skin color, their origins or their faith, nor had a national interest.

This, by the way, is one of the things I will always be interested in asking Bill Clinton, former USA President, about. The first DAY it was happening I was raging at the TV in my mind thinking “Do something; send in the marines, you foolish idiots!”

And where do you think the Rwandan who killed “only one” person versus the one who killed hundreds, or thousands at his or her behest will go? It’s hell regardless if it was one person or many.

So yes, keep discussing the moralities of what happened during the reign of Hitler, because obviously it is a deep wound in humanity that is not well understood. But please stop with the stupid “Hitler is reincarnated” or “Hitler had a special purpose from God” crap. Thinking like that keeps blots in human viability and further existence like Cambodia under Pol Pot, Rwanda and other genocidal pits of human’s own making going and going with no increase in comprehension.

The only “special purpose” anyone and everyone, including Hitler, had or has is to repent, return to God and make amends, and that door is open only when one is alive, and before God hardens his heart and removes the opportunities for repentance.

Hitler, like all humans, could have repented and had a SINCERE and TOTAL conversion up until the end of his last hour of life.

In his lifelong evil and madness, he probably confused the promptings of the Holy Spirit, who speaks to all, urging them to repent and convert as proof of “his special purpose.” People like him feel a touch of the numinous from God seeking their return to good ways and instead impugn their own "psychic" powers to that touch.

This is why there is an institutional church, by the way, so people don’t run around “hearing their own personal revelation” and having a terrible distortion as Hitler did, and as SO MANY do today. People have enough trouble with “hearing voices” that come from drug abuse or mental disorder that they don’t need equally psycho people interpreting “purpose from God” on top of their delusion.

It’s sure hot and unpleasant, more than you can imagine, in hell. Pray, repent and convert before you join the many others who have found out with no chance out because they threw away and flaunted God to his face. The reason I am so mad is that I know darn well that some people manipulate Hitler "study" in occult ways to either claim he is reincarnated or to mislead Jews regarding why "God let it happen." I hope that what I wrote above, extremely irate as it is, because I am so sick of the wasted time and souls, is helpful.

Homosexuality case study (part one)

Here is a second case study. This one discusses homosexuality. Again, as I pointed out in the first case study regarding marijuana consumption and dealing, what I am writing about homosexuality is not anything new or surprising to anyone who is truly focused on discerning and obeying God’s will. It is all in the Bible and Qur’an. However I understand that people need to be helped to think through God’s “reasoning” and “methods” in order to be more faithful to their beliefs and not issue themselves “exception cards,” as so many sinners do today.

Immediately upon posting the marijuana example I thought of a trendy analogy for the methodology I am using. When I divide the topic into “small,” “medium,” and “large” cases it is like the way people talk about carbon footprints. I start out by explaining God’s attitude toward the sinner with the smallest “sin footprint.” This would be like a conscientious human being coping with a very personal and individual situation and therefore like a “small carbon footprint.” I don’t want to say it’s a “small sin footprint” because it is not, as in the last example the most important Commandment is being violated by the “small” category of dope user. But it is a relatively small footprint because the effects are highly individual and therefore do not enmesh others in the sins, plus the violating of other Commandments, as “medium” and “large” “footprint” users do. I hope the borrowing of the carbon footprint analogy, without going too far with it, is useful.

1) A man or woman recognizes that he or she is homosexual. He or she decides to be chaste in their homosexuality and do not engage in any homosexual acts at all.

I am going to spend a lot of time on this first example because it is the baseline to understanding God’s attitude toward homosexuality. The act of homosexuality is a sin, but being a person who is a homosexual is not a sin. The Bible and Qur’an prohibit homosexual behavior and lifestyle. This does not mean that simply “being” homosexual is a sin. Of course being a homosexual is not a sin. Sins are thoughts that lead to intentions and actions. In other words sins are verbs. A person who is homosexual is not a walking, talking and breathing “sin.” He or she is an equally loved child of God. Again, remember I am discussing the baseline condition of being homosexual but not acting upon the homosexuality.

One modern pro-homosexual propaganda that I must refute is when someone says, “God made me gay.” No, God did not make you gay. God does not “make people gay (or not gay)” any more than God decides you will have blue eyes, be born lame, have sickle cell anemia, be good tempered, like broccoli, or get childhood cancer. God does not “make” individual people; God makes their souls. When you are conceived you receive three things from God. The first thing is the gift of life in the first place, which is a share in God’s decision to have created and loved human beings, into which you are born to know, love and serve him. The second thing is a soul, which is unique to you, but not connected to human traits such as appearance, health, attitude or destiny. Each soul is unique but a clean slate, like a generic baby angel ha. You earn your wings in life, to use that old saying, but you are not born with preprogramming as to what those wings look like and how you choose to use them (or how life circumstances forces you to use them). The third thing you are given directly by God is the ability to know and communicate with God, including your own guardian angel but more directly, no one is blocked from communicating and accessing God. There is actually an inborn hunger in everyone to know God, whether they realize it or not, and whether they welcome this or resent it. This is because like I already wrote, the second gift that God gives you is your soul. All humans want, at some level, to know and be reunited with the parent of their soul, who is God. So God gives you, or “makes you,” to use the term under discussion a shareholder in humanity created by God, a soul, and direct connectivity to God.

The traits that you have, including physical, mental, emotional and social, are not directly given to you by God or mandated by God. They are the natural biology and social implications of being born within the human species with certain genes depending on the parents and certain environmental circumstances depending on where and how you live and with who. So the creation of your body in conception is not something that God “manages.” But once an embryo is conceived, attaches itself to the woman’s womb, and “quickens” (shows its first impulse and growth of life) God sends the soul and guardian angel to the attached and growing embryo. So you actually have your genetic traits already in place at the time of the fertilized egg just before it attaches and God “sends the soul.” So your soul is obviously not the driver of your lifelong traits. Your traits come from being a human, having a genetic code, receiving a certain upbringing, being in a certain society, having illnesses or disorders happen for biological or environmental reasons, and develop sociability unique to yourself. Within your body is that soul that is “along for the ride.” The body is the temple of the God given soul, not the other way around. The soul does not create, predetermine, or manage the mind or the body. So God does not send “a gay soul” or “a straight soul.” God does not send the soul at all until the embryo is already made by two people with their own traits and it is attached in the womb and has its first quickening. If you are “gay” for a biological reason, the gayness is already there before the soul arrives. If you are “gay” for social reasons, that possibility is already there before the soul arrives because you are already in existence with a set of specific parents in a specific society and with specific opportunities, or not, around you.

You should be happy with that news rather than sad. God loves everyone fully and equally from the moment of conception and sends a perfect first class clean and pure full soul to each person from their very moment of quickening. There is no “even though you are or have such and such” in God’s eyes. God sends the best and most beautiful soul to each person with no exceptions.

As an aside while as a humanitarian I understand it but as a theologian I am disappointed when parents of a very ill child tell the child that God made him or her “special.” It’s like they are saying to “comfort” the child that God made a child have leukemia just to make the child really “special.” ARGH! This is so wrong, though like I said, understandable in the pain of the moment of explaining a cruel disease or disability to a child. What parents should tell their child is that even though some people are born with an illness or disability, God has given them the same perfect shiny and healthy soul that he has given everyone else. Children need to know that even if their body is sick that their soul, which is the part that God creates, is beautiful and perfect and healthy and whole, and that it lives on after them (if they are at an age where the parents must discuss death with them). I’m amazed when parents explain that the child “won’t need crutches in heaven” but never think to tell them that their soul through all their travail is as healthy and strong and beautiful as anyone else’s soul, “before” their dying and throwing away the crutches! Parents should explain to children that all people get sick, some more than others, but that just because some people get sick it does not mean that God wants to stop “having people as babies” at all! That is “God’s will” if you want to explain it to a child. (Or an ignorant adult ha ha). God’s will is that even though many humans will have illness, troubles in their life, hardships or limitations, he loves them all so much and gives them such perfect souls that his “will” is that people continue on and have babies and try to be good and happy. God’s will is not to distribute a portion of misery among humans. God wishes everyone could be happy and healthy and this is one reason he has blessed good doctors (even though many of those doctors spit in God’s face in return, but don’t tell the kids that, that’s an “adult” story). God has blessed the development of nutrition, hygiene, medical doctors, surgeons, research doctors and their findings, though in return many of them become greedy and Godless. But if God “wanted” a certain proportion of people to “suffer” he’d never have blessed physicians and medical researchers the way that he has.

So back to our homosexual but chaste man or woman. You can now see that despite being homosexual the man or the woman is in possession of as pure a soul as anyone else, and is accessible to knowing God and his love as anyone else. A homosexual chaste person has no problem with God.

2) A homosexual person, man or woman, has a homosexual relationship that includes homosexual sex.

Now this person has put themselves into a condition of sin. Here is the reason. I explained above that God’s will is for the human species, and the flora and fauna of the earth too, to be fruitful and multiply in the context of the union of a man and a woman. This is God’s will and agenda. When you have a homosexual act you are acting outside of God’s clearly stated agenda. Notice I’m not discussing if it’s “gross” or not or anything judgmental. I am helping you to understand God’s will simply and clearly. God’s agenda is to love his creations, which are the inanimate objects and forces of the universe and the living beings, both humans and animals and plants. God created certain rules of physics and biology and then permits the living beings to exist and prosper within those rules and systems. For humans God specifically created the mechanism (man and woman in union) and the system (marriage, family, and tribe/clan/community). God specified over and over in the Bible and the Qur’an that this is the way that he wills live beings to live and exist within their set of natural rules and systems. When a person engages in one act of homosexual sex he or she is breaking the First Commandment by placing their own physical and emotional desire ahead of God. Just like I explained with the secret self grower individual reefer puffer each act of sex that is outside of what God has specified for the species is like that person carving one of their own idols. The person is saying that their self gratification is more important than God’s plan instance by instance, case by case.

This is an example of what I called in the doper posting a “taking your chances with God” type of sin with one huge obvious exception. When you have a homosexual interchange there is obviously another person involved AND there are sins against people who are omitted. An example is a man who leaves his marriage and children because he decides to live as a gay. Not only is he now sinning with another person (the gay partner) but he has deprived his children of a fully present dad. So the singular pot growing smoker who does it in total secret and with no financial implication does not have a parallel with the single discrete homosexual act because there is by definition another person involved and by default the “missed opportunity” sins of not fulfilling one’s full potential in God’s plan. God wants people to marry and have babies. He does not require it; single and childless people are just as blessed. But heterosexual single and childless people should not be running around undoing God’s agenda either (think abortion, family destroyers and moral libertines, but that is another topic).

The extent of a homosexual’s “problem” with God will be very much dependent upon how active and destructive the person’s pursuit of this lifestyle is toward God’s will, plan and intentions for humans. Being a homosexual person is not a sin. Each homosexual act is a sin of contrariness to God’s will. I will only go so far as to say that a homosexual person who is in a partnership (NOT trying to call it “marriage”) with another mature and willing homosexual person (who you did not turn or groom to be gay) and who is not a proselytizer of homosexual lifestyle and is otherwise pious has reasonable odds at “taking their chances with God.” God understands love and loneliness. But God will not forgive siphoning love from other people and from the health of humanity as a whole by people who seek their own sexual gratification. God will not tolerate homosexual agendas that attack and siphon from real marriages and the predominant heterosexual agenda of being fruitful in male-female unions within a family. God will damn for sure (guaranteed) homosexuals who pursue heterosexual “converts” to homosexuality, child or adult.

If I were to advise someone who is homosexual who feels they must have an active homosexual relationship this is what I would suggest. Recognize that you are acting contrary to God’s overall plan and that you are being weak in choosing a homosexual relationship. The reason that it is important is that if you accept God’s will as being valid and the most important you are minimizing your defiance of God in the First Commandment. In other words, you are not saying that your “lifestyle” is more important than God’s will (which would be violating the First Commandment by making your homosexual relationship an idol) but you are proclaiming that God is correct and you are incorrect and that your homosexual relationship is not pleasing to God, but request mercy for your weakness. This helps you to keep God where he should be in your mind which is over and above all of human beings' “wants and needs.”

Another reason this is important to be honest about it that it will help you to make “your sin footprint as small as possible” if you agree to work within God’s plan. For example I am pleased when I see homosexual people stand up for pro-life issues and pro family activities. That is true charity and consistency with God’s plan. Just because a person struggles with or is content with being homosexual does not mean they should be uncharitable and ungenerous toward straight families. The parallel is the Christian missionary who is concerned with feeding and clothing the poor who do not share their religious beliefs, knowing that charity is God’s will. Well, homosexuals need to wake up and realize that God’s will is heterosexual intact families and communities and homosexuals ought to be contributors rather than degraders of straight life. A person who has a private and discrete homosexual relationship but who works in the STRAIGHT community for betterment will go a long way to improving “taking their chances with God.”

Let’s have a little history lesson here: God’s not naïve. Human history is filled with the elderly spinsters who lived together in Victorian times, or “confirmed bachelors” who “never married for some reason even though he is such a fine catch.” But until recently and excepting very libertine lifestyles and communities, many thousands of homosexual people lived discrete lives with a partner but they gave toward the building of the straight, married, family oriented community and faith base. They lived God’s will in the community and the public square even though they could not do so to the ultimate degree by being chaste, and God has understood this throughout the time humans have been on earth. In more pious and low key times homosexuals who had a very discrete relationship and yet proclaimed God and family in the public square had little to fear from God. They, unlike the perverse social engineers of today, understood and supported God’s plan for humankind even if they could not contribute directly to being a full card carrying member of that plan! They taught in schools, but did not look at kids as rape bait. They worked at church socials for the betterment of community and faith in God, not to troll or weaken other people’s faith. They fought in wars and researched diseases without shouting that they would only work on projects that benefited “their agenda.” And most of all, they did not wish their circumstances on someone else. Maiden spinsters may have lived together but they didn’t want lesbian knitting clubs to spring up or butch “preachers.” They would have flipped their wigs to know today how people seek to propagate and push what they coped with, with dignity, in their day. They did not demand a greater share from the mainstream all the time screaming that they are deprived. Like our forefathers and mothers in general, homosexual or straight, they worked for everyone’s betterment and for everyone’s children of the future, not to skew the world into their playground and call that “equality.” They had confidence and belief in God and his love for them. The homosexuals of the past did not challenge and doubt God and his goodness the way they do today. They would denounce the activists of today most severely.

(More in the next section).