Larry King mangles the Bible

I have a lot to blog about today. Sometimes there is a confluence of both ordinary secular events and cultist “antireligious” events that are reason to repeat ONCE AGAIN what I have taught previously, and today is one of those days.

Now, I don’t mind someone asking even the “dumbest” question (and remember, the only dumb question is the one that is not asked) over and over. In fact, that is a good sign because it indicates a mind and heart that is trying to understand and to change. I am annoyed, since it is based on alarm, when I have to repeat over and over what is IN THE BIBLE and plain for anyone to understand and see. I’m alarmed because never have I seen so many human beings have a willful refusal to understand even the facts of which they supposedly speak AND their doing so in a public forum in order to mislead others into error, sin, and ultimately damnation.

TV personality Larry King works my last nerve but I do watch him on occasion because I want to see specific people or topics that his show covers. The specific thing that annoys me about Mr. King is that even though he is a secular Jew (not a believer of God or his own faith) he feels informed enough to throw a damper on anyone else’s faith, should he be in a mood to do so. He, like most modern media false prophets, present an argument that sounds logical and erodes faith in his listeners, but is totally simplistic, ignorant, fallacious, and, frankly, in service of the prince of darkness. So this is why I MUST finally address in my blog this simultaneously whining and hostile “argument” that he makes regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality. By the way, I am not going to attack what he says about homosexuality (he thinks it’s great) because my views of tolerance are well known and articulated, even if people choose to ignore what I really feel. I have cited what Jesus himself has said on the matter, which many miss because he uses the term “eunuch” rather than homosexual. It is what Mr. King says about the nature of the Bible that infuriates me.

In a nutshell, Mr. King characterizes the Bible as an outdated book of “dos and don’ts.” He, with his usual self satisfied smugness, cites other Biblical law, such as prohibition from eating shellfish, as an example of an “out of date” Biblical law that no one pays attention to anymore, and argues that God’s prohibition against active homosexuality is likewise a law that is just out of date. If you haven’t watched him at work, let me describe how he thinks he has such a “killer argument.” Whenever he has a guest who is Christian and against homosexuality for Biblical reasons, he sneers at them, “Well, don’t you eat shellfish?” He thinks he has then done a slam dunk regarding 1) the person’s hypocrisy in their own faith and 2) the “fact” that the Bible is just a list of laws that no longer “apply” to modern people. Thus he thinks if a person eats shellfish they have demonstrated that the old Law of the Bible-ALL of it-no longer applies.

This is so arrogant and pig ignorant that I find myself clenching my teeth as I key this blogging.

Let me start with the first obvious point. The Bible is not “only” a list of dos and don’ts that are given at one point in time. The Bible was written by different authors over a period of many years and EACH author records what encounters Israel, and later both Jews and Gentiles, have had with God. In other words, the Bible records the ongoing conversation that God has with humans over hundreds, indeed thousands, of years. So it’s not like some old smelly guy wrote down the Bible in one sitting at one point in time and then as years go on the Bible “no longer applies.” Here’s a newsflash for people who mouth off about the Bible but don’t actually read it. Um, God actually NOTICES how people change and what they are doing and UPDATES what he tells them accordingly. Some law is absolute and fixed as being obligatory FOREVER and God confirms that periodically through his prophets. Other laws God RELEASES people from and CHANGES and that is recorded in the scripture.

Liberal secular unbelieving Jews are particularly frustrating to debate because they not only do not believe in God, or the divinity of the Bible’s word, as given by God through the Holy Spirit, but they “doubly” do not believe in Jesus and thus do not read and absolutely discard all that is in the Gospel, the New Testament. So here is how I’d like to wipe the smile off of Mr. King’s smug face.

Acts 11

Now the apostles and the brethren all over Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. But when Peter went up to Jerusalem, they of the circumcision found fault with him, saying “Why didst thou visit men uncircumcised and eat with them?”

[For readers who don’t understand what was going on, here is a quick summary. Jesus preached only to the Jews, and stated that he himself was sent only to preach to the Jews. However, many Gentiles listened to him in the crowds that followed him, so by his role modeling we know that while his personal ministry was to the Jews that God intended that all should hear. Now, understand that the way Jews had self identification as Jews was that males were circumcised and all observed the food law as given by God to Moses. Thus “they of the circumcision” means “Jews,” while uncircumcised means “not Jews” hence “Gentiles.” Also “eating with them” means that Gentiles, not being Jews, do not follow God’s dietary laws. This is the snickering Mr. King’s question, about why Gentiles eat shellfish yet follow the rest of the Bible. I bet you can see where the scripture is going more clearly now, huh? “The Gentiles also had received the word of God.” So it’s not like only Jews converted to Christianity and then decided to stop following the dietary law (and thus eat shellfish). God allowed the word to be heard and believed by those who were not circumcised or following dietary laws and indeed, those who never even HEARD of the one true God of the Israelites, to hear and believe. ]

Then Peter began to explain the matter to them in order, saying, “I was praying in the city of Joppa and while in ecstasy I had a vision, a certain vessel coming down something like a great sheet, let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came right down to me. And gazing upon it, I began to observe, and I saw the four-footed creatures of the earth, and the wild beasts and the creeping things, and the birds of the air. And I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Arise, Peter, kill and eat.’ And I said, ‘By no means, Lord, for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’

[See, even as the Apostle of Jesus Peter hears God himself ordering Peter to eat food that is forbidden to them under dietary law and hence “unclean,” Peter replies to the Lord that he has never eaten anything unclean, and refuses to obey God to eat the unclean in his vision! Peter was sticking to the dietary law of the Jews, even as he had become the head Apostle, what Catholics call the Pope today, of Jesus Christ. Peter was sticking to the dietary law and even when God first tells him to eat the unclean in a vision, Peter refused, no doubt suspecting it was a temptation or a test by God of his fidelity to the Law.]

But the voice answered a second time, ‘What God has cleansed, do not thou call common.’ This happened three times, and then it was all drawn up back into heaven. And behold, immediately three men came to the house where I was, having been sent from Caesarea to me; and the Spirit bade me not to hesitate to go with them. And these six brethren also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen the angel in his house stand and say to him, ‘Send to Joppa and fetch Simon, surnamed Peter; he will speak to thee words by which thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy household.’

[See, Peter is traveling among the Gentiles, where people are hearing the word, both from Peter and other disciples, but also directly from God, and believing. So these are adult non-Jews who thus are not circumcised nor follow dietary law, nor who have even heard of, necessarily, the one God. Peter is thus relating to these Jewish Christians how Gentiles are flocking to him in belief.]

But when I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as it did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore, if God gave to them the same grace as he gave to us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should be able to interfere with God?” On hearing this they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, “Therefore to the Gentiles also God has given repentance unto life.”

OK, now do you see how ridiculous Mr. King is when he uses his favorite gay argument? If anyone actually reads the Bible before expounding on it, much worse, stating how inapplicable it is “today,” that would be a good thing. Mr. King would be able to read that God explicitly releases Christians from the dietary law so that they can belong and believe. Jews are FREE TO CONTINUE TO OBSERVE THE DIETARY LAW, SHOULD THEY CHOOSE. Thus many early Christians who were Jews, such as the original Apostles and disciples, continued to observe dietary law. However, they understood that they did not need to because God had explicitly opened the tent to allow in the Gentiles who never knew about God or his Law as given to the Israelites. So yes, duh, Mr. King, Christians eat shellfish, but they do so because God said it was OK to do so in the scriptures, not because they “felt like it” because they are “modern” and don’t need that old moth eaten “out of date” word of God (but oh wait, Mr. King does not believe the Bible is the word of God anyway).

I hope that this has helped those who are studying the Bible and hoping to better understand God to see this case study of how to actually cite the Bible and have a prayer of being accurate. God had continual dialogue throughout the time of the Bible’s historic events and he reaffirms Law and releases from Law according to his Will and what is the best for humans. God is mysterious but not in his interactions with humans. When it is his will that the Gospel be taken outside of the circle of observant Jews to now bring the Good Word to pagans and Gentiles, God released his people from required observance of law that would have excluded the Gentiles. Thus, blessed are Jews who continue to observe dietary law for love of God, but with the arrival of Jesus Christ, God released Jews from the dietary law in order to allow Gentiles, who had no God given Law, into the tent. However, through Jesus Christ God reaffirms the Commandments and other laws that continue to apply to all human beings, regardless of affiliation.

By the way, for brevity I just keyed in how Peter summarizes to the other Apostles and disciples what happened to him. His summary is Acts 11. You should read the whole events as they happened in Acts 10 for further understanding of what actually happened as they happened. It’s a chance to look over Saint Peter’s shoulder, all these years later, to see how God through the Holy Spirit guides him in reaching out to the Gentiles and discerning matters such as release from certain of the Law by God.

Case Study: Gays in the Military

Case Study: Gays in the Military, using faith and reasoning in decision making

I was just listening to an interview with General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, on a wide range of topics, including gays in the military. He is the author of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy currently implemented in the United States. It gave me the idea of doing a “case study” on this topic, of how to logic one’s way through proper decision making, and of course to share my opinion.

First of all, I have always supported gays in the military and I am far from a “Johnny Come Lately,” since support of gays in the military has always been my core belief. I have, actually, proof of that by relaying to you a “date and time stamped” event where I voiced my support. In 1980 I was hired into a certain major petrochemical company. The department manager was a former military guy, I’ll call him B. He was feisty and quite a character, and I admired his managerial skill, and of course his “war stories.” I did not get to work for him very long, as he was there only I guess a few months to a year of my time there. Anyway, in the fall of 1980 when I had a meeting with him, after the quick handling of business he became chatty in that fun way that he had and he commented on lots of topics, including his opinion of gays in the military. He told me he had no problem with them as people, but as a military guy he was very concerned that being gay was fertile source for blackmail by foreign agents. Remember, this is exactly twenty-eight years ago when many gays were still very much in the closet. Now, I disagreed with him then and I have continually. I felt that determined foreign agents will find anything to blackmail a soldier about, if that is their plan, and if they do not have something on the person, they will create something doing what spies call a “honey trap.” B, however, felt that the particular social onus of being gay made it an exceptional risk. So we agreed to disagree. That was fall of 1980 folks. So I have a firm and clear record of supporting gays in the military.

Now, this does not make it an easy issue for humans to solve, just because someone like me is “pro” gays in military, and other people are “against.” This is why it occurred to me to use this issue as a case study.

Let’s start with the Biblical context. Ah ha, caught you! I know that everyone immediately thinks I mean about the morality or sin associated with gay acts. Wrong! What I mean is when you analyze secular policy you must look to the Bible for categorizing secular versus moral issues. Thus one finds that Jesus said, regarding taxes, to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Thus you correctly identify gays in the military as an issue of “Caesar,” and not of God. Therefore God expects “Caesar” to determine policy and take care of governmental, military and other secular matters based on facts, prudence and justice. You can also think of gays in the military as a matter for the “good king.” The Bible underscores that Jesus did not get involved in governmental policy, but expected all humans to behave with justice and prudence (many of his parables underscore those qualities).

So, now that we realize that the Bible points you to a secular decision regarding gays in the military, how does one make a just decision? You do so by analyzing the issue and the alternatives using two measures.

1) What is the best decision or alternative to support the maximum effectiveness of the military?
2) What is the best decision or alternative to provide justice and equality for all concerned?

Let’s look at the first criterion for decision making. There is no evidence that gays fight less effectively or otherwise are a detriment to military service. To the contrary, we know that the military has suffered from the loss of gay service men and women over the years, both in the shortage of sheer number of service people and also from their talents and skills, both as combatants and in support.

Now, remember, the first criterion must be given due dignity of consideration, even in an obvious case such as this. This is because it is a slippery slope to only look at “effectiveness.” For example, young men and women are the strongest, most energetic and thus best recruits, so this is why the age of consent to join the military allows teenagers. However, suppose someone suggested that young children would be very effective additions to the military, because they are “easily trained,” “energetic,” “small and thus cheaper to house and transport,” etc. That would be appalling logic, putting effectiveness over decency. So one must always consider effectiveness in a moral context, one that is subservient to decent societal standards, which is we do not use child soldiers.

The second criterion regards equality and justice for all of the parties involved. Obviously on the “pro” side is that gays are entitled to the same right to service and justice in so doing as everyone else who is qualified to join the armed services. So this seems, like the first criterion, very obvious. However, one must give pause to consider the rights of everyone involved. The allowing of gays to serve in the military just like everyone else should not be viewed as giving approval to situations that create sexual tension in the military. This was, and is, exactly the same problem that had to be considered with permitting women into increased opportunities in the military. I admit, if I were the decision maker, I would want a lot of fact finding, analysis and persuasion by my managers and generals to be assured that undue sexual tension was not increased over that which already exists among ready, willing and able young men and women. I know what it is like to be stalked by both straights and gays, and to be viewed in terms of such “assessment.” The last thing any military person needs is to be viewed by a comrade as either straight or gay "bait," "in person pornography" or "opportunity." This is one reason I continue to be uneasy with the presence of women in certain areas of the military and I extend that uneasiness to gays.

Part of the problem is that extreme feminists and extreme gay rights advocates have, in society at large, had very loud mouths about hedonistic and cruising tendencies. Then they turn around and try to persuade skeptics that they are sober and prudent and not predatory in their demeanor. Just as I have some problem believing that about some women, (and of course the predatory men who would exploit them), I have some problem believing that every gay in the military has proper custody of his or her eyes, to use a religious expression. I think some men (those who assault their female comrades, to the men’s extreme discredit and disgrace) obviously have a problem with “custody of the eyes,” and most certainly with their actions. Likewise I think some women have a problem with “custody of the eyes” and also most certainly with their actions. And, in true equality, I think that some gays have a problem with “custody of the eyes” and also most certainly with their actions. Any decision regarding military membership must always protect the rights of those, men and women, straight and gay, who do have “custody of the eyes” and are there to do their job, and not to cruise among their comrades.

Humans being humans I had very serious concerns about exactly this problem with the expanded role of women in the military. I believe that the military has, however, painfully learned how to deal with predators and exploiters who act inappropriately in both behavior and in having an invasive view of their own comrades’ dignity. Thus while I am uneasy about this aspect of the problem, I could be persuaded by generals and managers who have expertise in this issue that what was learned about women expanding in the military can be applied to dealing with problems that may arise with expanded and open gay participation. This means that I would expect gays to be treated with dignity, and I would expect them to treat their comrades with dignity. It really is as simple as that. Just as predatory straight men or women should not be part of the military in any way shape or form, I would expect the same about gays; either those being exploitive or being exploited themselves. When the military lacks cohesion, dignity and a certain “being above sex on the job” attitude among its members you have a dangerous meltdown, one that results in things like naked pictures of prisoners being tormented in Iraq. A military that does not have detachment, dignity and “custody of the eyes” among themselves creates an exploitive rabble rather than a proud protective force.

Thus, to recap, I have always supported gays serving in the military and have proven this by referencing my stance as long ago as twenty eight years ago. I also wish to underscore that there is a proper way to use both “faith and reasoning” to analyze how to arrive at the proper and best conclusion with issues such as these. It is also important to always bear in mind that in pursuit of justice and equality, one does not need to be blind, in denial or disingenuous regarding implications of equality, and to analyze systems and procedures so that everyone can maintain their equality and dignity during a time of change.

I hope that you have found this helpful.

Part Three: How I tried to handle astrologers

I am going to make this section very short and terse, because it is very distressing to me to see the unbelievable harm that has been self inflicted and inflicted on society as a whole due to those occult beliefs.

The triumvirate “belief” system of reincarnation-astrology-psychics believe not in the traditional Buddhist reincarnation where it happens but it is a mystery, but they believe they can “figure out” “who you used to be” and “what past lives that you had.” Further, they assume that “anything goes.” This is the really perverted “New Age” part. They assume that everyone has been both genders in their life, and actually glorify homosexuality as evidence of this. I can assure you that’s not what Buddha was thinking.

This was no secret and they sure didn’t treat it as a “theory” or “question.” When I once wondered about the abrasive personality of a woman on the message board I was openly told that “she had too many masculine past lives.” It was presented as a fact, just like that.

By the way, it was then that it clicked that a “job counselor” told me years ago that I had “a well developed masculine personality” and I was totally like “Wot?” When he said that I was insulted but did not take it seriously; I mean, I have big boobs and want to be a housewife. When I read that crap on the ass-troll-ogy message board it was then that I realized that I had also been labeled as having “past lives” including “masculine ones” and therefore have the “natural tendency” to be a faggot, oops, I mean gay. I use the term faggot because I am angry and being subversive. The term comes from a type of clothes design that uses fancy needlework to make a pattern of like lacing, and a “faggot” used to be applied to someone who was vain and fussy about their appearance. But I digress into a quick subversive language lesson. Back to the main point: astrology kids grew up in households where their very parents and caregivers assume their kids have latent homosexual tendencies and talents, and they applaud that. It’s one thing to be liberal minded and generous about someone who is gay, and charitable as I always was (“some of my best friends used to be gay” and by that I mean they are still gay but dropped me like a cold straight potato). (That’s more subversive humor).

Astrology kids have their minds and their sexuality manipulated and deformed by their own parents and caregivers, and many of them are exploited and taught how to sexually exploit others. They use “past lives” doctrinal garbage as a grooming tool to get their children and others to engage in homosexual acts, including for power grabbing (striking up relationships on command) and for porn.

As if that is not bad enough, astrology parents teach their kids that not only does everyone have both genders in their “past lives” but they “played different roles” together, such as their child having “been the parent” to their parent in a “past life.” I want to vomit and call down one of the apocalyptic angels even as I think and type this. Yes, they believe that groups of people stick together trading genders and roles and thus they teach their kids that “incest is best.” They will not blink an eye at telling their child that he was a girl in a previous life and that he was fucked by his sister, who was “her” husband in a previous life, while changing the pooh diapers of their baby, who is their dirty auntie or mommy in this life. Oh and by the way they were all related to Jesus.

I wish I was making this up or exaggerating one bit, but sadly for the world, I am not. I just had an unkind thought, but totally justifiable, about who zealous terrorists really should target. How can humanity survive, either literally or with its sanity, when a large and powerful section of the population believes that it is an incestuous sexual free for all and teach (and use) their kids in that manner using as Justification a belief in a totally bogus, dark, dirty and depraved “world view?”

I’ve said all I’m going to say on this matter. There is no question that anyone can ever ask me about this demonic set of "beliefs." I will answer questions about why people truly do feel certain sexual impulses, but I will not dignify this demonic topic by ever answering a question about it itself.

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).