Discussions Relating to Universal Reconciliation > Discussions on Universal Salvation

Homosexuality Variously Considered By Some Calling Themselves Christian

(1/10) > >>

Today it occured to me that we might be well adviced reading the New Testament in the way the early christians read the Old Testament. With that I mean, the early christians read the Old Testament as being prophetic about Jesus and Jesus' truths. They took verses about which the ancient jews thought entirely differently than these early christians thought. For example, the psalms which were seen as prayer books originally, now suddenly were prophecies about Jesus. This point of view allowed for a theology of ongoing revelation and that God could change our perception through His interventions in our lives, particularly through what Jesus did.

Now my thought is, perhaps we need to think of ourselves as being in a situation similar to the jews that lived in the time when the biblical texts were written first. We treat the bible as being written in stone and that we know what the writings mean, but isn't it possible that there are prophetic kernels in the New Testament that we are missing entirely?

I want to give an example ... the Psalms. David wrote this psalm where it says, "And the Lord said to my Lord". Did the ancient jews have any idea of God having a son? It doesn't seem so. I don't know about David personally as He must have had a vision or something that may have given him special knowledge. But the jews at large had no idea bout God having a son. And it was only Jesus who much later on said, hey guys, this is about the Son of David, and that Son of David is me.

I think that in the same way the New Testament might contain bits and pieces that we don't understand because we're caught in our own religious systems, much like the jews were in their own religious systems.

As an example of the New Testament, take Romans 1:18-32 .

Objectively speaking, this text doesn't make too much sense. The Romans and Greeks of Paul's time really didn't know Yahweh or Jesus very well, as far as I know. There were some educated people who may have read the bible and there were the curiosity seekers who shopped at the market of religions, but most people had no idea about God. Yet Paul speaks about how these people forsook Yahweh against better knowledge.

This is something which doesn't ring true at the first reading. It is also invalidated by what christian missionaries found in the americas - the american indians on Cuba didn't even have a word for God when the spanish talked with them. They really had no idea about God, and that's why we can't say they willfully rejected Him.

So what we must do is looking for another inspiration, and we need for that the Holy Spirit. Once we do that we are reminded to Apostle John's famous statement that "GOD IS LOVE". So everything that has to do with God, has to do with love in some way, which is also why Jesus remarked that the love commandments are the greatest commandments of the law. Now that is something where I think it applies to everyone of us. Really all of us have at some point forsaken love, and we have rejected doing the loving thing over the unloving thing. Voila, Paul makes sense again.

I hope I haven't confused anyone with this exercise. I wanted to show how the bible is incomplete if we just take the first understanding, the meaning of the letter and word, over the spiritual meaning. The bible is often as unclear to us as the OT prophecies about Jesus were to the jews that lived in the early times before Jesus had actually come and preached. That is also the reason why we have the Eternal Torment theology. People take parts of the NT at face value and do not seek for the spiritual meaning. And by this we forsake the faith progress that we should have been making, and faith progress is what I see in Paul who remarked that he would want the church to move forward and who wrote that he himself was stretching out himself to what lies ahead and forget what was behind.

There are so many implications of seeking the spiritual meaning of a verse. Let's take the part of Romans 1 again. If we take it at face value, what we have here is an assault on homosexuals who are lumped together with criminals and really ALL kinds of sinfulness is attributed to them. But if we remove the first concept of everyone having known God personally, and if we replace that with everyone having known what love is once, then we arrive at something else. We arrive at people having forsaken love, and that this forsaking love has led to all the sinfulness Paul writes about, not the homosexuality of some people.

I hope I was able to shed some light on these things for you. May we unveil many secrets of the bible so that the concept of Apokastasis returns to us and that we may live in the full truth of the God who is love and of His Shepherd King Jesus who is the inborn Son of our God and who shares in God's divinity.

Oh anti_nietzsche, my mind and heart ache for you.  May God shine His truth, His peace, His mercy, His grace, His love on your mind and in your heart.

God never condemned one man loving another...He condemned LUST OF THE FLESH.....

   God made male and female..for He was seeking righteous offspring...even nature/natural creation

  bears wittness that righteous progency does not come from such un-natural acts.

   He says men are without excuse..for the creation bears wittness to it.

   Listen,I have no problem with any man bound in any such way...we all have things[nothing good that dwells

  in our flesh] we need delivered from.  the problem,as far as I can see is the trying to justify it in the name of love

   Love and lust are not the same spirit  Hebrews 13;4  Marriage should be honored by all,and the marriage bed

  kept pure,for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral

   Holy union brings forth righteous offspring..it is not barren.  Lust does not bear righteous offspring ,.

whether it be lust for power,greed money of all types....immorality...

  Look how David and Jonathan loved one another...but lust was not involved in it..Jonathan in love for

 David did not lust for the throne of Saul.   Look!!! David lay with Bathsheba/lust fruit of that union died

as did Uriah............

  people need to discern the spirit of LOVE from LUST.

   the spirit of love is the wife of your youth.....the spirit of lust is the spirit of Babylon...think back to your

childhood..before lust was stirred up in the flesh...think of your mindset then..of the joy of being alive

 and the whole creation of the earth was yours to behold..remeber a time when sex never entered your mind..

 or stealing a piece of candy was foreign to you..whenafter your bath you felt so clean and fresh

   Mt 18;2,3  He called a little child and had him stand among them,and He said 'I TELL YOU THE TRUTH





Anti -
I think what you are/were saying in a roundabout way is that the bluntness of the scriptures lumping homosexuality with other sinners bothers you. I think it's pretty clear. Thank God they (homosexuals) won't be sent to eternal torture like ET christians say they will be. I Doubt there will be sexuality in the next age so it won't matter then anyway. Jesus gave up having a sex life for us. Is it possible to give up a sex life for Jesus?

Sheila, so what you are saying is that homosexuals have no love in them? That they only know lust? That is a very bold statement and it's not correct, just read the testimonies.

There is a way of practicing homosexuality that is lust driven - when it is promiscuous, when men simply decide to go with a guy when they had been married, even when it was a good marriage. That is wrong. But if a man during puberty or even earlier discovers how women don't interest him sexually, and therefor he can only love another man romantically, what now? This has nothing to do with sinful lusts but instead it is a normal expression of romantic interest including the sexual component.

Paul goes on and says that in these men and women he described there were all kinds of malice and wickedness. Again, this does in no way describe all homosexual people. To think so is a really grave error. But it was true of the roman patricians of Paul's day, when emperors like Caligula or Nero ruled and were known for terrible debasement and depravity. They really committed perversion, for example they used burning christians as torches for the imperial palace, Caligula married a horse and Nero emasculated a young boy so he could marry him in memory of the wife he had murdered just some years prior.

That IS perversion. But to say this applies to ALL homosexuals is just slander and error. I think that much is obvious.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version