Journal of March 22, 2005

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 4:30 PM For the promotion of Christian chastity among the youth of the White County.

Listen, Christian youth. A person, and I speak mainly as a man, cannot be himself unless he can juggle and do two things at once: he must be able to act as though he were alone, i.e., in utter abandon, and at the same time he must be with others. This contradiction of our society is reconciled in the marriage, for in the marriage the two become one flesh and they can be perfectly free in the presence of each other, for they are together only one.*

[* Now for this reason also the notion of divorce is nonsense in Christian circles, for it, just as an idea, removes the utter trust that must exist in order for this total liberation within this company of two can occur. The thought that my spouse and I might even possibly be no longer one but two, and even then two in antagonism with each other, i.e., as enemies, would necessarily restrict my willingness to become one flesh with another human, i.e., to share my consciousness with another two shares equally with me, so that what is thought, is spoken. In a word, it is no wonder that our Lord spoke shamefully of a society which condoned divorce. According to Paul a Christian married to a pagan was not to desert that marriage, unless forced to. It defeats the very purpose of the marriage in the first place.]

Now further, a vow to be faithful for life is really no better than the capacity of the person making that vow to be competent or worthy to make a vow of any kind. Has he already “slain some dragon” to show his mettle, and his capacity? Or is he untried and merely hopeful?

The disciples of the Lord (as the Council of Jerusalem), empowered by him to make whatever rules they wished for the human race, gave utter freedom to all gentile followers of the Lord with this reminder of the importance of the marriage as a representation of the relationship between any “two or three” that included him, i.e., it is categorical and imperial in its command. We were told to prepare ourselves for that relationship with Christ and with another person in Christ in the following way: we are to subdue the flesh for the sake of Christ and present it to him as a sacrifice indicating our willingness to deny the world for his sake. The universal symbol of the gentile Christian is his steadfast refusal to have sex with another person until he is joined in Christian union, and that this restraint is his “dragon” that he lays at the feet of the person to whom he wishes to promise faithfulness; a tried knight, one who has already met the test. It says: “look, I am worthy to make this vow.” In so many word: "If you cannot be faithful to Christ in the dedication of your body to him, how can you be faithful to me (the other person speaking) in the dedication of your body to me.”

This dedication to chastity on the part of every gentile Christian, apart from marriage, is the circumcision of the flesh which is entirely spiritual and compelled upon the body by the spirit which is dedicated to Christ.

By the way, the benefits are also practical, for the youth will find that if they can try to ignore all that the cultural declares to be the norms for sexual encounters, they will find that in the company of their mate in marriage that the two of them will make all sorts of explorations together and will come to discover that which makes them blossom in their fullest with each other. They will not be crippled by what is purported to be the sexual blossoming of all people, but which may easily not be. The fewer the expectations of what sex is all about, the fewer the inhibitions of two lovers. They will figure things out best on their own without external stipulations.

This is valid for all Christian youth. However, given the sad state of the modern Church, the homosexual is without a recourse to a lifetime of chastity as long as the laws discriminate against him, as though we required all legal signatures to be performed only with the right hand (unless you simply didn’t have one), and counted this a treasured heirloom from our enlightened forefathers. Therefore, without the least hope, we should not be surprised to see the Christian homosexual turn to premarital sex.

All the thinking youth will demand fairness: what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Concerning same-sex sex, the Council of Jerusalem had the opportunity to address this and myriads of other restrictions but other than the admonishment to be courteous to the Jews,* but chose to make no other rule. At first glance that certainly seems odd. Paul informs us this is because the assumption is that we are followers of the Lord Jesus, i.e., the council is speaking to Christians, and so who therefore, ipso facto, wish to love God beyond compare, neighbor as self, and fellow Christian more than self. Paul suggests that nothing more was required because nothing more was needed, for all good would arise from these three loves when Christians would join with each other, or even with others of a kindred spirit, to do good in the world, e.g., have all people drive on the right side of the highway.

[* Expressed as: no idol food, no blood food and no strangled food, and which Paul explained in this letters.]

But this means that every Christian will answer to Christ according to his own, sincere understanding of how one can best love, sort of like discerning what is a medicine and what is a poison in order to know more precisely how to help another person. This is the clear teaching of Romans 14, perhaps the most important chapter in all the New Testament for different Christians getting along. Each will answer on his on.

Now since a prohibition of same-sex sex cannot be derived from the three loves, which are the steady and sufficient guide of every Christian per Romans 13 & 14, it follows that it is not forbidden. For the Council of Jerusalem has spoken very clearly with authority that is very clearly established. They did not prohibit murder, or same-sex sex, or left handed behavior or anything at all,* because they knew any needful prohibition would arise through a Christian’s thinking and reasoning, e.g., a prohibition of murder.

[* Only the reader familiar to some extent with Kant can appreciate the keen sighted perception of this genius. He observed, in an incidental sort of way, that the gentile Christian were not only not subject to the laws of the old faith, but “indeed not to any at all.” This is in his Religion Within The Bounds Of Reason Alone.]

Therefore it follows that as soon as possible the gentile Christian Congregation is to be reestablished and appropriate accommodations be instituted such that it is possible for marriage be between two grown people, whose genes are not such that birth defects is a likely outcome, or in that case that they can prove that children are impossible. Then will equality settle on the land and then the gentile Christian can breath a sigh of relief.

I think it might be advisable to permit the youth sexual like contact, but no actually sexual contact, the latter being the penetration of a penis into the body of the other person. All else might be fair play for those wanting to explore themselves sexually together. But this will always be restrained because the guarantee of the marriage is not there, and with it the sanctity of the shared “secrets.” That has to be worked out.

5:42 PM How I yearn for the day of the reestablishment of the gentile Congregation. The Church has been present since Christ, but while at first it was a Jewish congregation by itself, it then became one church with two congregations, the gentile and the Jewish, and then it was left with one, the gentile, but which became corrupted through laws and priests and rituals and became Jewish in spirit, and it is this congregation today which constitutes the Church. It is time for the gentile Congregation (gentile in spirit) to arise and claim its rightful place in the one church of Christ.

Once this is done and the homosexual finally accepted as no less a good being than a left handed person, then we can make mince meat of Islam in quick order. The reason why is simple: we can show that the NT prohibitions of same-sex sex are the result of the sincere understanding of an inspired man, and without harm to our texts, for they are “merely” inspired. With Islam this is quite different, for here we are dealing with a dictation where it is clear that same-sex sex is out. And we all would have to ask ourselves, why would God do anything so silly as to say that same-sex sex were wrong? There might be times when lots of children were needed, and then you might call it wrong as a dereliction of duty in using sexual energy for the good of the community in this time of extreme need. But otherwise, if marriages could be made of homosexuals, then this would be an ideal way for two people to share unrestrained intimacy without the least worry that any children would develop. Talk about intelligent and pratical--and especially if homosexuality were a choice! And so in the eyes of the world Allah will appear as silly, and since that is not divine-like, the Muslim will be encouraged to look elsewhere for truth. The Christians can look at the Muslims and smile and shake their heads and tell them that they have missed the great gift of God,* namely the homosexual to an overcrowded world. So far is it from being wrong, it is a blessing calling for thanksgiving.

[* Indeed like many Chistians they have sought to destroy homosexuality.]

We have Paul to thank for this understanding, for he saw the gentile Christian as the new Adam in Christ (for the flesh is seldom willing), and realized that all that was needed was a sharing of information and science and then of working together, each in his own condition and according to his own capacity, to make the world a fit place for the Son of God to dwell in, i.e., he could be born anywhere, and he would be rightly treated.