Appendix I

A Comparison of Paul's Proof of the Existence of God and that of Kant

Note: This essay is rather old and has been superseded by an essay entitled a
Summary of Romans.

Immanuel Kant, 18th century professor of the university in Koenigsberg (Prussia) and one of the greatest and most incisive minds ever exposed in the human race, spent considerable time and expended considerable energy in formulating our understanding of the existence of God.

{include here an essay on Kant's rejection of the traditional proofs of the existence of God, one of which was utilized by Paul, and instead devised his famous moral proof which thorough satisfied him in this regard. Then also show how it is that the proof of Paul, which is called by Kant the physico-theological proof is the most appealing to humans. The gist will be that while Paul's argument is actually faulty, the conclusion is absolutely correct, i.e.,the universal knowledge of the existence and moral demands of God, and that Paul's argument is purposeful in that it is far simpler to understand than Kant's rather unwieldy moral proof.}

Appendix II

A Theory of Atonement Which is Based on Moral Concepts

Kant has developed a rather (and characteristically) ingenious theory of atonment inorder to handle the third of three problems which he sees confronting the Christian doctrine, and which are problem in the context of his moral philosophy.

According to Kant this problem might be expressed about so: before the transformation, the individual is in a state of sin, i.e., heshe follows naturally the principle of self above all. This is not only a state of sin, but of infinite sin, for since the principle of self is the principle of action, and since actions are limited only by the opportunities for expressing the principle, it follows that if the opportunities were limited, then the sin would be unlimited, and the individual is not allow, morally speaking, to appeal to the circumstances as a mitigation for his sinfulness. I.e., imagine two people with the same propensity to sin, and one has great opportunity for actual sin, and the other not at all, and the former sins greatly and in proportionate to his opportunity, and the other not at all, and yet both are equally guilty in a moral court (although certianly not in a legal court).

Now given this propensity for infinite sin, justice would require that there be infinite punishment. And so this punishment cannot be seen as having been applied during the period upto the conversion. And so there is a moral imbalance here.

And yet, after the conversion, the man is just as committed to the good and to righteous acts as heshe was to unrighteous and selfish acts before, and so in a moral court is seen now to be virtuous,* and such that it would be injust to make this person suffer, for the righteous are not to suffer, not in a moral world.

[* One of the characteristics of moral thinking is the elimination of the considration of time. Thus it is the immediate state of the heart which cna be judged as righteous or unrighteous, and not the state of the heart earlier, one way or the other.]

The only point of reconciliation is the actual point of conversion itself. And this is accomplished in this wise: the individual comes to imitate the Christ. Jesus came into the world to sop up the blood of suffering, including that which arises from sin, even though he himself was innocent of any cause of that suffering. Upon conversion then the Christian undertakes to alleviate as much suffering in the world as possible, just like Jesus, but with this difference, namely that some of the blood was either shed by him (and also figuratively speaking, of course) or would have been had the opportunity been available. Therefore the convert is conscious that some of the suffereing that heshe will go through can be viewed as a repayment and recompense for his own sinfulness. And therefore the suffereing which the convert is willing to undergo for the sake of the gospel is viewed by him as a payment also for his own sins conducted in the old state of sinfulness, and this the convert ascents to willingly. in other words, heshe says to himself, "while I will now suffer as a result of taking on the new nature of turning the other cheek and of alleviating suffering, this "extra" suffering that I shall endure in my new nature (where I no longer can take advantage of situastionw for my personal and selfish benefit, but even must give up for the sake of the gospel) I accept now in advance as just due me due tomy own sinfulness."

This means then that the person may not claim any credit for any subsequent good done in accordance with the new disposition and attitude (of transformation), but must ascibe all good to the Son of God, in whose name heshe now functions and lives.

In this way we can see how grace is applied to the sinner, who has no claim on any advantage in any way (due to the infinite sinfullness of his nature), and the result is not a shameful sham (as the antinominalist would have it), but rather a moral rectification and satisfactin. Here then we (in the eyes of Kant) see a reconciliationof mercy and justice.

The point here is that while the claim for justice is [not yet finished].

Appendix III

Paul's Conception of Justification, Salvation and Sanctification

In chapter 5 of Romans, verses 9 and 10, Paul speaks of justification and salvation. While it seems more reasonable to read this as part of his general doctrine of assurance, namely that we are never to fear concerning our relationship with God, it is a good place to try to make clear the Wesleyan Triad which is gleaned from Paul's writings more generally.

With specific reference to the chapter five site, we can see justification (via faith) as a yielding to the love and power and direction of God; and I see salvation as a commitment to cooperate with that love and power and direction, as a fellow worker with Christ. Given that understanding then, and in a more general and a Wesleyan sense, we can speak of prevenient grace as leading us to justification, i.e., to the Abrahamic yielding (nonresistance) to the power of God via his trust of God's word and power. Then saving grace brings us to salvation, i.e., to the point of personal, voluntary commitment to the work of Christ in the world where we enter into the Kingdom of God consciously and deliberately and with forethought and with determination, although not yet with perfection. And then there is the sanctifying grace which carries us on to the perfection of the flesh, the conception of the Righteous Gentile, only now we are thrilled, not because we are perfect, but rather because we see actual evidence, sightings, of God's work in our lives and are buoyed with hope of what is yet to come, i.e., in the after life.*

With this as a preface, it might be beneficial to consider the Wesleyan system as a whole, an attempt at which I give here in these six propositions:

1. It is the clear teaching of Paul, the universally recognized apostle to the Gentiles, that if any man refrain from (or engage in) some activity solely because he thinks it be prohibited (or required) by scriptural law, then that man is a Jew (in a technical sense) and must conform to the entire law of scripture. Hence if a man refuses to engage in murder, for example; or refuses to made a commitment in a possible homosexual relationship solely because of what seems to be a scriptural injunction against such, then that man must send for a Rabbi and seek ritual circumcision, etc. (and this per Galatians generally and also Romans 14 and other passages).

2. This teaching is thoroughly consistent with the characterization of the God-pleasing person on the part of the Lord Jesus (Matthew 7:12), namely: that we are to treat our neighbor as we would want to be treated [and not as Paul or Jesus or even God might want, but as each of us would want.]

3. Further evidence of the human's capacity to make such judgments is given in Genesis 3:22 where God Himself observes that the human is equal to God with regard to the understanding of right and wrong. [It is worth noting that two people might disagree with regard to the understanding of the effects of some action, but need not for that reason be thought to differ with regard to the sincere intention to love their neighbor [see Romans 14:14-23]; the presumption being that the two would unify their actions, per the same Golden Rule, once they have unified their grasp of causes, i.e., in the area of understanding/science, which is a function of experience and experimentation, e.g., in the dispensing of medicine.]

[4. It is only an apparent conflict with this principle that Paul often makes a (Golden-Rule-based) derivation of action which is so plain to him and to his readers that he dispenses with the logic, and simply pronounces the action as though it were original, e.g., murderers have no place in the kingdom of God. But this merely brevity, for he could supply the actual derivation upon demand at anytime, e.g., would you want some one to murder you? etc. Thus the universality of Lord's requirement in Matthew 7:12 is thoroughly honored by Paul, i.e., each person must make his own derivation (from the Golden Rule) and indeed in good conscience (Romans 2:14-16, and 14:22).]

5. Now (as an avowed Wesleyan) I assert (and here I think I remain in the company of the Apostle) that even though we have this divinely asserted capacity to judge right and wrong (at least with regard to our own intentions), we do not naturally have the capacity to conform to our own derived and self-demanded actions of love cheerfully and willingly (for a cost is involved). But since it is impossible to please God (or anyone else for that matter) with a reluctant heart, and since the love-with-abandon that characterizes and is required by the Spirit of Christ (to be pleasing to God) cannot arise naturally, we would be lost except for the fact that Christ died for us as sinners. For if we will simply believe that God loves us [as he showed us with Jesus taking the place of Barabbas, the McVeigh of his day] and be willing voluntarily to open ourselves to his grace (as did Abraham, our spiritual father and model) then God will provide us (albeit only gradually) with the required, eager and willing heart, and we will actually become new creatures not only in mind, but also in the flesh such that we will find it progressively easier and more desirable to love all persons as we love ourselves, i.e., in conformity with the requirements of the Christian faith; that is: we shall begin to love naturally as is required to please God.

6. And finally (to cap what is essentially, I think, a Wesleyan/Franciscan edifice of faith and love) we can easily understand that once we find that we are in fact becoming new creatures, i.e., as we progress toward this greater and easier love (which is called sanctification), we will find ourselves also loving God in responsive and spontaneous conformity with the first of the Two Great Commandments; but now in true freedom; loving God as the one who first loved us, and indeed who pursues us down the byways of our lives and who is never willing to let us go; and whereby then we are able to "cry with joy unspeakable: 'thou are my Lord, my God'."

 

Appendix IV

Romans 1 and Homosexuality

It is appealing to most people (since most people are not homosexual) to read the first chapter of Romans (partly) as a tirade against homosexual behavior. But such a reading is superficial and does not consider Paul's primary point and thus constitutes a severe misreading which spoils the entire effect intended by Paul. I shall see to rectify this thinking and misreading at this time.

By way of preface it will be helpful to consider briefly a widely recognized phenomenon. This will enable us to glean a proper understanding of Paul's thinking, especially with regard to his letter to the Romans. That phenomenon might be called forced homosexual conduct. Now normally no one (certainly not a male) would think that homosexual conduct could be forced*, seeing that the organ of reproduction is an organ of truth and freedom, i.e., it cannot be made to do anything, but at most coxed. What is meant by the term is this: when the normal sexual play of prisoners is made impossible, aberrations and perversions arise. This results in extensive homosexual behavior, but which then abates immediately upon return to the outside world. Thus this is a temporary phenomenon (with these prisoners) and due to extreme deprivation.

[* We are not speaking here of the victims of homosexual rape, but rather of the men who are drawn to force such rape or to otherwise deliberately comply with a desire for sexual relations with other men.]

But a similar effect to this turn to homosexuality can take place in other circumstances besides merely the denial of women. We see this most especially in the situation of the unrestrained excesses of the Roman Emperors, especially Tiberius, Caligula and later Nero. Paul would have been very aware of the antics and horrors of all three, but of the first two at the time of the writing of his letter to the Romans. I submit that it was Tiberius whom he had in mind during the composition of the first chapter of Romans, and with good reason, for Tiberius, as he became more dissipated, sequestered himself on an island in Capri and hired slaves from owners all over the empire and had them living like satyrs in his gardens and woods in order that he might avail himself of them sexually upon the least whim. This penchant arose in this man as he had availed himself of women for so long that there was no more "rise" to them and he needed new material.*

[* By the way, my experience in promiscuous sex is that it is very rare that you would want to have the same person twice in a row. For several reasons.]

I argue, therefore, that Tiberius and also Caligula (who engaged sporadically in homosexual activity) represented for Paul (and perhaps for all thinking people) the epitome of selfish, pleasure seeking, and this merely spilled over into homosexual behavior as a result of having attained satiation in the more normal way. Therefore we can expect to find a similar trail with all people who are unrestrained in their desires and find that as sexual pleasures are enjoyed, they become insipid and further descents are necessary in order to find the valued erection and ejaculation.* Thus Paul was very insightful in realizing the Tiberius (and the leisure class of Rome) was not himself an aberration, but merely the epitome of the general and inevitable thrust of the pleasure-seekers in general, and which was manifested only by virtue of the fact of the possibility of extensive and unrestrained sexual play.

[* This follows for most men, in my experience, with the possible exception of the blind. We begin with masturbation where merely the physical stimulation is sufficient for erection /ejaculation, but then later had need of people and finally of visions in order to obtain the same effect.]

If Tiberius and his ilk represented the pagan, who or what stands in for the non-Christians Jew? Here Paul reveals pure genius (or the touch of God!?); for he saw that the Jew (epitomized by the leaders who consorted with the Romans) did exactly the same thing as their Roman friends, only they did not approve of it publicly (as did the other courtiers of the pagan rich), but rather even condemned it and attended synagogue on Yon Kippur in order to ward off any evil consequences of the God Jehovah. In this way they were able to continue to call themselves holy and sacred, which was of enormous benefit to them in many areas.

Their sin was really this: they lumped Jehovah in the same dish with the mythical gods of the pagan, i.e., as mechanical and not living (= intelligent*). For they actually had come to think that if they were just as evil in their behavior as the Romans, but did not voice that (at least not publicly), but rather continued to rail out against that in the Jewish community and continued to go to Yon Kippur services, then they and their posterity would be able to avoid the curse, and thus they would be able to have their cake (their formal, essential righteousness) and eat it, too (= engage in the sin with the same abandon as the Romans), and this merely by doing their sin on the sly and publicly remain true to the form of the faith.

[* When Adam becomes a living soul this means that he becomes intelligent, while the living body is made possible by the blood.** By means of intelligence god is able to distinguish formalities from realities, e.g., Paul is able to assure the slaves of Rome (in chapter 8 of his letter to citizens of that city) that they need not fear being forced into abominations with the emperor or owner, for God looks at the secrets of the heart and the Holy Spirit cries out to the Father, Abba/Daddy, in a way that is utter truth and beyond verbalization.]

[** An extremely intelligent friend of mine has opted to have blood be merely food for the Jews and thus in the same class as pork and certain others foods as unclean. The reason is that he does not want the blood prohibition of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) to be material, as though it were a sin to eat blood sausages as the Christian Germans do all the time, that being a great delicacy. But he cannot be successful in this, for the OT makes it clear that the blood represents the life of the being, and to take the blood is to try to take the physical soul of that being (in contrast to the living soul = intelligence, which is the breath/spirit). Thus eating blood has nothing at all to do with food, and everything to do with a reincarnation of the physical life of the being. So this was more on the order of vampirism than cuisine, i.e., it was an extreme abomination before God (according to the understanding of the Jews at that time). Thus the restriction against eating blood was not on the order of not eating pork in the presence of the Jews, for this was acceptable to Jews, but not to drink the blood, for that was a horror of horrors and no Jew could witness that without almost vomiting.]

Paul then is expressing clearly the power and majesty of the Living God, i.e., the God who looks to the heart and to the maxims of actions rather than to the actions themselves, and is able to find goodness in pagans and evil in Jews.

We have therefore the two great epitomes: Tiberius (and the pagan world) and the legalist Jew, both of whom reflect the great rational principles of the world: why deny yourself more than you have to? The Romans did not deny themselves any pleasures, nor did their Jewish consorts, and the only difference was that the former bragged about their exploits publicly and applauded those who did such things (1:32) while the Jewish group publicly deplored such actions (2:18) and did the same thing, only secretly.

Neither of these groups is acceptable to God.

Now while my essential focus here is on the question of homosexuality, I will pursue Paul's thinking here in Romans far enough to show his alternative to both of the extremes, the outlaw (Romans) and the legalist (Jew); namely the free Christian, i.e., the man whose heart is not attuned to how much he can get away with as far rather how much he can exemplify the love of God as expressed in Christ Jesus. In this mode the Christian is like the Roman tyrant in that he is beyond law and like the Jew in that he is bound his behavior by a law; namely heshe is beyond all law, Roman of Jewish, and bound only by the law of love which, in its most simple mode, is expressed by the Golden Rule. And so now with the transformed person there is no longer any question of how much can I get away with in my taking as rather: how much can I get away with in my giving? And so the entire law is passe and dispensable, like a wife whose husband has died and who is no longer bound to him in any way.

From here (Romans 7) Paul goes on to explain how the Christian is freed of all fear of sin, even though sinful tendencies remain, for he is now one of the elect, i.e., those who will see God. Etc.

But to return to the point of this essay: the fact is that homosexuality is not more evil in itself than putting a knife into the heart of another person is evil in itself, for if the latter is in the hand of a healing surgeon it is far different than if it is in the hand of a self-aggrandizing murderer. Good and evil are simply not material, and there is no act which characterizes a person as good or evil in itself.*

[* Even Dietrich Bonhoeffer sought to murder Hitler, although, given the circumstances, it was not called murder but rather elimination, much as a mad man who is destroying people and community [Caligula?] is not considered a victim of homicide as rather tyrannicide. So clear is our knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:22) that we are simply not imposed upon by material acts. We can tell the difference and do so without error. It is for this reason that two women can submit to abortion procedures, and one with and the other without sin.]

How then does Paul speak universally to the homosexual? The homosexual, as every person, is to seek in conscience to have his actions always conform to the Golden Rule. There is no other way to please God (see Matthew 7:12, especially the shocking second part of this verse). In this mode then he is to trust God to bring him along the journey which is necessary for him, both with regard to his own salvation and with regard to his instrumentality in the hands of God.

The general logic of this appendix follows in this wise: Paul's recognized Jesus' greatest insight into morality to be the thorough spiritualization of good and evil. Jesus made it clear that it was not any thing or even any action which made a person clean or unclean or holy or unholy, and indeed not even the intension of the heart with regard to any action, but solely the maxim from which all actions of that person ensued. Consistent with this, Paul felt empowered to disregard the material content of the edict of the Council of Jerusalem and instead to substitute the principle from which the edict had ensued, i.e., regard for the sensitivity of all people. Thus even though eating of food offered to idols or the entry of foreign blood into one's body was anathema to the many Jews scattered now throughout the world, Paul saw clearly that the intention of the Council was that of regard to these Jews and not materially important on their own. He makes his clear with regard to idol food later in 1 Corinthians.

Hence, given his outlook of both Jesus and Paul, it follows that it would have been thoroughly inconsistent to maintain the spirituality of good and evil (as the maxim of all actions) and then at the same time to condemn any particular practice, e.g., homosexuality. It is clear that Paul could condemn murder and thievery and gossip and many other practices, but not that they were evil on their own as merely actions, but because they followed from evil maxims, i.e., the willingness and sometimes even eagerness to use others as means to selfish ends. A straight sexual position of any two given people is that which could conceivable result in conception. Anything else may be called deviant. It follows ipso facto that any homosexual position is deviant. But a deviant sexual act is not necessarily an evil act, for that determination is based on the maxim.

An additional consideration: if it were true that deviant behavior were ipso facto an admission of evil, then the

Therefore it would have been inconsistent for Paul to have suggested that any action, per se, were evil, and therefore it would have been inconsistent for Paul to suggest that homosexual action were evil. Therefore there must be another reason, and that, I have suggested, is the epitomizing of the pagan world in the person of Tiberius (and perhaps Caligula who, as seems likely, actually went mad and thought of himself as a god).

Appendix V

An Exchange Between Two Christians Concerning Homosexuality

The subject of homosexuality is perhaps uniquely suitable for an examination of the moral ethic of the Christian faith that I have decided to include here an exchange between two Christians on the subject. This will later be removed and a more formal presentation included. The two friends are myself, PMR, and a former Wesleyan, SR, who is thoroughly enthralled with the doctrine of John Calvin.

PMR to SR: Thanks very much (for your response to my earlier missive).

I have presented a sketch to what I think will surely be the reconciliation of our positions (given that we are intelligent, truth-seeking, Christ-loving) individuals on my home page. It rambles a bit, but not too bad; and it presents both sides of an argument, which I think you will appreciate. You are able to see the development of the argument as well as its final statement at the end (but which will not be too intelligible without undertaking the journey with me through the entire sketch).

http://www.kantwesley.com/Fancivals.html#anchor741770

Otherwise the briefest of comments follow below.

PMR states: 1. [Through Experience] I can see no reason why a confirmed homosexual cannot (eventually and painfully) switch over to heterosexual behavior (even as heterosexual prisoners engage in homosexual behavior while in prison, at least very often). This has now occurred to me even in my day dreams (and that is a shocker to me). So I see no reason to think this is any more impossible than a left-handed person can learn to write with his right hand and eventually become very comfortable with that.

SR replies: So doesn't this substantiate that homosexuality is a *choice*? This is irrelevant to our discussion, but is an increasing part of society's ongoing debate on the issue.

PMR reply: No problem with this really, although I touch on this parenthetically in the aforementioned sketch and would like your considered opinion on my comments. Much of this article will be developed with you and your arguments in mind.

PMR says: 2.[Through Reason and inspection] I can see no moral reason to do so, i.e., to stop oral sex behavior, but at most can interpret the scripture to condemning it if I choose to read scripture in that way; but on my own and on its own I do not see any ipso facto sinfulness about the physical act of oral (or even of anal) sex; and furthermore there is no change in my heart and principle of action from the days of my own homosexuality and the present days of my heterosexuality (I am not speaking of promiscuous behavior, although, if I did, there would also be no difference in the degree of sinfulness).*

[*Now I think in the past you have said that while there is nothing wrong per se with oral/anal sex, nonetheless it is symptomatic of an evil heart. But I ask you further then: how does this information come to you? Have you been told this by others? or do you see a immoral cast or hue to the person when you learn that they like to do this?] Let's at least then agree that the only reason you would think that homosexual behavior is sinful and left-handed behavior is not sinful is because scripture (in your view) has condemned the former and not condemned the latter. I would think that were a consistent position for a confirmed scripture-is-all man to talk.

SR replies: The Bible, taken as a holistic and self-consistent document, accomplishes two things. It sets down principles and then shows how those principles translate into actions. In the meantime, it makes clear that actions are the results of principles.

PMR replies: Keep this your comment in mind as you complete my sketch. For you will see that I do exactly that. I look at the principle of a society which would result in the depravity that Paul deplores in Romans 1. It is not the behavior per se in this case, as rather the principle (the intention or commitment of the heart) which results in such behavior in the more daring of that society, e.g., Tiberius (but whom Paul obviously could not mention without endangering the entire Christian community)*

[*Indeed, why jeopardize salvation for many by getting too focused on the now, especially since Jesus was expected back in the early after noon, or very, very soon?!]

SR comments: There are three fundamental axioms in my opinion (neglecting the meta-axiom of scriptural infallibility). First, God is holy and sovereign. Second, we are to love Him with every fiber of our being. Third, we are to love others in a genuine, selfless way. You have, I submit, a different set of fundamental axioms and therefore reach an alternate set of conclusions.

PMR replies: No problem, of course; only that in a temporal framework we come the opposite, i.e., we ask God to help us love others as we love ourselves, and then when we begin to see that happening, our love for God becomes spontaneous and natural, and that is the only love that is acceptable to God, for the formal stuff is meaningless except merely as an practice. It is only the cheerful heart and not the reluctant heart that can please God.

SR comments: Anyway, the link between actions and principles is an important one to understand. Evil people bring evil out of their hearts and that is the source of their evil ways.

Now, after explaining these axioms, authors of Canon (including Paul) go on to say that sodomizers (let's use the Greek word...) cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This is the same Paul that rejects the obscure parts of Jewish law. Thus the practice of Sodomy must violate the second commandment, just as everything else on Paul's "never do" lists clearly violates it.

So how does it violate the 2nd commandment?

PMR comments: This is the important component. I have just come to realize a procedure here. We could have people challenging us all the time to defend ourselves in terms of the Golden Rule. To avoid this, it is first incumbent upon the challenger to derive the violation from the Golden Rule. Then I am required (through our common allegiance to Christ and the Way) to respond. So this is an excellent approach.

SR comments: I point to the lifestyle of the homosexual. First, these are almost always lonely or depressed people. Even you, Phil, have manic-depressive tendencies. It is this loneliness that forms the basis of their recruitment into the ranks of homosexuals.

PMR comments: OK, but this is not a violation of the Rule, right?

SR continues: Second, before AIDS the community was so promiscuous as to defy description.

Again, that is based on your testimony.

PMR: Very true.

SR continues: AIDS has temporarily slowed it down, but only because of this external influence. Within months of some cure or vaccine for AIDS we both know what the community of gays will return (I say descend) to. This is the point of Romans 1-

2. Homosexuality is an "end-stage" sin because it represents a total surrender to fleshly desires. I should add that the modern Hollywood stereotype of the gay man is therefore completely inaccurate and glamorized.

PMR replies: I have absolutely no argument with any of this. But you have not yet derived a behavior from the Golden Rule which could be called straight and then in contrast to which homosexuality would be seen as the crooked or wrong. right? am I right on this? you speak of promiscuous behavior, and I will grant you that it is easier for promiscuity to expand and tempt the Christian in the homosexual milieu because it is so applauded (like the end of Romans 1), but that is really no more than a condemnation of the bar scene in general, also for the straights, right? I mean promiscuity is wrong on all accounts. That is an easy derivation. But the point is to come to a conclusion that if anyone gladly engages in homosexual behavior that person is also promiscuous and that is not true.

SR continues: We will always have fleshly desires. What separates mature Christians from non-Christians is the response to those desires. To permit homosexuality is to surrender to those desires. It is exactly analogous to permitting an alcoholic to drink heavily, for exactly the same reasons.

PMR comments: I think we might agree to the extent that we could talk about sexual drives in general, i.e., we all have them but some people keep them in check while others give full reign to them. The Marquis de Sade now epitomizes the surrender in the very totality of his being to sexual drive, where there is no inhibition at all from within, but only prudence (read "Essentials of Baptist Thinking" on my web site for a good discussion of prudent behavior) with regard to the police and, of course, the relative wit and strength of the potential prey. De Sade is the real vampire who sucks flesh for the sake of erection and ejaculation. Paul would certainly have utilized his name in Romans 1 if he had known of him.

The nearest equivalent of de Sade was probably Tiberius (and other wealthy, slave-holding Romans) who finally even turned to boys and men to get an erection. If this is ever understood and grasped it makes Romans 1 much easier to understand.

Tiberius and de Sade had this in common: both would do anything to get sexual kicks. Anything! De Sade differed only in that he was an intellectual and a genius and was able to articulate his system to others, while Tiberius was more of a simple jock who wanted to get his rocks off and was given unlimited power.

Another difference, of course for Paul: if de Sade had been known 1800 years earlier, Paul could have safely mentioned his name, but Paul could certainly not trash the emperor in public--the Christian sect had other aims than self destruction (read Romans 13).

What Paul does instead is to speak generally of people whose sexual drives have taken over and bring them down any street to kicks. Even as de Sade and Tiberius went from women to men (although de Sade tended to enjoy women better), even so the Roman society, following the principle of pleasure-for-me-above-all, followed the role of kicks. And since most people grew up straight, it was a matter of emphasis to describe this society as one where the emperor goes in for boys and men, but the important thing is this: the society is so sexual that people go to any extreme for the kicks and even leave their natural inclinations.

But this is not the case of the homosexual (whom I consider as without choice, except in a very narrow sense*), but rather only of the Sadian, the man like de Sade who is willing to do anything at all, including straight, including gay, including inflicting pain, including suffering pain, anything at all that produces an erection and promises ejaculation. And so therefore, in fine, the homosexual is to be compared to the desadian in the same way that drinking wine is to be compared with the wino, and I think the analogy is particularly apt.

[* The choice is of this wise (and I use my own experience): in the gay period I insisted that my happiness be based on obtaining the company of men and boys; then I gave up that restriction and asked God to make me happy in any way that he chose. He chose to give me Yasuko. And for this I cannot praise his name sufficiently. But this is far different from being able to chose what image will make your cock rise. This you cannot do, as I challenge you now to make it happen. The most that can be done is a choice as to be receptive to other things and therefore not to dismiss certain people too early (as I dismissed ALL women) and rather to get unsexual, as it were, and to allow things to develop in accordance with another spirit besides that of: give me men only (or also: give me women only).]

I think the argument is fairly complete now and I need to draw it out formally. It is clear to me that no deduction of straight behavior is possible from the Golden Rule, and so that there is no reason for any Christian to think that he must derive his own homosexual behavior from that same rule, any more than he might feel necessitated to derive his use of a Macintosh computer from the Golden rule, i.e., it is essentially non-moral. The language of Paul (in Romans 1) can be shown to be circumspect and directed toward the upper echelons on Romans society, particularly Tiberius and Caligula.

The icing on the cake, in my opinion, will be this: Jesus' absolute prohibition on divorce suggests a community (of two [at least in this case]) which embodies the one-flesh of the Garden of Eden (which is a very clear suggestion given the Matthew language of Jesus' rebuke of Moses on divorce [19:3-9]) and which is absolutely incompatible with divorce. You cannot have a one-flesh mentality and a one-flesh environment, i.e., compete openness, with the threat, or even the possibility, of divorce.

Now this is awesome majesty of the commitment of marriage, that it is forever, incorporates the Trinity in that the Holy Spirit is the third member of every such grouping. And this "little trinity" is the diametric opposite of the system of de Sade and Tiberius and Caligula where commitment is a nonsense word and absurd, for all that counts is erection and ejaculation. Therefore the proper contrast is not homosexual versus Christ, but de Sade versus Christ, and de Sade went for the boys only rarely, being primarily turned on to women, but the point is: he would go ANYWHERE that promised an erection (his own).*

[* I was turned on to this solution to the Romans 1 "problem" by the recent A&E series on "Men Acting Madly" which featured de Sade, Caligula, Nero and some others. But, in my opinion, de Sade was the epitome of the Prince of this World, and who is followed by many straights and gays alike. To be a Sadian really means to be bisexual and willing to bed animals and watermelons (I knew a fellow who, when a boy, would make a hole in, and then "screw", hot watermelons) and anything else that was inviting and promising in this regard. It is the diametrical opposite of the commitment of Christ, of the Golden Rule, of everything decent in life--but it has nothing to do with homosexuality per se anymore than it does with left-handedness.]

And so the matter has nothing at all to do with homosexuality at all, and everything to do with the destruction of the commitment.

I think that for you to win an argument against the homosexuals, it will be necessary for you to derive straight behavior from the Golden Rule. And this I do not think that you can do.

The alternative is to go to this more reasonable stance and realize that Paul was speaking out against the principle of the Prince of this World (de Sade) and contrasting that principle with the heart of Christ where the commitment is everything, and indeed so much so that he, the king of the Jews, gave up his own life in order to keep the least worthy of all Jews, i.e., Barabbas, from being turned over to the Romans.

By the way, just for your information. I have noticed that my day dreams nowadays are entirely of women, or rather of certain women, and these have resulted in erections so much so that my sexual life (never with any other person than my wife) are much more satisfying now than they were in my hey day with the boys. My salvation came, if you wish to use that term as a straight, when I quit insisting that my happiness be based on men, but rather left it entirely up to God. It was a long way, but it has finally come to this. [But read my footnote above on choice before expecting people to make this sort of transition easily--it is more like learning to write with your other hand--that is also a choice, right?]

I hope family is well and that the job is well.

I remain your curious, loving brother in the faith, and always with

Best Regards,

PS. Your complaints about promiscuous homosexual behavior are extremely valid. And I am in one hundred and ten percent agreement. Don't misunderstand me at all! I am merely questioning your capacity to make Paul read as though the physical act of oral sex or anal sex, as nauseating as that might sound or look to us otherwise, were indicative, without exception, of a depraved heart. If you do that, you eliminate the adequacy of the Golden Rule and make Jesus come across as a loose talker.

PPS I think I am pretty much on the right road now with all this, for it promises a pervasive unity to the scriptures and one that is entirely compatible with the inner witness that Paul (Romans 8) and Wesley stressed and which is the key to the promise of the entire Christian faith. You got me started by telling me to look for the moral absolutes of the scripture which I found in the Golden Rule and in Jesus' prohibition of divorce. Praise be to God and thanks to you--the Christian faith will be a bit clearer now as a result, I would think. And certainly better able to withstand the coming onslaught of the Islamics (the subject of another dissertation that I will be working on soon, I hope)*.

[* As a merely preliminary comment on this forth coming work: the Islamics make much of the rambling nature of the two older books (as I suppose they refer to them), what we call the Old and New Testaments. They maintain that God cannot have spoken to man in such confusing and rambling ways and that therefore the true words of Jesus and the "other prophets" were distorted by editors. In order to rectify this once and for all (they continue) Mohammed's tongue was taken over by an angel and he spoke precisely what God wanted and scribes noted these words as they were utter; and so there is finally no room for error.--But then all of this Islamic attack comes to naught once we are able to show the unique and very clear and very simple utterance of Jesus in the Golden Rule. But to show this we must remove any a priori certification of an evil heart and instead turn to every alleged Christian and require a derivation of suspect behavior** from this Golden Rule and consider it with intelligence and understanding. At this moment all other faiths collapse before the moral supremacy of the Christian faith.]

[** But then, as a procedural matter, it is necessary for the suspect behavior itself to be contrasted with a correct behavior which is derived from the Golden Rule, remembering to keep in mind that all derivations are based on a particular understanding of what is medicine and what is poison. This is necessary in order that Christians not be badgered by malcontents who want even left-handed conduct justified, but without wanting to engage in a like justification of right-handed behavior.]

PPPS. As a (hopefully) final note, I wish to reiterate that your array of principles is quite valid, namely that God is Holy and Sovereign, He is to be loved with our total being, and that we are to love each other in a selfless way. I have stressed the Golden Rule to the apparent neglect of the first two for this reason only (and I am indebted to Luther in his preface to Romans for this): God is pleased only with a cheerful heart, and so the praise that accrues to him must be of a spontaneous and natural sort, and so while we will indeed engage in formal worship in anticipation of the spontaneous adoration which is promised to those who come to God in faith, this acceptable adoration arises only when we discover that we are beginning to love our neighbor as we do ourselves, which, since it is such an incredible and unnatural miracle, throws our demeanor into confusion and we shout our loving praising of him who love us first. He is indeed Holy and will accept no other praise (except, as cited, merely in faith and in anticipation of the true worship).