Is God Asexual?

[Davey]

No.

2012 Mod Edit: The above link doesn't work anymore, but the content can be found here. For future reference:

Is God Asexual?

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22:30)

"They have obscured God's duality, gender, and proper name, but that's not all. What else have they tried to write out of the Holy Writ?" We will look for the answer to that question here.

If we were created after God's likeness, as He suggested to the one whose femininity would complete the divine image in Gen. 1:26, then our sexuality would be convincing evidence of God's, wouldn't it? Remember that "likeness" suggests a state or quality of being like, rather than simply looking like. Would a loving and rational God create the most intense pleasure on earth then expect His Children to find it distasteful and disgusting? Gen. 1:31 says, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good." There is no Scriptural authority for the false prophets' assertions or the widely held assumption that God is asexual. They refer to Mt. 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Why the assumption that angels are asexual? Jesus is not referring to sex here, but marriage.

The false prophets should have learned by now that absence of marriage does not preclude sexual union, even if they dare not say it above a whisper. Clearly God created us sexual beings, male and female, after His/Her likeness. We are like them; we are sexual; so the logical corollary is they are sexual. Gen. 1:26-27 reveals God's duality, plurality (Gen. 2:24), and sexuality; and if that's too vague, He also gave us the beautiful Song of Solomon, wherein three times He equates His love with sexuality, though granted it is only one aspect of God's love: Song 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4. Also noteworthy is Rev. 4:11 "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Note the Spirit says "all things." The wise will not try to defy God and disprove the obvious by substituting legislated ignorance for informed discretion.

Jesus' reference to the resurrection in Mt. 22:30 is not from physical, but spiritual death (or stupor), resulting from ignorance, disobedience, etc., some from being deceived. Mt. 22:31-32 makes it clear that Jesus was not speaking of physical death; because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all physically dead at that time; yet, He referred to them as living. "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." What exactly then did He mean by "living"? Certainly not what the hypocrites call living, which is based on lies.

Let's face it! God's Children are in a spiritual stupor and need awakening. Revelation uses trumpet symbology to represent a jarring announcement. In prophetic symbolism, trumpet usually refers to a loud voice or proclamation, as to alert, even alarm. Rev. 4:1 says, "and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me.;" Rev. 10:7 "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." Rev. 11:15 "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." Well, those days are near! And the truth will jar God's Children from stupor.

In Mt. 22:30, Jesus is referring to freedom from the marriage bond-age that locks some of God's Children into dreadful living hells. In the spiritual resurrection we will know the truth that makes us free. Free to enjoy all of God's gifts without the physical bonds of man-sanctioned marriage, when we would rather be free. We don't need some self-glorified preacher or other human being to authorize a God-ordained union between people in love. We are restricted by civil laws now imposed by governments influenced by the apostate churches that want to control everything we think, say, or do. They should wise up and listen to reason; i.e., God's Word with logical interpretation, not myths twisted to align with the false prophets' self-serving agenda. Loving because we want to is what makes life heaven, not going through the motions because false doctrine or civil law requires it.

If you want to be married fine; but it is not prerequisite to enjoying God's blessings of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." God's Children are not required to remain in abusive relationships. Do you want to be free? I'm not condemning marriage. It is fine for those who like it and for whom it works; but how many people marry for sexual gratification, because they are barred from it outside of "legal" marriage, realizing their mistake only after the hunger is quenched? It's possible to love someone and still not want to be bound together for life. All too often being bound together makes enemies out of friends. In the spiritual resurrection they can have the intimacy they want and need, with discretion of course, and still be free.

John 8:31-32 "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Free, of course, from false teachings. The false prophets say Jesus is referring to freedom from sin, but that is not the whole story. I realize that He says in verse 34 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." Indeed, continuing in (learning and practicing) God's Word results in freedom from sin. We need to realize that our sin results in wonderful truths being hidden from us. See Rev. 2:17, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches (to the called out ones); To him (anyone) that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna." Manna represents the spiritual food sent down from heaven (God's Word). So what then is "the hidden manna"? Of course it symbolically represents mysteries hidden in God's Word.

Others' sins can contribute to our not knowing the truth, as well - the blind leading the blind - and especially those who are trying to conceal the truth from us. Let us pray for God's help to know the truth. Let us try to do God's will so He can keep His promises to us. Regardless of what the apostate church and false prophets are telling us, the promises of God are conditional on our faithfulness (obedience) to God. And remember, as I told you before, that treating our fellowman with love fulfills God's law. The truth will make us free from the self-serving lies and unsupported distortions of God's Word. God is revealing the truth to us. Let us listen. Jesus was saying that the truth would make the Jews who believed free from the deceptive and useless temple ritual practices of Judaism, and laws as the one in Num. 15:32-36 that makes picking up sticks on Saturday a capital offense. The congregation carried out that unjust death sentence with a barbaric public stoning. The truth will free us Christians from the ritualism, tokenism, and deceptions of the churches that have refused to hear and teach the truth; or have chosen not to hear it for expediency.

By false prophets, I mean both ancient and contemporary. I am not aware of any today who don't compromise and improvise. If they are not phony, they are misled and need to get on track. If they do not, the Scriptures tell us that they will perish. Some may give me hell, but it won't be the first time; though maybe in greater number and on a broader scale. Like them, I cannot always point to concrete, unquestionable biblical authority to fully support and simplify all of my conclusions. Sometimes we need to extrapolate logically from the best rational evidence. At the very least, when we don't have concrete evidence to rely on, let's base our conclusions on logical assumption; rather than use the absence of proof as occasion to fantasize and mystify beyond reason.

Rev. 12:15 says, "And the serpent (Satan and his agents) cast out of his mouth water (words) as a flood (in great abundance) after the woman (true church or spiritual Israel), that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood (of deception)." Water here means words. Eph. 5:26 "That he (Christ) might sanctify and cleanse it (the church) with the washing of water by the word." Out of Satan's mouth has come a flood of deceptive words, page after page for thousands of years, flowing ever more rapidly out of the false prophets' mouths, flooding and enslaving the whole world with their self-serving deceit. 2 Cor. 11:14-15 "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers (false teachers, preachers, evangelists) also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

This humble little attempt to expound some Biblical mystery can hardly be likened to a flood, rather more like a lone voice in a global wilderness, as John the Baptist's words that fell on deaf (spiritually deaf) ears, a small trickle of truth and reason in a flood of deception and self-serving lies. What Jesus Christ stressed above all else was love and truth.

See what Simeon said in his prophecy to Jesus' mother in Lk. 2:34-35, "Behold, this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." The parenthesis breaks the continuity here, obscuring the main point. Let's try it without the parenthesis, "Behold, this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against ... that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." Are we concealing our true thoughts for fear that revealing or acknowledging them might result in alienation? Should we lie in order to be accepted by hypocrites? Should we pretend to be something we're not, to believe things we don't, or to not believe things we do, in order to fit in with others who are likewise slaves of hypocrisy? Not God's Children! Denying how we are, what we are, think, or feel, doesn't make us Christians; it makes us liars. Are our lost friends worth forfeiting eternal heaven for? Scripture says that is what will happen if we don't repent.

Rather than deny or be ashamed of our sexuality and try to steer others away from it, we should learn responsible ways to manage it and be thankful for it; not slam it back in God's face as something shameful and disgusting; in effect spurning His gift of sacred sexual love. Repression of sexual desire by normal, healthy people is impossible without serious adverse side effects. Some even end up in mental institutions as a result. Oh yes, we can deny its normal, healthy, and harmless God-intended expression, but then it will emerge in the form of tension, irritability, anger, aggression, rage, murder, rape, child molestation, and possibly even wars. Poignantly and seemingly prophetic, the narrator of a TV documentary on Hitler's life noted the sexual hunger in Hitler's eyes.

How often are sexual perversions a result of restrictions on normal sexual behavior? Hungry people often resort to eating things they would otherwise consider disgusting, and would almost rather die than eat. And why? Because not having what one needs results in despair. The psychiatric profession (with maybe a few exceptions) doesn't mind people thinking sexuality is a mental illness. They are happy to prescribe drugs that destroy people's sex drive for an exorbitant fee. I respectfully ask the few exceptions who do not fit into this category to please not be offended; as well as to lend your acquired knowledge to the truth.

Many people are artificially treated, at considerable expense, for stress related loneliness, depression, anxiety, irritability, etc., when the best medicine would be God's form of stress relief - the normal healing qualities of harmless sexuality. Sexual repression is a boon for drug companies and doctors. Of course there are exceptions, but many sex offenders are the products of a flawed system. That doesn't make them innocent; but it makes those who deceive them into shame and repression of the healthy and harmless at least equally as guilty. We should stop shaming people for being normal, as God created them, and depriving them of harmless forms of needed sexual relief. They are not mentally ill in most cases; though judgment impaired and unnecessarily hungry because of silly legally sanctioned deprivation of totally harmless and normal alternatives. They are not created in a day; they are products of a lifetime of misinformation.

As hungry people steal food, so those who are deprived of a normal, natural, and healthy outlet for pent-up sexual tension are certainly far more likely to commit sex crimes. The abstinence thing has not, does not, and will not work. Sex is as natural as breathing, and as necessary for good emotional health. Abstinence can even cause physical problems. The Levitical priesthood made menstruation a sin for personal gain. It's no wonder that some exploit normal human sexuality; and sexual repression helps create business for the sex trade. Just who is it that the churches are trying to help here? Sex is used to sell almost everything today. There are many people in mental institutions today (making doctors and drug companies rich) because false teaching induced sexual repression has robbed them of the natural and free stress relief God created sex for and has resulted in would have been easily preventable psychoses, etc.

Would you rather a sex hungry person get harmless sexual relief from a movie or magazine in a private setting or by raping you or your child after waiting until something triggers a pent up sexual urge (actually a need) to strong to resist? Which would God prefer? Which would any rational person prefer? Which would Satan prefer? While some attribute sex crimes to "pornography" and make a big deal out of some known offenders having collections of pornographic materials in their homes, they neglect to tell us how many of them also had Bibles in their homes. And why, considering that the false Christian churches' misrepresentation of Scripture is, in fact, more responsible for sexual repression and resulting perversion than any other single cause on earth? Ashamed to indulge in the safer methods for sexual release, when the hunger they are made to feel is abnormal, and are programmed to deny, becomes stronger than their inhibitions and better judgment, they compromise and improvise, all too often at the immeasurable expense of precious and innocent human life. Denying God-created sexual beings the safer and more practical alternatives defies common sense.

Why don't the false teachers just give over their own daughters to keep people away from harmless photos and movies, as lot did in Gen. 19:8 to protect his male visitors from being touched by other males? "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof." Pretty cool, huh? As if his daughters were expendable pieces of trash, unworthy of their father's protection. Is it more in keeping with God's will to afford protection to a strange male than one's own young, dependant, daughters? I simply can't think of an adjective strong enough to describe such absurdity!

Then there's Judges 19:24, where the man gave his daughter and the traveler his concubine to be abused all night to death? "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden (virgin), and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing." If we believe that is God's will, we are all perverted! A good Christian (or any human with a heart) would go to hell rather than hand over his/her daughter to be abused (or a man his woman) to protect strange men from a sex act that is at worst offensive to some. "Oh no, don't touch that! Here, abuse my helpless daughter, for God's sake!"

How very sad indeed Judges 19:25-27! After her long and agonizing night of slow death, mental images of the pitiful abused woman falling at the doorstep are heart-rending. One can but wonder if she was too considerate or too afraid to disturb her master, who heartlessly slept on the other side of the door, not rising from sleep until morning. Verse 27 "And her lord rose up in the morning." How can you read it and not weep? Any suggestion that God prefers such barbarous betrayal of a helpless child or woman to a homosexual act is worse than reprehensible; it's sub-sewer garbage. At the end of that chapter are the words, "consider it, take advice, and speak your minds." I have tried to do that with consideration for the ones who deserved it in this prime example of ungodly and inhumane sacrificing the innocent to preserve the guilty, and then trying to justify it as the lesser of two evils.

Wouldn't it be wiser to encourage potential rapists and child molesters to slake their pent up sexual desires the safe and harmless way, rather than subject them to public shame and condemnation for it? Aside from the other dangers, how many STD's, unwanted pregnancies, and needless abortions could be avoided if we didn't attach shameful stigma and condemnation to masturbation, sex education, and birth control? So many young people succumb to natural urges too powerful to ignore in moments of strong desire because they are made to feel that harmless self-stimulation is sexual immorality. Stimulation that could slake those urges, at least temporarily, in anticipation of a weak moment. We need to rationalize our priorities. We could lower the number of deranged adults by not shaming children for being normal from birth.

There is absolutely no biblical prohibition of masturbation, though some religions teach that the result is eternity in a fiery hell. Sure the Bible warns against sexual immorality, but by whose definition of immorality? Certainly not that of the prudes or liars who are ashamed to admit their own sexuality and want to impose their perverted views on others; nor the hypocritical post-Biblical re-definition of sexual immorality. Most often God's use of the words adultery, sexual immorality, fornication, etc., refers to the worship of other gods. Likewise, His references to prostitutes or harlots usually refer to the temple prostitutes of Pagan temples who participated in sex acts in ritual worship of other gods. His concern was that they were worshipping other gods; i.e., committing adultery or being unfaithful to Him.

Without marriage (of at least one partner) there is no earthly marital adultery. And regarding extramarital sex, with spousal approval it is not unfaithfulness and therefore not adultery. Jesus favored harlots or prostitutes, as we understand the definition, above the chief priests and elders (counterparts of our present hypocritical religious leaders). And why wouldn't allowing someone the services of a prostitute be preferable to having your sons and daughters abducted, sexually abused, tortured and often even killed? He said in Mt. 21:31-32 "Verily I say unto you, That the publicans (tax collectors) and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you..."

You've likely heard the so-called "Biblical" quote, "It's better to put your seed in the belly of a whore than spread them on the ground." Well, it's not Biblical. A combination of things probably led to the ridiculous false teaching. Judah chose Tamar to wife his son Er. Here is what happened. Gen. 38:6-10 "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also." Tamar was referred to as a "whore," (in the false biblical quote), of course, because she later (guised as a harlot) prostituted herself to hypocritical Judah (apparently to expose him), who impregnated her with twins (Gen. 38:12-27).

However, Onan spilling his seed on the ground was not what purportedly displeased the Lord, but that he had not fulfilled the Levirate Marriage rite; according to which, if an Israelite died without leaving a male heir, his nearest relative was to conceive with his widow and produce a male offspring who would be the deceased brother's heir. Silly actually, as in no way would a child conceived with a deceased person's widow and his surviving brother be his own. God is not silly. So, to whom then shall we attribute the Levirate Marriage Rite? I would say to the same ones responsible for the Levitical priesthood's exploitation of women in Levi. 12:1-8, whose flawed reasoning we should not accept as the last word on morality, humanitarianism, sense of fairness, or equality.

Look what the Spirit called the Levites in Israel's deathbed prophecy. Gen. 49:5 "Simeon and Levi [are] brethren; instruments of cruelty [are in] their habitations." That pretty well sums up their treatment of women in Levi. 12:1-8, doesn't it? The Levirate Marriage as well is just plain silly. Like circumcision, it came not from God but from the patriarchs, John 7:22 "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers)" (i.e., the Hebrew patriarchs). We should stop surrendering our freedom to the ancient, barbaric, and uncivilized; and stop rewarding the false prophets for barring us, with threats of eternal damnation, from advancing morally and intellectually into the twenty-first century.

I think crimes of rape, child molestation, sexual serial killings, etc., could be reduced by learning to manage, rather than repress God's gift of sexuality. He didn't create it only for married people and sinners; nor, did He create it only for those who exploit it for financial gain. One religious establishment once ran a brothel out of its headquarters. What better way to boost business than deceive people into thinking sex: shared, solo, or otherwise was sinful, shameful and wrong so pent up desire made them easy prey for the money mongers? Certainly sexual freedom would not stop all sex crimes, but just as certainly one who is hungry is more likely to steal. No question about it. Those who deny that abstinence is physically and emotionally harmful are either ignorant or they are liars. Either way they share the guilt for the great harm repression and nature defying celibacy too often cause.

Only a liar would deny desiring more personal sexual freedom. Remember, the truth will make us free; but only if we are willing to accept it. Those who refuse to acknowledge the truth are not God's Children anyway, though they could be, and are free to believe, claim, profess or deny whatever they choose. God is not asexual. In fact, we are vessels through which God interacts with us in physical sexual union. Interaction with one another is interaction with God. How can it not be so? We are His temple. He lives in us. That is why He created us. God feels what we feel. Does Deity hide in shame when we enjoy the greatest pleasure on earth that God created? Of course not! More of us probably have double standards about sex than any other area of our lives. How many condemn others for sexual behavior that they consider perfectly okay for themselves? I wonder how many thousands more pastors there are who lead sex lives that they stand behind the pulpit and repeatedly condemn others for, than there are being honest with us. Think about it. Remember Rev. 4:11 "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

If false teachers and prudes continue pressuring governments into depriving people of harmless God-given sources of the sexual relief they need; including magazines, movies, and any other source that is not harmful to anyone, not even the hypocritical prudes, or violating anyone's rights or freedoms, they deserve the consequences of their cruel, heartless decisions. Sadly, though, it is most often the innocent who suffer from their ignorant intrusion into areas of our lives where they ought not be. The false teachers and government officials create the danger, the innocent suffer the consequences; and the repeat offenders remain perpetual grist for the justice system mill. So it works out fine for all but the innocent victims. It makes one wonder, doesn't it? Anyway, it's a very lucrative arrangement, but that's another story.

In Jn. 14:2-3 Jesus says, "In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also." I believe he is telling us that in heaven there are different things for different people. I hope that if He considers me worthy of a remote corner in the lowest realms of His Kingdom and a woman shares it with me, that she is not asexual and that she hopes that neither am I. Some people like chocolate; some don't. That's fine until those who don't (or claim they don't) start depriving others of it for sanctimonious display. Those of us who do like it aren't going to force it on those who don't, are we? It's high time they stop trying to force on others their chosen lifestyles of deprivation and feigned bliss, knowing in their hearts that freedom from their bonds is what they really want. Mal. 4:2 (NIV) "But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall."

Don't let the false prophets and prudes cause you shame for being perfectly normal. Life is short and precious and not always good. We shouldn't allow them to deprive us of the pleasant diversion God created for us that causes no one the slightest harm. As for sexually transmitted disease, if we would stop denying our sexuality, we could learn safer ways to (yes) enjoy it. Then we could teach our children, rather than make them ashamed to ask. Hypocrites doing as they please, then attempting to deprive all but themselves of the greatest pleasure on earth clearly doesn't work. Learning and devising safer ways to manage and enjoy it might. Rather than spend another 6000 years trying to make something work that clearly does not and will not, why not try something new that might - the simple truth? Why don't we stop surrendering our freedom and offering up our children's freedom to the very lucrative and self-serving false Christian mill?

Before Adam and Eve sinned they were naked and unashamed. What was their sin? It was not what many of us have been led to believe. In Gen. 2:16-17 God warned them, "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." They disobeyed. Their sin was arrogating to themselves the power to decide what was good and what was evil, the one thing that God had reserved for Himself. In doing so, they cast confusion on the distinction between right and wrong. That confusion still exists and has grown tremendously. The resulting confusion caused them to become wrongly ashamed of their nakedness.

They did not eat an apple. They ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There is not even a remote implication that their sin was sexual, as some have suggested and substituted an apple for to avoid any direct references to the "Oh no, say it's not so!" "S" word; which harks back to the Hebrews relegating God's Holy name to the footnotes (albeit with ulterior motives), saying it was too sacred to be uttered. In a nutshell, God had told them "I decide what is good and what is evil, not you"; but they chose to anyway, and we can see the, what we should consider embarrassing, results all around us.

Carefully note Col. 2:20-22 "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men." Now, without the interrupting parenthesis: "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances ... after the commandments and doctrines of men?" That is not encouraging us to violate civil law. The Bible instructs us to obey civil law. It is encouraging us to set ourselves free from false church doctrine. Their job was to teach us God's will, not to superimpose their own flawed reasoning. We are being asked, wherefore (why) if we be dead (freed from) the rudiments (fundamental elements, principles) of the world (as opposed to God's), why do we still allow ourselves to be subject to their rules, which are the commandments and doctrines of people, rather than God.

Look what Jesus said about that in Mk. 7:7 "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men." Verse 9, "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." History repeats itself. The parenthesis (Col. 2:22) says that all these commandments and doctrines of men will perish; namely, (Touch not; taste not; handle not). One of the Greek definitions of touch, is "carnal intercourse with a women or cohabitation." Taste could be translated "to feel, make trial of, experience." Handle could be translated "to touch or handle."

Having two words that literally mean touch (touch and handle) in that short parenthesis wouldn't make sense, so the word translated touch probably refers to sexual intercourse, while handle probably does mean to touch or handle. Those manmade commandments and doctrines are not from God and they will perish. We are being asked why we still follow them. Why do we? Touching, handling and tasting are good. It may be foolish to expect the truth from those who are too old and/or envious of the joys of youth, who were self-deprived of the joy it was designed by God to entail, though I would hope there are some exceptions, that God may restore to them in eternity what Satan has stolen from them in this life.

Very important, 1 Timothy 4:1-5 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly (definitively, explicitly), that in the latter (last/end) times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing (misleading, deceptive) spirits, and doctrines (teachings) of devils (false prophets, teachers, etc.); Speaking lies (teaching falsely) in hypocrisy (putting on a show); having their conscience seared (withered or dried up) with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats (foods), which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth (Emphasis mine). For every creature (created thing) of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified (purified) by the word of God and prayer."

I have made the most likely meaning clear in parentheses for most things in that passage, but the word meat needs special attention. We have already noted that the word meat means food. But here it means a particular kind of food, spiritual or emotional food. Note that it appears in the same sentence with forbidding to marry; i.e., Forbidding marriage (or sexual union) and commanding abstinence, of course from sex, "which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." We are being told that they have been telling us wrong. Note carefully the following verses.

The meaning of 1 Tim. 4:7-9 has been hidden by the translators, especially the phrase "profiteth little." "But refuse (reject) profane and old wives' fables (falsehoods), and exercise thyself [rather] (rather was added by the translators and should not even be there) unto godliness. For bodily exercise profiteth little: but ("but" should be and) godliness (reverence, respect or piety towards God) is profitable unto all things, having promise (e.g., of a blessing) of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." The words "profiteth little" are translated from the Greek word "is" and the Greek word "profitable." The Greek here for profitable likely means "advantageous for."

The correct translation is probably something to this effect: "For bodily exercise is advantageous for," (i.e., good for you). And considering the context, it is most likely referring to bodily exercise of a sexual nature. And it would be saying that godliness leads to blessings in all things, both in this life and the next. Understanding requires some careful attention to detail and help from the Holy Spirit. The truths of God are worth the effort. The Holy Spirit through the prophet in Song Of Solomon 5:1, etc. was not speaking of unleavened bread and grape juice: "... eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved." I think that all of God's Children know exactly what He was referring to; and the day will come when an ever-growing number of freed people will be unashamed and unafraid to admit it.

In 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 Paul says, "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." What did he mean by not lawful for a man (human being) to utter? He meant that this person heard truths in paradise that are illegal to speak about (probably publicly) on earth.

That is how distorted the false teachers have gotten things, using the powers that be to take over, corrupt, and effectively nullify God's Word and close the doors of heaven to His Children. God is going to take His kingdom back. They will be furious and Rev. 11:15-18 tells us why, "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ ... And the nations were angry ... and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants ... and them that fear thy name ... and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." Yes, God will take His kingdom back, in spite of all hell! It may not be easy for some of God's Children, few things ever have been; but it will be worth the effort; because there is joy at the end of this struggle; and likewise, according to Scripture, on the other side of it.

I read somewhere that "perceptions are formed by an ounce of information; they are changed by a ton." I suppose that for many, even a ton won't end the shame that most of us have been brainwashed into feeling regarding our perfectly normal and God-created sexuality; thus, Jesus' parables of the old versus new wineskins (or bottles). The wineskins, of course, represent people; and the wine, new teachings. New wine and old wineskins are mostly incompatible. However, it is available for those willing to accept it, and though it won't likely be easy to swallow, at first, Jesus' new wine (teaching) is much better than what we Christians and Messianic Jews have been handed down by those who killed Him, whether literally or figuratively, past or present.

Remember that the 144 thousand of Rev. 14:1-5, who were not defiled (corrupted) with women (false church teachings), were able to learn the new song. Or put another way; drink the new wine (assimilate the new teachings)..

[Vicious Trollop]

Would you rather a sex hungry person masturbate or rape you or your child?

Well, gee...

[Guest]

A good Christian would go to hell rather than hand over his/her daughters to be abused (or a man his woman) to protect strangers from a sex act they didn't approve of.

Well, that's a step in the right direction! :P

[Jayann]

Hmm. Well, I think maybe what this article should be called is, "Is God Antisexual?" That'd be more in line with the issues the author deals with. Proposing that we are made in God's image as male and female still raising the problem of intersexed people, but generally this article seems to have good intentions.

I only scanned most of it--way too much Godspeak for me--and I skipped ahead to the end to see the conclusion. I did cringe when I read:

...Jesus' new wine (teaching) is much better than what we've been handed down by those who killed Him.

Eww. Do I sense some bitterness? Let's not hold grudges against certain peoples, kay? If you want to believe that the teachings of the time are now archaic, well then, I'd have to agree with you, but let's not be bitter about it.

Anyway, do I think God's asexual? Well, aside from not believing in one, I think the fact the humans reproduce through sex isn't evidence enough to believe that God has a sex, or has sex. There are, after all, plenty of other animals out there that reproduce in vastly different ways, and some defy the male-female dichotomy. I think if there is a God, it wouldn't be antisexual. But asexual? That's thinking along mortal lines not compatible with the essence of divine entity...isn't it?

[Davey]

*in shock that Julie took it seriously*

I just thought the title of the article was funny. I only skimmed it also.

However, in the spirit of taking stuff seriously - (too lazy to make a quote):

"That's thinking along mortal lines not compatible with the essence of divine entity...isn't it?"

It is, yes, but that humanization is critical to the success of organised religion. Who would be afraid of a God who was all-powerful but indifferent and aloof? And how could God, as a divine entity, be anything other than aloof? Why should He give a shit about us? Which reminds me - having a God that cares about humanity at all is really just another form of man-worship. Think about the Gods of old.. Greek et cetera. They had very human qualities - they were petty, lustful, selfish, often stupid - but Zeus could throw lightning bolts, so people were scared shitless of him in all his lechery.

Same thing.

On that note, it's safe to say that Zeus was sexual, but he was sexual with mortals. That shows weakness of all kinds, and obviously when they were drawing up monotheism, they decided that their God was gonna have the biggest proverbial penis of them all - so He couldn't be sexual. Not in the monotheistic frame, anyway. If there were other Gods with whom He could be sexual, that'd be different.

[Jayann]

Oh, whoops. Was I not supposed to? I honestly didn't read that much of it. Have I been a moron?

[Davey]

Not at all! We could have an interesting conversation about it.. I just didn't expect us to.

You're fine :D

[Jayann]

Phew! I had a moment of horror. "Oh God, was that article being ironic?"

I guess that just goes to show me that I ought to read the whole thing before commenting, at the risk of looking like a blathering idiot. *wipes the sweat from her brow*

EDIT: Great points, by the way, Davey. I've always found religion to be interesting, the different ways that different cultures view the nature of divinity, and the similarities they must be draw between themselves and the deity/ies.

[Davey]

Thanks. I'm also interested in religion, and I plan to learn more about it as I wade through school.

Nice signature :D

[Jayann]

*beams* You two make me giggle.

[(SP)]

Guess what?

http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=1446

It's ok to bring things back up though, I'm just pointing out is all..

[Davey]

.. FINE!

You may notice yours didn't create any discussion.. at all.. and I doubt it was even seen.

/defensive

Well, then. You don't miss a beat, do you? I guess I'll just give up the world watching game. Sorry for the double thread.

[fluffy_hime]

Hmm.

Which reminds me - having a God that cares about humanity at all is really just another form of man-worship.

No.

Well, I think maybe what this article should be called is, "Is God Antisexual?"

I agree.

I did cringe when I read:

...Jesus' new wine (teaching) is much better than what we've been handed down by those who killed Him.

Eww. Do I sense some bitterness? Let's not hold grudges against certain peoples, kay?

:D Relax, Julie. The context of the entire article defines those people as the religious leaders and hypocrites who arranged Jesus' death. The author is speaking of these people being hypocrites, not of them being Jewish.

(Geez, Sacred, chill. You're still the World Watch king.)

[Guest]

Since this article is going nowhere, I'm going to use it as a forum to state:

I wanted to take World Religions ever since I was in grade 8. (It's a grade 11 only course.) Suddenly, time comes to take it, AND THEY MAKE ME DROP IT BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH MATH.

I hate math!!! ;afiwewoijjiofsd :evil:

[Davey]

I'm going to take world religions, and I'll drop math to do it :D

EDIT: I mean, if I have to. Not on principle.

[Guest]

Yeah, but it was gifted math, so it was only scheduled at one point. *Sigh* Crappy school planning.

But luckily, I get to take intro to psychology despite my parents saying not to. It's all good. *Raises the roof*

[fluffy_hime]

Why did your parents say not to?

[Guest]

They thought it was a waste of a subject.

[Jayann]

Which reminds me - having a God that cares about humanity at all is really just another form of man-worship.

No.

Well' date=' I do think it implies a sort of anthrocentrism. Why should we alone by made in a god's image? How come religion only applies to humans? It's a way for humans to feel like they are more than just animals, they are spiritual beings, with the potential to become either celestial or fiendish entities in the afterlife. The idea that we may have afterlives, life extending past death, seems to show us that we crave to be something more than what we have here on earth. Would I call that man-worship? Well, I don't know. But it does center very much on humans.

:D Relax' date=' Julie. The context of the entire article defines those people as the religious leaders and hypocrites who arranged Jesus' death. The author is speaking of these people being hypocrites, not of them being Jewish.[/quote']

Whoops. See, "I honestly didn't read that much of it. Have I been a moron?" for further details. :D

[Davey]

Yeah.. if you could substantiate - or at least elaborate upon - that 'no', I'd be much obliged.

[fluffy_hime]

Darn. My 'no' won't suffice? You kids and your "debate" nowadays.

Well, I agree with Julie that Christianity is human-centered, but I don't think that necessarily translates to man-worship. Those are two different things. It's human-centered because, according to the Scripture that most Christians go by, humans were created in the image of God, given reign over the earth and dominion over animals, etc. That view does make human beings superior, but it also gives them an added responsibility (e.g. we can't just go around 'acting like animals').

But really, aren't most philosophies human-centered? Would anyone argue that the life of a human being is equal in value to a garden slug? I hope not.

[Davey]

I agree that my term was a little strong - but surely you see that at least some of organized religion is a self-esteem boost? Judiasm, for example (and I apologize to the owners of any toes upon which I may step) - [some of] its members consider themselves to be 'chosen people'. [some] followers of Jesus consider themselves to be somehow better than heathens.

What better way to feel important than to create a supreme being and pretend he likes you best?

[fluffy_hime]

I agree that some members of some forms of organized religions may get certain self-esteem boosts.

:D

[Davey]

You saw those, eh?

I don't even mean the current members, necessarily - although SOME OF THEM may benefit also. What I was really talking about the founders of the religions. Abraham, scorned as a kid because his daddy spent too much time with the idols in the shop and not enough time throwin' a rock around with Lil' Abe, decided there was a sumpreme deity who thought he was cool. Ditto Jesus - dysfunctional family, Papa Joe denies his participation, the poor guy makes up a brand new daddy.. one who could beat up ALL the other daddies.

No offence.

[fluffy_hime]

I think that's a slightly simplistic view..you can make anything sound ridiculous if you reduce it enough.

Why do you feel Jesus' family was dysfunctional?

[Davey]

You're right. I was mostly kidding.

I was talking about his parents denying participation in the sex that preceded his birth. I admit I became caught up in my routine and oversimplified it. But - you understand?

The most likely occurance is that it was not one but a group of people who came up with the religions anyway.

[fluffy_hime]

Yes, I caught your point.

[Davey]

To anyone I offended (or.. will offend, as AVEN isn't too busy right now), I apologize. I respect your beliefs.