Some Christians Not Homophobic

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
I am entirely in love with you Fred.

Keep preaching brother... you're the only one I'm listening to with any real intent. And you're right I am a practicing Episcopalian. So far they haven't called me "sinner" so I haven't torn up my membership. :rolleyes: :wink:
I love you to Stronzo. And thanks for the complimenet.

Please understand what I am saying.. All humans are sinners because we don't have complete communication with God. But God reaches down to everyone. No humans have to reach up. God reaches down to every person of all times, places, cultures religions and creeds.

As I said, it is not the individual acts that are the problem. It is our lack of ability to communicate with God on our own. We have to listen and connect to God when he is speaking to us.

It is a shame that some have misused the word sin to the point that most people don't know what the word really means. What it really means is being separated from God or acts that separate us from God.

Stronzo, I can tell by what you say that you are connected to God. That is what is important. The rest really doesn't matter that much. Having a relationship with God and knowing God is what matters.

Stronzo, you in your worship service connect to God as well as other times during the week.

Don't let a a few or a large group ever take away something this sacred that belongs to you and God. They can't take it unless you give it away.

It is God's intent to have a relatoinship with all of his children. Truth is humans have a sexuality. God doesn't. Sexuality is a physical need.
If it is expressed in love and commitment: That is a beautiful and wonderful thing.

I have a lot of faith in you Stronzo. You are a swell guy.

Damn it. I wish, Stronzo, we lived in the same town. I know we would be best of friends.

Hugs.

Freddie
 

dolf250

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Posts
769
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
238
Age
34
Location
The Great White North
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Here I go again.

First, I really have no idea weather or not Bible should be capitalized, if so I guess perhaps I will start doing it.

When I say my interpretation I mean exactly that. I know that there are Christians out there who can reconcile being married and sleeping with other men with their beliefs and I do NOT judge that. If you are a gay Christian and can reconcile your actions with your beliefs then that is great. I do not think that I could.

If you look at early Christianity there were groups who would eat pork and groups who would not. It was based on their interpretation of what was right for them. If somebody who believed that eating pork was a sin ate it then, according to what I can make out it would be a sin. If you were mature enough in your walk with Christ to know that eating pork was not a sin then you could eat it all you want.

Perhaps I am still immature and lagging and holding Christianity back, but it is my interpretation and as I have said, it is not my job to judge what is a sin for others, just for me.

To recap (and hopefully clarify my position) yes, I believe that a homosexual act is a sin. It is not something that should keep you out of church or keep you out of the “club” as you put it. Just as the sins that I commit hopefully do not (which if you care to judge me is, perhaps in your eyes, the sin of believing a homosexual act to be a sin). While I do presume to judge that it is a sin for me I would not ever presume to say that a homosexual man having sex with another is a sin for him.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
How does the Church deal with the phrase

"a holy estate ordained by God"

We (UK) wouldn't even consider a vote on civil gay marriage - to us it's a human right - what the churches do is up to them and is another example of them struggling to come to terms with a modern world that they no longer control.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
How does the Church deal with the phrase

"a holy estate ordained by God"

We (UK) wouldn't even consider a vote on civil gay marriage - to us it's a human right - what the churches do is up to them and is another example of them struggling to come to terms with a modern world that they no longer control.
The quoted phrase comes from the Book of Common Prayer.

However, God did ordain that man and woamn join and multiply. or in modern language have children. It is the only way the humanity can continue beyond this gneration. The Bible also says that some people should not marry as well.

So homosexual unions are not ordained by God to go forth at multiply or porduce chidlren.

I think all gay people know that gay unions are not going to produce children.

I certainly won't argue the point that marriage is ordained by God. However, that doesn't mean that gay people in a committed relationship are sinning or that being gay is a sin.

And I don't want to start a shitstorm with this comment, but it is fine with me to call it a marriage if it is between a man and a woman and a civil union if it is between two men or two women as long as all the legal rights and previldges are identically the same. Similar to Mr. for men and Ms. for women. That is fine as long as there is no legal difference in rights.

I realize that in the UK the Church of England is the state church. We aren't suppose to have a state church in America. The first amendment was suppose to declare that the church didin't control the government and the governmetn didn't control the church.

As the Church of England goes thorugh the process of selecting its leadership, the Queen approves all major appointment in the state church. This is not true in America. The President has no role in the selection of religious leaders here in America.

This may change in America. I hope not. The government is meddling too much in church affairs and the church is meddling too much in government affairls for me.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
I am not a Christian Freddie, so marriage or partnerships are a personal choice as is the desire or need to reproduce. But I think that this is a problem for some Christians in that God ordained that men and women should marry - it is a duty to perform and observe for God. Most of the Christians I know are not homophobic, rather they would think that they are not following God's design. Logically you would have to say that anyone who does not "go forth and multiply" is not observing God's law, except the exceptions of course. I don't understand the automatic step of this being a sin though.

I like our Arch Bishop of Canterbury very much, he is a highly intelligent, spiritual and deeply caring man. Technically the Government and the Queen do rubber stamp the C of E's appointments, but there have been cases of dissension - we had a highly interesting Bishop who told everyone that you didn't need to believe in God to be a good christian - I tend to agree, but Margaret Thatcher didn't like him as he openly despised her in his own good Christian way of course.

God help us if George Dubya has the power to appoint your Bishops. :eek:
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
I am not a Christian Freddie, so marriage or partnerships are a personal choice as is the desire or need to reproduce. But I think that this is a problem for some Christians in that God ordained that men and women should marry - it is a duty to perform and observe for God. Most of the Christians I know are not homophobic, rather they would think that they are not following God's design. Logically you would have to say that anyone who does not "go forth and multiply" is not observing God's law, except the exceptions of course. I don't understand the automatic step of this being a sin though.

I like our Arch Bishop of Canterbury very much, he is a highly intelligent, spiritual and deeply caring man. Technically the Government and the Queen do rubber stamp the C of E's appointments, but there have been cases of dissension - we had a highly interesting Bishop who told everyone that you didn't need to believe in God to be a good christian - I tend to agree, but Margaret Thatcher didn't like him as he openly despised her in his own good Christian way of course.

God help us if George Dubya has the power to appoint your Bishops. :eek:
George Dubya appointing bishops? I'm sure George is arrogant enough to want to do that. And I'm not sure God coudl save us if George had that pwoer.

I don't believe the go forth and multiply meant every person had or has to be a parent but rather humans in gneral were to populate te etire earth,

In fact over in the New Testamenet, St. Paul says that some peope should not marry.

Margaret Thacher is a very interesting lady. Had it not been for the Fauklan War I dont' know if she would have won reelecdtion. Bt she did win the Faukland War and was highly popular for a period of time. I undersand she is not doing well these days.

You are an interesting person. To not be Christian you certainly know a lot about the tenets of the Christin faith.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
You are an interesting person. To not be Christian you certainly know a lot about the tenets of the Christin faith.

I have studied some history and anthropology. The Church has played a major role in both in the West.

Whilst we do have a state church, ironically I would say that our's has moved to being a spiritual platform for the individual far more so than I see your own churches.

I was confirmed, but that lasted about three months. I don't feel the need to assign myself to one particular interpretation of the potentially divine. I can't really see the point of asking questions that can not be answered.

Maggie may well be on her last legs. I don't think she has been the same since her husband, the wonderful Dennis, died. She's a game old bird though.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Here I go again.

It was 'clear' enough dolph the first time you wrote it but indeed 'here you go again'.


dolph said:
To recap (and hopefully clarify my position) yes, I believe that a homosexual act is a sin. It is not something that should keep you out of church or keep you out of the “club” as you put it. Just as the sins that I commit hopefully do not (which if you care to judge me is, perhaps in your eyes, the sin of believing a homosexual act to be a sin).

Oh good dolph. Even though I continue to 'sin' by loving my partner of ten years I can still come pray with you guys? Whew- that's a load off my mind. You go bang your wives and my boyfriend and I won't have sex. We'll just wish we could but abstain. How's that? Does that work in your notion of "God's plan"?

Geekers! Thanks a bundle big guy! :rolleyes:

You appear dolph to be entirely unable to comprehend what Freddie has written. PLEASE REREAD FRED'S DEFINITION OF SIN. Still you and those who think as you do (literalists) continue to espouse that foul condescension of Biblical rhetoric that marginalizes people like me simply because GOD MADE US GAY. But you fellas don't believe He did do you? :33: Come on. Fess up. Tell your truth.

dolph said:
While I do presume to judge that it is a sin for me I would not ever presume to say that a homosexual man having sex with another is a sin for him.

The paragraph quoted above is nothing but double talk.

Here's the thing folks;


With regard to homosexuality: It's clearly not a choice. Who, in their right mind, would "choose" it in a world so filled with hatred and bias towards it.

Homosexuality has been around since time immemorial and it predates Biblical disinclination. Only since the writing of the Old Testament and the application of the Judeo- Christian ethic has their been a stigma attached to being gay. That stigma is a social application to what many would deem the word of God. To believe otherwise is to buy hook line and sinker the patriarchal conditioning of the world condition.

In this divided world it's high time we learned to respect one another for our DIFFERENCES as well as our commonalities. God's got better things to do than to concern Himself with what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.

See Freddie?

It's a pretty tough call to stay associated with the "faith of my fathers" but I'll hang in there as long as God's cool with me and people like you are here to reinforce the definition of what sin is truly all about. My connection with my God is in my heart not in the narrow and simplistic maneovering and manipulation of scripture to make it palatable to those who'd really like to throw themselves back to the day when we "homos" we just consdiered sickos.

** yes. I wish we were closer too. I feel an indelible bond with you too Fred. :wink:
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
When I was younger and still considered myself Christian, like some others on this thread have stated, I thought of the act of homosexuality as a sin. I also thought of premarital and extramarital sex as a sin, though. Homosexual sex, like these other types of sex, was something that existed outside of the structure of one man + one woman in marriage producing god-fearing offspring, and therefore wrong according to what I was taught and what I to some extent believed. I had nothing against homosexual people, as I saw the person and the manifestation of desire as seperate entities. I saw all people as sinful, and I looked down on others of my faith who I saw as hypocritically attacking certain classes of sinners while at the same time disregarding their own sins. This is part of how I lost my faith.

This is in stark contrast to what I believe today, which is that there is nothing inherently wrong or sinful in sexual expression of any kind so long as it's not harming others, and also that sexual release is or at least ought to be a basic human right.
 

jay_too

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Posts
789
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
236
Age
43
Location
CA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I have a problem with the title of this thread....

I would think that phobias are the province of psychology. If so, then homophobia is a mental or emotional disorder that should be treated.

Am I right? Probably not, but this is my opinion today.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I have a problem with the title of this thread....

I would think that phobias are the province of psychology. If so, then homophobia is a mental or emotional disorder that should be treated.

Am I right? Probably not, but this is my opinion today.

People who invoke the literal definition of homophobia seem to want to disregard what it has come to mean in common usage. What's the point?
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
I have a problem with the title of this thread....

I would think that phobias are the province of psychology. If so, then homophobia is a mental or emotional disorder that should be treated.

Am I right? Probably not, but this is my opinion today.
I don't know what the "experts" say but this is my take some people are homophobic and they use the church and Christianity to espoused their beliefs. They have done so so much that some people in the world assume that all Christians are homophobic and that homophbia is part of the Christian religion.

The point of this thread is to state clearly that this is not the case. Most Christians aren't homophobic and even though some think it is a sin, they don't think it is more sinful than anyother sin.

Then there are Christians like me that don't believe homosexuality is a sin at all and homosexual acts done in love and with integrity are fine and OK. God is OK with it. I know that grates the fundies to hell. Sorry, but that is what I believe.

Homophobia can't be justified by any rational thinking at all.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
... Neither can I consider someone's gayness any more sinful than anything I do on any particular day. ...

Sorry for my hit and run comment. I just noticed there were some comments about my previous posting. Let me clarify that there is nothing you can do that is not without sin. Its the nature of being human. If you consider sins of omission, for example, I can't even go take a nap without sinning. While I am napping, children are dying in Darfur and I am doing nothing about it.

Because of this, Jesus tossed out the notion of sin as being somethat that we can be "rid of" to please God. Since that is impossible, he fixed the game in our favor. He declared all our sins, past, present, and future, to be null and void when it comes to pleasing God or attaining salvation. He replaced the old deal with a new one that is simply a three way love triangle between you, God, and your "neighbor" (meaning each other person in the world).

The Good News about that is that you don't have to worry about sin anymore, so it doesn't matter whether homosexuality or lending money or whatever is a sin or not. The bad news is that love is an even more demanding task-master than the Bible's proscriptions.

In the light of that, arguing over whether a particular behavior is sinful or not is pointless. Behavior is only to be evaluated through the lens of love. That means that homosexual relationships are to be judged by the same criteria as heterosexual ones, where we would judge abusive or exploitive relationships as bad, and long-term loving relationships as good.

This is why laws banning same-sex marriage could not be more un-Christian. A law that favors transient relationships and promisuity over long term and loving relationships is an evil law. It is evil because it is unloving towards something that is not intrinsically unloving.

The point of my previous post is that being Christian, I cannot be homophobic and still be faithful to Christ.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
... The answer repeated throughout scripture is Love. A Love most unconditional. A Love that looks past all our faults, and sees our needs. This same Love He asks of us; those of us who call ourselves His followers. To Love our neighbors as we Love ourselves....

As a matter of fact, forget reading my comments altogether. "Clear" says it much better than I do. Reread his entire post.
 

jay_too

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Posts
789
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
236
Age
43
Location
CA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
People who invoke the literal definition of homophobia seem to want to disregard what it has come to mean in common usage. What's the point?
Perhaps, this is the problem. If you equate homophobia with gay bashing or hate, then one has hidden more repugnant actions or views in a catch-all term. Few Christians could justify "Hate thy neighbor." or "Let me throw the first stone."
 

dolf250

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Posts
769
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
238
Age
34
Location
The Great White North
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
First off I sincerely congratulate you Stronzo for finding love. You are doing a hell of a lot better than I. For me it has been so damned long since I have loved and been loved that I actually question if I am even capable of loving anymore. I am honestly happy that you have found somebody who makes you feel all the things that I no longer feel.

I re-read Freddie's post like you suggested and have the quote.
It is a shame that some have misused the word sin to the point that most people don't know what the word really means. What it really means is being separated from God or acts that separate us from God.
That is what my definition of sin is as well. This is why I said that going home and sleeping with your husband may not be a sin for you, but for me it would be. I know that you called it double talk, and you are entitled to your opinion. Let me ask you point blank: if I were screwing a guy (even in a long term committed and loving relationship) do you not think that it would be an act that would serve to separate ME from God? I am not asking in your opinion would I be sinning. I am asking you as somebody who has a grasp of my beliefs and my interpretation of the bible do you honestly think that I could do that and not have it affect MY relationship with Christ?

For me it would be a stumbling block in my walk with Christ; for you, for Freddie and for tens (hundreds?) of thousands more you can reconcile your beliefs with your actions. You do not believe it to be wrong and I would suspect that being in a loving relationship is something that brings you closer to God and is one more thing that you should (if you are not, you should) be grateful and thankful to God for.

So according to Freddie's definition if I go out tonight to a gay bar, pick up some guy and fuck his brains out thinking that it was wrong then it would negatively affect my relationship with God and serve to separate me from him. It would be a sin. For you going home to your lover and knowing that if anything it brings you closer to God I would say it is not a sin. Again, I know that you think it all double talk and I am quite certain that you are ticked off with my saying that for you it is not a sin (as though you needed my blessing to go home to him) but having somebody tell me what would or would not be a sin for ME is a load of crap as well.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
First off I sincerely congratulate you Stronzo for finding love. You are doing a hell of a lot better than I. For me it has been so damned long since I have loved and been loved that I actually question if I am even capable of loving anymore. I am honestly happy that you have found somebody who makes you feel all the things that I no longer feel.

Perhaps there's a lesson herein dolph. Maybe that's why we're chatting just now.

I re-read Freddie's post like you suggested and have the quote.

That is what my definition of sin is as well. This is why I said that going home and sleeping with your husband may not be a sin for you, but for me it would be. I know that you called it double talk, and you are entitled to your opinion. Let me ask you point blank: if I were screwing a guy (even in a long term committed and loving relationship) do you not think that it would be an act that would serve to separate ME from God? I am not asking in your opinion would I be sinning. I am asking you as somebody who has a grasp of my beliefs and my interpretation of the bible do you honestly think that I could do that and not have it affect MY relationship with Christ?

I guess it's bigger than the back and forth we're having dolph.

I simply cannot give any credence or show much (if any) respect to someone who's as obviously bright as you are but who still actually believes in any doctrine that would call my sexuality a sin.

It's just that simple dude.

You can be as polite as you like but no matter how you slice it you think (by your definition of your faith) I'm sinning my way into hell.

Put it this way:

If the "Church of Stronzoism" stated that somehow to sleep with the opposite sex was a sin or an abomination I'd expect you to dismiss me and the Church of Stronzoism out of hand. And so I dismiss what you say as the heartless, biased, and foul rhetoric of a dated and unhealthy belief system that would subjugate me to second class status.

You can't do that to me. I'll have none of it. Belief is one thing dolph but relegating my love for my boyfriend (by ascribing it to your belief system) to the closet of sinfulness is an untenable position in any reasonable man's mind. You'd like me to think "oh Stronzo it's fine since you don't believe as I do but I'm a real Christian and I know it's a sin for me". So are there two sets of rules then dolph? If I don't believe as you do is it "okay" for me to blow my boyfriend nightly?

Pretty silly.

I think the implication of the thing (and you know this already) is pretty clear.

I have a question for you dolph: Since I'm not your "brand" of Christian and don't believe homosexuality is a 'sin' do I get a free pass from that sin when I meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates on the homo technicality?

You do not believe it to be wrong and I would suspect that being in a loving relationship is something that brings you closer to God and is one more thing that you should (if you are not, you should) be grateful and thankful to God for.

Do not 'believe' it to be wrong? I know it's not. And the very statement that you think it is offends me to my very core.

So according to Freddie's definition if I go out tonight to a gay bar, pick up some guy and fuck his brains out thinking that it was wrong then it would negatively affect my relationship with God and serve to separate me from him. It would be a sin. For you going home to your lover and knowing that if anything it brings you closer to God I would say it is not a sin. Again, I know that you think it all double talk, but having somebody tell me what would or would not be a sin for ME is a load of crap.

No, not according to Freddie's definition.

This is how I read what Freddie wrote-

Any love between two caring and decent people is something that brings one closer to God. I additionally feel that Freddie isn't subject to and bogged down in Old Testament rhetoric. As a matter of fact I'll be willing to bet he's not. He believes God knows a man's heart and if it's pure some horseshit that's vaguely referenced in several Old Testament passages should be hurled out along with that baby's bath water.

By the way dolph?

I'll assume you think eating shellfish is an equal abomination or sin? Read Leviticus 11:10 for that nifty quote. Somehow that one isn't referenced when all those hungry Americans sit down at "The Lobster Hut" for an after-Sunday-go-to-Meetin' feast.

Oh and then there's Leviticus 25:44-45 about slavery too.... do you hold fast to that one too?

Here's the quote:

"Your male and female slaves are to come form the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the termporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property".


Isn't Leviticus fun?

The Old Testament. When in doubt just yank passages and apply to the current bias of the day and the world will once again make good sense. :rolleyes:
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Homophobia can't be justified by any rational thinking at all.

Bingo

Those who try need to ask themselves a few questions. Problem is that some fundies can't bear the fact that ultimately their faith beyond the spiritually divine is utterly irrational - they won't drop it though.

We should have a lesbian Bishop soon.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
As we have the massed ranks of intelligence here (and the Senor is probably lurking), may I ask a question about this triangle of love?

It is how I would understand the message of the New Testament and I have no interest in the old testament further than it being a rather boring epic - give me Homer and Virgil any day.

My question is about the concept of exclusive love in a long term relationship. I do understand that there is a big difference between sexual love and non sexual love (may be a little blurry), but doesn't this exclusivity present a trap in that you may feel that you are giving all your love and obeying your god to your partner and family, and forget to transcend this love to your wider neighbours?

Is this why priests were initially celibate? Or was that just to concentrate their love to God with the flock coming second?

I have always been fascinated by the monastic tradition in that it locks the most devout away from the third element of the triangle - but then the original ascetics felt that they had to prepare themselves for the second coming - but now we have time, how do we compromise this love of god and all others - is there may be just one love - or I am vereing to Buddhism here?

Sorry to ramble, I am sure you understand my questions. :smile:

Dolf buddy - ditch that old book and find love. :wink:
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
As we have the massed ranks of intelligence here (and the Senor is probably lurking), may I ask a question about this triangle of love?

It is how I would understand the message of the New Testament and I have no interest in the old testament further than it being a rather boring epic - give me Homer and Virgil any day.

My question is about the concept of exclusive love in a long term relationship. I do understand that there is a big difference between sexual love and non sexual love (may be a little blurry), but doesn't this exclusivity present a trap in that you may feel that you are giving all your love and obeying your god to your partner and family, and forget to transcend this love to your wider neighbours?

Is this why priests were initially celibate? Or was that just to concentrate their love to God with the flock coming second?

I have always been fascinated by the monastic tradition in that it locks the most devout away from the third element of the triangle - but then the original ascetics felt that they had to prepare themselves for the second coming - but now we have time, how do we compromise this love of god and all others - is there may be just one love - or I am vereing to Buddhism here?

Sorry to ramble, I am sure you understand my questions. :smile:

Dolf buddy - ditch that old book and find love. :wink:
The medieval church believed that sex was only for reporduction purposes only. Therefore, priests couldn't marry because all sex was sinful, but God forgave sex for the purpose of procreation.

Now this is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Not even a hint. But it still skews the thinking of many Chrsitians to this day. And it affects laws on the books such as sodomy laws etc.

Sex is best expressed as an act of ultimate and intimate love between two people who truly love each othe and are totally committed to each other.

But then there is sexual experimentation which is very common in teens. And it isn't some terrible evil. It can be dangerous to be sure. And kids can get burned badly by casual sex and sex with people that they thought they loved and the other person was just using them.

But we all know this is true. Many of us look back on some of our past relationships and find that they were learning relationships. Perhaps the relationship we are in now woudn't be going so well if it hadn't been for that prevous relationship.

There is some misunderstanding here about one Christina doctrine. And that is this. If a person thinks it is wrong for Him to do something, then it is wrong.

The word sin is so loaded that we have problems using it. If a guy is totally straight and had absolutely no interest in guys, what point would there be for that person to go and have gay sex? Not much.

The only real wrong would be if the other person was hurt by your actions. I suppose you yourself could be hurt as well. If you have a wife at home and the mariage crumbles because of what you did, certainly you have been hurt.

But we must remember where God is in all this. When we are hurting or have been hurt, God is there to help mend our wounded spirits, not tear us down more. God is in the restoration business, not the destruction busienss.

God said that when our sins are forgiven, he remembers them no more. They are wiped from his memory. This is from the Old Testament when the word sin was more thought of in the plural sense. But still, that is quite a statement. I can't do that. I can forgive, but I can't wipe it from my memory. Not really. It is still there. God completely forgives and forgets our faults and failures. God only remembers the best there is about us.

The straight world has no idea what gays have been through. The teen years are hell for a gay guy. and no matter how noble a gay person is in his actions or relationships, there are those who would still condemn the gay guy to a hot eternal Dante's hell. The clsoet gay has it rough enough, but the gays who are willing to admit to the community that they have a guy partner, really catches hell.

I knew when I was in elemenary school what my preferences are though I tried my best to deny them. And my life would be better if I were straight. I am not.

Thank God that God is the judge and not other people. Jesus said he who is without sin caste the first stone when confronted with the woman who had committed adultery. Jewish law said stone her. Jesus said Where are those that condmen you. The woman replied that have left. Jesus replied. Neither do I condemn you.

To those of you who are gay and Chrsitian. Stnad firm in your faith. The homophobia in other people is their problem. Let them deal with it.

It is between God and me and God and you. No other person enters into this relationship. God has a one one one relationship with each individual.

Stronzo and so many others here. God loves you and so do I.

And thanks to all for so many kind words said to and about me. I appreciate it so very much. Spread the love.

Freddie