Just Me

[KingdomMinded]

Hello,

My name (that is the name that I can give) is Matthew. That is the only information I feel comfortable giving at the time. I apologize. But I have no hard feelings I assure you.

I attend a school which is a part of the Christian College Consortium. It is a fairly conservative school amid miles and miles of corn fields. Obviously, there is reason for me to feel uncomfortable divulging my secret. At this point in my life, I am steeped in deep psychological issues, which I feel aggravate my homosexual desires. I am seeing a counselor at the school, and she is showing me all the things that might be driving my sexual desires. I understand this website is for people who have already decided that being gay isn't bad. But after sitting through my sessions, for some reason I feel a real strong link between the inadequacies I feel, and the kinds of people (men) I am attracted to. For this reason I have reason to doubt the claims of this organization. I am not hostile, I assure you. But I am unsure about this claim that GLBT people fall under the same category as those of African descent in the Americas, or the Jews in Nazi Germany. Help me figure this out, because I am not sure.

Every time I see the words homosexual in the Bible, within a 10 word radius there are words like abomination, and wicked as its antecedent. Why?

Today in our Bible class, we have been discussing 1 Corinthians 7 in which Paul clarifies the problems that the Corinthians were having among themselves. It seems like there is confusion about what these formerly sexually immoral people should do now that they were sexually inactive.(I say this because Corinth was known as the city with it all, and was the one place in the Roman world where every type of sexual perversion could be found. Incest, Rape, Bestiality.) He tells the new converts that they need not worry about getting married (which was urged a bit in the Jewish culture). In verse 8 and 9, he says "To the unmarried and the widows that it is good for them if the remain even as they are. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." In other words he says its no big deal if you're not married. If you are unmarried, you don't need to get married to fulfill some part of the law. If you're a widow, you do not(and should not have to) marry to be in agreement with the law again.
(breath)

I say all of this because Paul goes through all the dilemmas that the church seemed to be going through at that time. Fathers not sure if their daughters need to be married or not, unsaved spouses, slavery, circumcision.

Why doesn't Paul address homosexual relationships? Are there guidelines for faithful same-sex partners to follow? Why are there no examples of same-sex couples in the Bible? Some claim that homosexuality back then did not exist as it does today. Why not? There are dozens of archaeological finds depicting homosexuals in the same way that I've seen homosexual pornography depicted on the internet recently.
What about the cross? Is the sin that Jesus blood paid for only the sin of not loving? What about righteousness, purity, justice, pride, greed, arrogance, and my simple rebellion. I know that I have sinned in the past. But why does my same sex attraction not fall in that category like it sexual immorality would in a straight man's mind?

Once again I AM certainly someone who has same-sex attractions. But I can't understand how to sort all of this out.
I am a learner, not at zealot. I simply have a lot to grapple with. Help me, someone, to solve this apparent dichotomy in my heart.
Thanks,
Matthew

I edited this to clarify my reference to CCC as the Christian College Consortium.

[awediot]

Hi kingdom minded (or mathew if I may)

First thing, welcome to this site. It will both help and further confound. The answer you look for is spread throughout the posts and wont be summed up by the numerous 'God loves you being gay', 'He made you that way 'affirmations (however true they may be). i just hope you are patient and willing to see the answer may lie more in your heart and head than in the Bible. It is inspired, but it is not the end... Look forward to hearring your perspective.

awediot.. (dean)

[Zerbie]

Matthew.

Hello and welcome, glad you found us and are asking/searching. Take your time. Delving through and sorting this stuff out in your mind and heart can take *years*.

I haven't got answers for you. If I had I would hand them over. You and I are very different, I simply did not learn what you did about homosexuality, so I can't even share a story with you of a similar journey. There is no doubt in my heart that your feelings are okay and that God loves you for who He created you to be (and it's my firm belief that He created you, lovingly, with those very feelings of attraction that are conflicting you now). However, there are a number of gay people on this site who journeyed from a very conservative Christian background, and have reconciled their faith with their sexual orientation. They will have many kind words for you and their stories to share.

Remember to take your time with the questions. Coming to a full understanding of the religion/sexuality issue that is truly Your Own takes a great deal of time and the courage to be with the uncertainty all that long while.

All the best to you. :pray: :pray: :pray:

[keltic63]

welcome Matthew!

I come from a conservative/fundamentalist/pentecostal background too. I grew up in the "Church of the Nazarene" then my parents took us to an Assembly of God when I was a teenager. And yes, believe it or not, I survived and I am comfortably gay.

I believe you know the love of God. I hear in your words, the frustration of reconciling God's love for you, knowing that He created you as you are, with the words that you have heard from well-meaning, good christian people who are mis-educated about homosexuality.

There are positive portrayals of gay couples in the Bible. There are words of affirmation about us in the Bible. and as far as what you may have learned about the gay community: YOU are the one who determines how you live, not the community. promiscuity? homosexuals aren't the only ones who can be accused. drugs? alcohol? again, those things are universal, not peculiar to the glbt community. There's no reason to believe that this is how you should live because you are gay. There are plenty of gay people living "normal" lives with their partners. I'm one. and there are lot's of us here at SF.

please stay around and talk with us.

Steve

[Mia14]

Don't be afraid, just smile and relax. We're all friends here and there are no judgements being made.

Don't worry about trying to get everything sorted out - it'll come naturally. Talk to us on the forums and read through some of what other people have shared. It'll come. Take your time to figure yourself out.

[tdogg]

As someone who has struggled with religious upbringing (A of G) combined with great expectations by religious parents and the fact that I felt attractions towards women (I'm a Lesbian), I understand what you are going thru. I recently came out to myself (about a year and a half ago) and then to my friends and finally my family, not all of whom are happy about it. Just continue to pray about it and discuss it with the friendly and loving folks you'll find here on the forums. You'll figure it out!

Meanwhile, I highly recommend a book I'm reading now - Straight Parents, Gay Children by Robert A. Bernstein. Wish I had read this book when I was in high school! I wish those who are now struggling with my 'coming out' and being a Lesbian would read it. It's geared towards parents who have gay children but it's excellent reading for everyone, giving real life experiences of parents of gay children. There are several instances where the parents and the children are Christian.

Good luck and God bless you on your journey!:love:

[tdogg]

I probably should have told you that I finally came out after years and years of working through it all - I'm 47 now, I was 45 when I came out to myself. So, it can take a while but looks like you are on the right track!

[KingdomMinded]

Friends,

Thank you for your graceful responses to my questions. They are still HUGE questions in my mind about this. I feel like I will be responded to angrily if I present some Bible verse that I have to grapple with. As for having "answers in my head/heart," how can I be sure that which answer is true? How can I trust anything from the Bible if I can't trust what I read about how God regards sex between to males or females?
As for those who were formerly a part of the Assemblies of God church, I ask you to remember the Spirit. Why does the Christianity that I see being presented here look so differently than the Christianity in the Bible?

I'm not talking about the regard for sinners. The church today ought to be slapped on the hand for its treatment of people. God asks us to love our neighbor as ourselves. This means that God doesn't just want us to love ourselves (By this I refer back to Kierkegaard when he says this also means that we must not just love our "selves" or people who are like us) we need to love those who are different than is. (Kierkegaard exclaims that if the charge of God is for us to love our neighbor, we ought to rejoice because we can do this to every person we meet. We can't disregard our differences, or act like they are not there. We must love each other above our differences. We must rise above them, equally. The rich man must rise above his pride and love the poor man. The poor man must rise above his pride and love the rich man.)
So, we should love everyone without qualification. The murder, the rapist, the child molester, the schemer, the joe shmo, the old man, the little girl. They are all our neighbor, and we should be able to love them, but not mistake our love for them with our love for what they do. I don't think we can justify love for terrorism, but we can justify, with the Bible's help, love for the terrorist.

So the question isn't whether the church should or shouldn't love homosexuals. The answer is clearly yes, lest we slowly stop loving every single breathing individual on the basis that they do things that God doesn't like.

So..... from the video that I just watched from Dr. Lewis Smedes I can agree with him that he says, it is GOOD for married people to stay together. Divorce is not a viable option in God's Kingdom.* But for those who have decided to break God's law, then God will still accept us as we come to him. He's not going to kick us out of his kingdom. That couple just needs to be aware that what they did was not a good thing. It causes all kinds of complications that the Bible says nothing about because they weren't supposed to happen.

Have we no faith in God's commands that if an unhappy couple truly seeks God that they may be restored? What of the command itself? What is righteousness but obeying God's commands? (I can't believe that God didn't mean what he said.)

All that aside

If there is "Wideness in God's Mercy" to allow former divorcees to come to Him, there must be mercy for Gays to come to God? Oops. All I did was repeat what Dr. Lewis said. Why would God need to have mercy on gays? This is a hole in Lewis's argument. Go back and watch that video again. He says it. When we live in God's mercy, wouldn't our response be to please God?** I don't have these answers; these are just things I observe.

Remember, I have homosexual desires. You can't believe how much I want to be embraced by a handsome man of my "dreams".

Sorry, Long-winded rants come natural to me. Now if only I could make some sense. Lastly I share this prayer with you guys (especially you former AG's)

WE HAVE our treasure in earthen vessels, but Thou,
O Holy Spirit, when Thou livest in a man, Thou livest
in what is infinitely lower. Thou Spirit of Holiness, Thou
livest in the midst of impurity and corruption; Thou
Spirit of Wisdom, Thou livest in the midst of folly; Thou
Spirit of Truth, Thou livest in one who is himself deluded.
Oh, continue to dwell there, Thou who dost not seek a
desirable dwelling place, for Thou wouldst seek there in
vain, Thou Creator and Redeemer, make a dwelling for
Thyself, oh, continue to dwell there, that one day Thou
mightest finally be pleased by the dwelling which Thou
didst Thyself prepare in my heart, foolish, deceiving,
and impure as it is.†
_____________________________________________
I made some minor grammar corrections.

*Clarification. God does prescribe divorce for unfaithfulness between partners. I would suggest though, that God does value the desire to patch things up even in this case.

**Mercy suggests a transgression. If you have mercy on me, I still clearly did something wrong. Your mercy is the response of patience and the deflection(for lack of a better term) of what I clearly deserve. (Matt 18:21-35)

† Søren Kierkegaard.

[Jennifer5]

First of all... Welcome! Glad you're here!
next... like people have said, don't rush this... you'll often find that when you least expect it, your anwsers will be right in front of you.
Youe are among friends... ask what you need to.... we'll try to anwser to the best of our ability...

one last thing... so you are against divorce?.... can you say more here

[Zerbie]

:)

Your questions - like you - are welcome here.

I won't even attempt to address your theological concerns, Biblical questions are not my province, they never will be. But others will engage in the important questions you've raised. I'm sure of it.

The most important thing is that you ask the questions. Listen to all our responses, everyone else's responses wherever else you look, then give it time for all of that to settle. Or to percolate. Someday, you will have a set of responses that are truly your own. As frustrating as it is to hear this, these questions usually take a *great deal* of time before they reveal all their depths and secrets. And you must live with them in uncertainty all that time. Prayer and meditation - be at peace with the questions - questions are greater teachers than answers ever can be. Be with the questions, it's okay.

Also wanted to add that I love that prayer you quoted! I have never seen it before. It's beautiful! Where does it come from?

Lastly, I wish the very very best for you. I feel moved and saddened by your conflict, wanting to hold your dream man, also not willing to offend God, if that is your belief. Whatever you someday decide is right for you in this regard, I hope that you will find spiritual/emotional fulfillment and a joy-filled life. :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray:

[Dash]

Hello and welcome!

It was very hard for me to work through the "questions" I had in regard to the bible, faith, and my sexuality. I was innately conservative, and deeply fundamentalist. For me it was a huge step to allow myself to even began questioning anything that I felt I knew about God and the bible.

From my perspective, I don't see that the bible has a clear, succinct "marriage ethic". I get the feeling that most of the basis for current Christianity's concept of "traditional marriage" is based on the creation poetry in Genesis: that God made man as male and female, etc...etc... But throughout the anthology of stories, there are many different experiences of marriage represented, and I don't know that they are judged or compared to "traditional marriage." When I consider the "Kingdom" I find that Christ said there was no marriage in heaven. Paul discredited all distinctions, including male and female, in the community of the kingdom. These are powerfully different concepts of marriage and gender than are held by many Christians.

I tend to look at the question of divorce in terms of how it affects individuals. If a woman divorced is left with absolutely nothing and no way to support herself, then in such a society men should not leave their wives. That's what I think the prohibitions on divorce were about...not some idea of being holy or righteous. My standard of measure is this: if a law does not offer social justice for the weak or outcast, then it has lost its relevance.

I think it is interesting to note how the bible also lacks a strong "protective ethic" for children. For as much emphasis as our society places on the rights and safety of children, it has little basis in the "word of God." Why is this? I'm in complete agreement with the value of children, the correctness of such an ethic, and the need to include child rights in our legislation. Why do we not find a similar emphasis in biblical legislation? Did they value children less?

I don't really know, but it makes me think that we're "civilized" differently than previous cultures. This is true in terms of the way people are experiencing sexuality today as well. We have to find a way of honoring the divine aspect in our world and our life that reflects and enhances them. The law should not bring tears and shame. It should serve us...we are not servants to it. We are the children of God and servants to none. Jesus himself was a lawbreaker in the eyes of the religious leaders of the day. Why did he not hesistate to be about his business on the Sabbath? Because the law (one of the 10, for heaven's sake!!) in his instance did not serve the need of the people.

The needs of the people trump any legal code.

That's kind of how I worked through my questions. Like others have said, it took many years, and it's hard to pinpoint when the changes began to settle. Clearly, for me, it coincided with a change in how I viewed the bible: from the literal word of God sent from heaven as a guidebook for perfect living....to a history of how people thought of God and experienced the divine aspect in their lives...and how they thought it best to behave in response to that.

I tend to work in generalizations, and lose sight of details :rolleyes: so if you see I'm missing something, you should always feel free to let me know.

[Daniel]

Hello Matthew,

Welcome to this forum.

I was Assemblies of God from about the age of 14 and graduated from Evangel College. I left that church when I came out at the age of 25. That was quite a while ago now. But I do remember having many of your concerns and was troubled by theological matters to a high degree. I wrestled with the notion that God, as I supposed him to be at the time, didn't have room for me. But I eventually found a way out by educating myself.

I read a great deal: Boswell (Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, also see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html) for starters and many others which helped me put things into persepctive. My attraction to other men seemed the least of it! That didn't waver.

As for having "answers in my head/heart," how can I be sure that which answer is true? How can I trust anything from the Bible if I can trust what I read about how God regards sex between to males or females?

In deed. How can you? You touch on an important here. In matters of the head: I came to conclusion that the lens through which I read various passages was just as important as the passage itself-a matter of context as well as content. To be blunt: I had to consider whether I wanted to be a biblical literalist or not. I am not. I found literalism to be one tight corner. How you deal with the matter of reading and interpreting scripture is one matter. The other issue, the matter of the heart and groin, that being your desire for "a handsome man" seems, by contrast, to be a much more certain matter. You seem to know that answer to that already.

Remember, I have homosexual desires. You can't believe how much I want to be embraced by a handsome man of my "dreams".

I can tell your from experience that no amount of pirouetting around various biblical questions will change this. All too often, those with same-sex attraction follow their desires and as a result are either pushed out or leave the church. That's the hard thing, not your desires. Why should you or anyone bury, damn or deny them? Because some else doesn't like it? If you think- or have been told- God doesn't like it? And based on what? Their idea of God? And what is God after all? That's another thing I thought long and hard about. My conception of the word widened considerably and lead me to investigate the meditative/prayer practices of the early church and Buddhism, which, in the end, deal with like matters- that being the preception and nature of reality itself.

There's another important matter that you bring up:

But after sitting through my sessions, for some reason I feel a real strong link between the inadequacies I feel, and the kinds of people (men) I am attracted to.

I could be putting words in your mouth here, but you seem to be indicating that your desires are bad are leading you to the wrong people. Not all gay people are the same. You will find a great many who are people of faith like yourself.

At this point in my life, I am steeped in deep psychological issues, which I feel aggravate my homosexual desires.

Well, I know what you mean, or think I know what you mean here. While I am no mental health professional and only have my own experience to go on, I would suggest to you that your desire for love- to love and be loved- is good. Sure- relationships come with all sorts of build-in stuff to sort out. You might say that's why we have them. I see that as a gift. And it's not simply a matter of finding someone to complete us- as it's often posited in popular culture. We have the opportunity to plumb the depths of what real love is- which is as self-revealing as it is profound- all the stuff we think is negative seems to come out for a look-see.

I've had three major relationships in my life- all with men- and have been with the "handsome man of my dreams" for 14 years now. No one was writing about such things- that is- gay men in relationship- how to be in a relationship- how to make it work- until recently. Now there is an abundance of such books. I encourage you to find them and devour them.

It took me a great deal of work to get to the place where I was comfortable with myself. I felt like I shed a cocoon I didn't know I was trapped in. But I can say with certainty that there is life on the other side. A great life worth living and loving.

Hope you see you hear more often,

And again, welcome,

Daniel

[KingdomMinded]

Guys,

Wow, thanks so much for your responses. I feel like I'm being greedy by asking these questions and taking up all your time with my lengthy spouts. Thanks so much for being the friends that I feel you are.

one last thing... so you are against divorce?.... can you say more here

I think this: divorce is not something that God’s kingdom is set up to handle (to my knowledge). The process of divorce was so grueling because of the problems that it causes, and because adultery is WRONG anyway. So when Jesus says, divorce is okay when there’s adultery, he’s just making a stipulation. On the whole, if a married couple find that they are “no longer in love,” they have still vowed, or in at least the act of marriage suggests permanence, that they are “one flesh.” Sex = one flesh. How can that be separated? The only time that would need separation is if it happens to people with whom God would not want to have sex with each other (tentatively, sex between unmarried people, and extra-marital sex.) People are making the biggest decision in their life when they choose to join themselves as one with another. This is not a revokable thing, in the same way that Jesus and the Father are inseparable, though they are distinct members of the same Union......Anyways, if a married couple can’t get along, they should seek the Spirit. Go get counseling, don’t give up. Wouldn’t you say it would be a greater act of faithfulness for people to say, ‘we know there’s a problem, but we made a promise, and so we have to just figure this all out.’ (Wow, the closeness between that couple would definitely increase after “going through the fire” together.)

These are powerfully different concepts of marriage and gender than are held by many Christians.

Our job isn’t to read the Bible in just the relevance it has for “our culture” “today.” We should find interest in observing and researching the conditions of the culture back then, and understand what Jesus, what the whole Bible was saying. In a way, that means not taking everything that the Bible says absolutely literally. I can give examples, though, of how a clever look into the culture in which Biblical authors were speaking yields messages that can be taken utterly literally. (Briefly, in Corinthians, Paul asks the women in the church, many who were formerly temple prostitutes and not aware of some things, to cover their heads while in church because the men took uncovered heads to mean seduction and voluptuousness. Now, we have disputes with women showing cleavage in church. This is the same problem, though it needs to be tailored to fit our culture.) Studies like these are the only way we can read some passages.

The law should not bring tears and shame. It should serve us...we are not servants to it. We are the children of God and servants to none....The needs of the people trump any legal code.

Danger. Reread that passage. If Jesus is our example, then we ought to be what he was, a servant to all (Mark 9:35). It is no good to make examples of our culture justification for changes in definition. If marriage today looks different than it did in the Bible, then we are at fault, not them. It’s not a matter of Old Fashion (because their idea of marriage at that time wasn’t perfect either*.) It’s more a matter of God’s (written) Will. (People in the Bible worship God for his Law. How else would we know when we are wrong? This only secures our need for him. This "code" was one of God's gifts.)

Okay, I need to pack things up and go to bed if I’m gonna be competent enough to drive to church tomorrow. Once again(I feel a need to remind for some reason), when I imagine the embrace of another man intimately, I feel a sense of relief (like I can breathe a bit deeper.) Let me figure out what I need relief from first, and then I’ll be able to understand my struggle better.

Another Prayer:

O God, I have tasted Thy goodness, and it has both
satisfied me and made me thirsty for more. I am
painfully conscious of my need of further grace. I
am ashamed of my lack of desire. O God, the Triune
God, I want to want Thee; I long to be filled with
longing; I thirst to be made more thirsty still.
Show me Thy glory, I pray Thee, that so I may
know Thee indeed. Begin in mercy a new work
of love within me. Say to my soul, "Rise up, my
love, my fair one, and come away. " Then give me
grace to rise and follow Thee up from this misty
lowland where I have wandered so long.
In Jesus' name. Amen. - A.W. Tozer

*When the high priests dragged the woman caught in adultery (John 8) out into the street to stone her, Jesus bends down and writes in the dirt. (He was probably writing some portion of the Law.) Jesus said, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Why does he say this? Let me ask you, where is the man? The law prescribes the man and the woman to be stoned because of their sin. Jesus is not necessarily condoning the stoning of the woman (clearly he shows utter mercy to her, and tells her to SIN no more.) He actually, is simply pointing out the incredible unfairness of the Jewish leaders between men and women. As you can imagine, this kinda thing happened a lot. I bet you never heard that before....

Thanks guys, I look forward to more dialogue.:rolleyes:

[Jennifer5]

I apologize up front for taking us off topic...
I think this: divorce is not something that God’s kingdom is set up to handle (to my knowledge). The process of divorce was so grueling because of the problems that it causes, and because adultery is WRONG anyway. So when Jesus says, divorce is okay when there’s adultery, he’s just making a stipulation. On the whole, if a married couple find that they are “no longer in love,” they have still vowed, or in at least the act of marriage suggests permanence, that they are “one flesh.” Sex = one flesh. How can that be separated? The only time that would need separation is if it happens to people with whom God would not want to have sex with each other (tentatively, sex between unmarried people, and extra-marital sex.) People are making the biggest decision in their life when they choose to join themselves as one with another. This is not a revokable thing, in the same way that Jesus and the Father are inseparable, though they are distinct members of the same Union......Anyways, if a married couple can’t get along, they should seek the Spirit. Go get counseling, don’t give up. Wouldn’t you say it would be a greater act of faithfulness for people to say, ‘we know there’s a problem, but we made a promise, and so we have to just figure this all out.’ (Wow, the closeness between that couple would definitely increase after “going through the fire” together.)

While I agree that it would be much better for a couple to work together to make things work... that doesn't always work. My mom's first husband was halled away ina straight jacket, and put in a mentle hospital... it then took he about a year and a half to get a divorce... because he was locked up. He had so many problems, when he was supposed to have visitation... he wouldn't even show up. I can't think of anything they could have done to make that work.... she could have sayed.... but that would have ended in things that are much worse.

Then with my dad... they were married 16 years and he had been cheating her in so many ways... for the entire marriage. He stole from the family. He did so many things for him and never put the family first. There were just so many problems, and she got counseling, they got marriage counseling... but nothing worked.

I don't mean to be so forward, but when things like that happen... then what to you do... is divorce still a bad idea?

[Zerbie]

I'm going to begin this post by side-tracking a bit because the divorce discussion is interesting and important. I do not disagree with what Matthew says, in principle it is so. But what you, Matthew, have left out of the argument is that to recognize a marriage commitment needs work, improvement, prayer, counselling, is not enough unless BOTH partners are willing to engage in those things. If only one partner wishes to grow spiritually and re-inforce the marriage vows and the other does not, there is NOTHING s/he can do to force the other partner along. It takes willingness from both. And that is why a wise partner who has given the relationship everything and made continual attempts to reconcile over time, will in the end withdraw from a partner who is unwilling to participate in the marriage.

Now back to topic: Matthew, do not feel guilty for asking these questions! 1) that's what the forum is for (tho a lot of these questions would be great on the main forum too, where we have other philosophical discussions, eh well, next time, we'll start the conversation over there)

2) anyone who isn't interested won't read or reply to these threads

3) I bet there are lurkers out there who are not introducing themselves or making posts but who have similar questions, and who enjoy reading the various responses that appear - so for their sake as well as yours - I'm so glad you keep coming back and posting.

A question from me, non-Biblical non-scholar that I am: I didn't think there was a one woman/one man marriage norm in the Bible. I was under the impression that the Bible often described one man with many wives. How far off is that impression from what's really in there?

Matthew - I absolutely agree with you that Jesus would have us be servants to all. I think you are spot-on with that one. If we serve the highest good in one another, it brings out what is divine in us. Sorta ironic, I spose, but the most spiritually advanced people are always humble. Otoh, being rule-bound is not always the way of service. Rules are there to help and guide us, but they are not the end.

I look forward to hearing more from you. Your comments about your conflict still move my heart deeply. I wish you peace.

:love: :pray:

[Liberal Crozier]

Matthew -

I understand and accept the need for anonymity as we progress toward answers that brings joy to our lives. " Joy in the Kingdom " is the essence of the message of love and reconciliation that we all seek, and as others have suggested, is a process and not an automatic product, of reading, or viewing videos - no matter how excellently produced on the Soulforce website by Dr. White and his spouse.

I, too, am anonymous to some extent. I am many things - a same-sex spouse of thirty-one years, and as a Canadian, a legal one. I am a father and share that precious title. I am a son to an elderly and wonderful woman who celebrates her 93rd birthday soon - with us or with the Lord, when she will become ageless.... I am a priest and yes, a bishop, a person whom many describe as " altus Christus" or "successor to the Apostles"....but whom many feel are more accurately described as facilitators and pharisitical in behaviours. I am no longer in active ministry, or better stated, have a new and unstructured one.

As a natural father, as well as a spiritual one, I always ask those whom I love if they are happy, and have joy in their lives. If and when you become a father - and there is a real gay-by boom today, you will understand what I mean when I ask that question. Matthew, you first want your baby to have the requisite digits and organic and systemic health.....and as they grow, you monitor the "happiness index" as they learn the academic and life lessons that they need to learn.

Verbal and spiritual violence is painful. It is painful at 16 or 60. It may change from peer insults and translate to university-level gay bashing. No matter how often that you may view Dr. White's video on this website, you realise that the journey of faith is a neverending story of peaks and valleys.

After all, aside from the redemptive act of our Saviour, we were created " a little less than the angels."

Our family will pray for you. You can have blessed assurance of it. :pray: :pray: :pray:

[Dash]

Our job isn’t to read the Bible in just the relevance it has for “our culture” “today.” We should find interest in observing and researching the conditions of the culture back then, and understand what Jesus, what the whole Bible was saying. In a way, that means not taking everything that the Bible says absolutely literally.

I absolutely agree with this statement. However...

I'm not sure if I was being clear...sometimes in explaining my intuitive leaps, I forget to include the intermediate steps that got me there. In this case, I hear Jesus explaining something that goes beyond any common understanding of human culture...not the culture of his time...and not the culture of our time. I hear him talking about the culture of "The Kingdom." In the context of the story (if I remember correctly) he was explaining to the Sadducees that they did not understand the Kingdom of Heaven or the nature of God. They were asking him complex questions about marriage, and he simply told them that they didn't get it...their understanding of the true, ultimate way that humans are designed to relate to each other was fatally flawed. It has nothing at all to do with marriage. Ultimately humans, male and female will not marry.

Am I wrong in this? If not, then I say again...Christ was introducing a concept that has been completely missed by Christianity. Christianity focuses on "traditional marriage," yet Christ had no "traditional marriage" message. His message in regard to marriage was, "What marriage?"

So...marriage, traditional or not, must be for our sake, since God seems to have no ultimate concern about the nature of our marriage unions. (Does that make sense? In the kingdom, there is no marriage...so I think that the divine is not as concerned as we imagine.)

The only concern left is to love.

Danger. Reread that passage.

:) There's no danger. :) Our relationship with the divine is one of great safety and trust. It's okay to question, ponder, reevaluate, toss out, retrieve from the trash...any spiritual concept as we work these things out.

It is no good to make examples of our culture justification for changes in definition. If marriage today looks different than it did in the Bible, then we are at fault, not them. It’s not a matter of Old Fashion (because their idea of marriage at that time wasn’t perfect either*.) It’s more a matter of God’s (written) Will. (People in the Bible worship God for his Law. How else would we know when we are wrong? This only secures our need for him. This "code" was one of God's gifts.)

Are we at fault for that we do not generally approve of marrying multiple wives and maintaining a harem of concubines? God's "written will" seems not to judge such marriages, yet we do. Perhaps this fault of ours should be corrected and our marriages brought in line with a more biblical marriage concept. :)

And we'll just have to disagree about the need to adjust our legislation to fit our culture. I think to not do that leads to much cruelty and injustice. I think it is irresponsible to not consider the needs of our society when applying rules for behavior. Sorry. :o

Once again...I believe the laws were given in response to an ancient experience of the divine...an experience rooted in the needs, troubles, and complex questions of the day. They were designed to serve the society for which they were written. I believe they are less of an expression of the immutable, eternal will of God, than a way to help the people of the time express the divine nature in their lives. It flips it around, see... The law is for us...we are not for the law. (man...I don't even know if this makes perfect sense to me...I'm writing a bit above my own head. Hahahah!)

Peace:cool:

[Dash]

Climbing into bed and realized that I didn't quite catch what you were getting at in regard to service...

Yes...we serve...but our nature is not one of servants. We are royal-born. There is a difference between being born into slavery or servitude, and being born into the family of the great ruler. We are of the latter bloodline, and therefore have a choice. We are not under the law...we act as royal sons and daughters who choose to love those we serve...not as servants who are forced to obey. We participate in the application of the law of love in a completely different way than those who blindly follow the letter. We understand the spirit and seek new ways to express that spirit. Those who are born outside the family...in slavery to the law...only understand the words...we understand the one who loves us. We perceive that person intimately in the way true children know their parent. We strive to reflect the spirit and reject slavish application of rules that disregard changing circumstances.

[Liberal Crozier]

Dash -

Following the Council of Trent and both the English and Continental Reformations, the Roman Catholic Church created an Index of Forbidden Authors. The target, of course, were men involved in the Enlightenment.
One such author was Alexandre Dumas, pere and later his son, "le fils".

What prompted that fact? It was your reference to the " royal birth " of all those who serve Christ in the vineyard, or to continue the analogy - the children of the King. Dumas wrote THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK. Do you know the story?

Dumas established a fable whereby the King of France, Louis XIII, had twin identical sons. Fearing civil war, the eldest is declared the sole birth, the prince and future king, Louis XIV, and his brother is sent to live a peasant existence, and later, his brother, now king, has him imprisoned in the Bastille wearing a special iron mask. Hollywood had them both the children of D'Artignon, captain of the musqueteers loyal to the Queen. Eventually, the evil Louis is supplanted by the good brother, and good overcomes evil.
It is the Pauline admonition of overcoming evil with good.....

Throughout His Public Ministry, our Saviour faced opposition from those sects and those leaders who observed a faith imprisoned in the iron mask of law divorced from reason, love, compassion or service. In this truth, the Church has the wrong Prince on the throne....and the Prince of Peace is truly imprisoned by theocons - and fearing that you will recognise him - is indeed in an Iron Mask...and THIS MINISTRY, SOULFORCE, is intent on rescuing him and you, and place him on the "throne" where he may reign forever and ever, and we with Him.

[KingdomMinded]

Thank you for your Good thoughts. I only have precious few minutes to answer. But first let me address the crucifixion.

Throughout His Public Ministry, our Saviour faced opposition from those sects and those leaders who observed a faith imprisoned in the iron mask of law divorced from reason, love, compassion or service. In this truth, the Church has the wrong Prince on the throne....and the Prince of Peace is truly imprisoned by theocons - and fearing that you will recognise him - is indeed in an Iron Mask...and THIS MINISTRY, SOULFORCE, is intent on rescuing him and you, and place him on the "throne" where he may reign forever and ever, and we with Him.

The Bible says over and over again that the Lamb was Slain before the foundations of the Earth. The prophets told of a savior. This guy that we read about in the gospels was not a reluctant guy who was done in by the bullies. Every reference that Jesus makes to his own divinity confirms that he was actively engaging the world around him. He stated over and over again that his actions were not just the works of the person Jesus, but they were the words and actions of God the Father himself. Anything that happened to Jesus, was something that Jesus faced full on. He, in his feeble humanity, asked his father if things could happen differently then he saw them approaching. BUT, Jesus was in no need of rescue. If he would have been rescued, our sins would not have been paid for. It's not that Jesus was a good guy that the bad guys aprehended, he was God incarnate who CHOSE to do what was prophesied.

Why did he die? We sinned! So the "Law of Love" which is very prevailent in the Bible, is observed humbly, soberly in view of the mess that God so gracefully cleaned up on the cross. Let's not forget this cross of the Bible. Of course we were on the cross, the WHOLE WORLD was. It's not just the weak, the poor, the dispise, it was also for the rich, the immoral, and the decievers. They are all spiritually needy, and therefore needed the sacrifice that God offered through his son. Whatever law that we aren't subject to, because of the consequences, we have now as a written understanding of the things that please God. So, out of this law of love, it all comes from the response of our hearts in LOVE OF God, then in the love of others. We must love ourselves, but we can only do that, we can only truly please God when we (and we can please God more when we) learn how to love God. Guys these things we have in Jesus aren't petty rights like we have in the Bill of Rights. Remember, we were bought with a price. We aren't our own, but we belong to God! So we should be seeking what pleases God. If we can't use the Bible (if we can only just what Jesus "says") then how can we even know where to start?

Sorry for my grammar errors, but I have to jet. Thanks for reading. Be merciful.

[keltic63]

The Bible says over and over again that the Lamb was Slain before the foundations of the Earth. The prophets told of a savior. This guy that we read about in the gospels was not a reluctant guy who was done in by the bullies. Every reference that Jesus makes to his own divinity confirms that he was actively engaging the world around him. He stated over and over again that his actions were not just the works of the person Jesus, but they were the words and actions of God the Father himself. Anything that happened to Jesus, was something that Jesus faced full on. He, in his feeble humanity, asked his father if things could happen differently then he saw them approaching. BUT, Jesus was in no need of rescue. If he would have been rescued, our sins would not have been paid for. It's not that Jesus was a good guy that the bad guys aprehended, he was God incarnate who CHOSE to do what was prophesied.

Why did he die? We sinned! So the "Law of Love" which is very prevailent in the Bible, is observed humbly, soberly in view of the mess that God so gracefully cleaned up on the cross. Let's not forget this cross of the Bible. Of course we were on the cross, the WHOLE WORLD was. It's not just the weak, the poor, the dispise, it was also for the rich, the immoral, and the decievers. They are all spiritually needy, and therefore needed the sacrifice that God offered through his son. Whatever law that we aren't subject to, because of the consequences, we have now as a written understanding of the things that please God. So, out of this law of love, it all comes from the response of our hearts in LOVE OF God, then in the love of others. We must love ourselves, but we can only do that, we can only truly please God when we (and we can please God more when we) learn how to love God. Guys these things we have in Jesus aren't petty rights like we have in the Bill of Rights. Remember, we were bought with a price. We aren't our own, but we belong to God! So we should be seeking what pleases God. If we can't use the Bible (if we can only just what Jesus "says") then how can we even know where to start?

To play the Devil's Advocate here, Just whom did God pay?

[Dash]

If we can't use the Bible (if we can only just what Jesus "says") then how can we even know where to start?

For myself (and that's a sizeable caveat), I find the bible to very useful. I would never say we "couldn't use it"; however, again, there are hints even in the bible that a "law written in stone" was not the ultimate goal of the divine. It was the law written on the heart that we have been heading toward all along.

Even as metaphors, the two concepts present strong and contrasting images. One law is unyielding...it is not merciful...it is holy and hard. The other law is loving and tender...it yields to our human needs...it is human and soft in it's application.

C.S. Lewis points out in one of his books that the 10 commandments didn't really add anything new to the common morality of the day. Very similar moral codes were found in Egypt and Babylon. But beyond that...if one accepts the sacred creation poetry of Genesis, one must acknowledge that humanity has eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We are not without understanding. We either are imbued with this knowledge or we are not. Personally, I think that the fact that we are perennially engaged in fierce moral debates and struggle to address these issues is a proof that we are guided by more than just written words handed down from heaven and our ancestors.

But you yourself are aware that we were also given a Spirit to guide us. For me (same caveat as above) I must yield to that Spirit...I must learn from that Spirit. This Spirit speaks to me most often through the lives and experiences of other people...humbling moments that have wounded my heart as I was able to "walk in another person's shoes." Even if all bibles were destroyed and no one could recall the words of the commandments, I believe the Spirit would be teaching us and leading us toward compassionate and lives if we were open to it.:love:

Which brings me to the final point. Only allowing the former, stony commandments as a guide is (in my opinion) a terrible hindrance to the gentle working of the Spirit.

[Zerbie]

Beautifully said, Dash. Yep.

Thank you! :love:

[KingdomMinded]

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them. This is where I found it. (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink)

I see real danger in saying that Paul didn't know therefore what he says is invalid. What about anything else he said? When I read the Bible, I'm not putting my trust only in the validity of the writer. I am trusting the Bible because it's the Word of God. It wasn't that Paul was just writing what he thought was good. We have to trust that it was God writing through Paul, and that it IS good; it is God breathed! If it isn't we should not be allowed to use any of the Pauline books to justify our faith.

I think Kierkegaard and Rene Descartes have it right:
'Above all we should impress on our memory as an
infallible rule that what God has revealed to us is incomparably
more certain than anything else and that we ought to submit
to the Divine authority rather than to our own judgement even
though the light of reason may seem to us to suggest. with the
utmost clearness and evidence. something opposite' [from
Principles 28 and 76 of Principles of Philosophy, Rene Descartes].

Also, just because Homosexuality isn't a mental "illness" doesn't mean it isn't a sin. Kleptomania is a mental disorder but that doesn't discount stealing as sin.

[keltic63]

This is where I found it. (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink)

I see real danger in saying that Paul didn't know therefore what he says is invalid. What about anything else he said? When I read the Bible, I'm not putting my trust only in the validity of the writer. I am trusting the Bible because it's the Word of God. It wasn't that Paul was just writing what he thought was good. We have to trust that it was God writing through Paul, and that it IS good; it is God breathed! If it isn't we should not be allowed to use any of the Pauline books to justify our faith.

I think Kierkegaard and Rene Descartes have it right:
'Above all we should impress on our memory as an
infallible rule that what God has revealed to us is incomparably
more certain than anything else and that we ought to submit
to the Divine authority rather than to our own judgement even
though the light of reason may seem to us to suggest. with the
utmost clearness and evidence. something opposite' [from
Principles 28 and 76 of Principles of Philosophy, Rene Descartes].

Also, just because Homosexuality isn't a mental "illness" doesn't mean it isn't a sin. Kleptomania is a mental disorder but that doesn't discount stealing as sin.

would you then use Paul's writings to keep women from taking on leadership roles in the church? to keep them silent in church? what about the verse in Timothy that says they shouldn't braid their hair or wear jewelry? (1 Timothy2:9)

remember, if you say that I have to consider what was going on in those churches, you are reminding me to consider the context of the culture and community. that is exactly what we are saying with the topic of sexual orientation, that one must consider the context of the culture in which there was no concept of orientation.

I am in Christ. NO ONE can separate me from Christ.
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
And the Bible tells me that because I am in Christ, there is no one who can condemn me.

[KingdomMinded]

I feel like this site has problems with manipulating the word of God for it’s own needs. When we read the Bible and it says, You shall not kill, it’s pretty clear what it means. Why does there have to be so much uncertainty on rules that God made about homosexuality?
I have feelings for men. It feels like these things are natural to me, and I don’t know sometimes where I am sinning. I think it might be in sexualizing my attraction to masculinity. My ignorance doesn’t excuse my sin. Paul says that we sin all the time, without knowing it. We are forgiven when we repent (and you can repent of things you don’t know you did. Paul says that he does.), but that shouldn’t keep us from desiring to obey God. What else is there in the kingdom of God, but obey God, the King? (this is practical, not just hypothetical or symbolic)
Romans 1 says that “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

I’ve heard this said. This is not necessarily my own view:

I’ve heard that Paul is just using homosexuality as an example of all the ways that humans have exchanged wanted a lie instead of the truth. (This will be offensive to some. Avert your eyes if you think it might.) Paul says, look, clearly a man an woman are made physically to compliment each other in every way. But men have somehow convinced themselves that a penis and a penis go together (or vagina and vagina). Clearly a penis and vagina compliment each other, in fact, God made Eve having known what Adam needed. There are never, ever guidelines for the behavior of homosexuals in “righteous” relationships because the man and the woman are clearly named. (I am interested in knowing where there might be explicit homosexual relationships in the Bible. Don’t use David and Jonathan. There is no mention of sexual behavior. Can’t they just be good friends?)

The end. I’m gonna go take a nap. Sorry for the offensive material. Help me sort through these claims.

[keltic63]

I feel like this site has problems with manipulating the word of God for it’s own needs. When we read the Bible and it says, You shall not kill, it’s pretty clear what it means. Why does there have to be so much uncertainty on rules that God made about homosexuality? God also gave commands to kill as Israelites came into the promised land; the walls of Jericho fell, I'm sure someone was killed there and it's pretty apparent that God approved; Samson prayed to God and took out a lot of people as he took down that temple; the implication from scripture is that he had God's blessing. And then there's all those commands to stone people to death for certain crimes. I'm amazed that things are so clear to you.
I have feelings for men. It feels like these things are natural to me, and I don’t know sometimes where I am sinning. I think it might be in sexualizing my attraction to masculinity. My ignorance doesn’t excuse my sin. Paul says that we sin all the time, without knowing it. We are forgiven when we repent (and you can repent of things you don’t know you did. Paul says that he does.), but that shouldn’t keep us from desiring to obey God. What else is there in the kingdom of God, but obey God, the King? (this is practical, not just hypothetical or symbolic)
Romans 1 says that “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
since you say you have a "natural" attraction to men, could you look at this scripture as saying that it would be wrong for you to go against your own nature? In other words, for you, and all men or women with a homosexual nature, it would be sinful to try to act as a heterosexual. This has been my experience. I was not in the will of God when I was in a straight marriage.

I’ve heard this said. This is not necessarily my own view:

I’ve heard that Paul is just using homosexuality as an example of all the ways that humans have exchanged wanted a lie instead of the truth. (This will be offensive to some. Avert your eyes if you think it might.) Paul says, look, clearly a man an woman are made physically to compliment each other in every way. But men have somehow convinced themselves that a penis and a penis go together (or vagina and vagina). Clearly a penis and vagina compliment each other, in fact, God made Eve having known what Adam needed. do you have scripture for that? does this mean that any sexual activity that does not involve the appropriate genitalia in the appropriate location would be sinful? I could get graphic here, but let's just say there's no reason for a man to be going after those breasts, and no reason EVER for oral sex.
There are never, ever guidelines for the behavior of homosexuals in “righteous” relationships because the man and the woman are clearly named. The Bible doesn't talk about heterosexual relationships???? is that what you're saying. There's a quote floating around here that says there are over 300 admonishments in scripture concerning heterosexual activities. I haven't counted, but that certainly seems possible. (I am interested in knowing where there might be explicit homosexual relationships in the Bible. Don’t use David and Jonathan. There is no mention of sexual behavior. Can’t they just be good friends?)
not many marriage relationships mentioned in the bible go into sexual detail. can you rule out that kind of relationship for David and Jonathan based on the Bible's lack of detail about it?
some more scholarship about the relationship: In Hebrew culture, similar to many mid-eastern cultures today, men and women did not engage in platonic relationships. They were either married, or they had no relationship. In this case, David compares his relationship with Jonathon to the relationship with a woman, strongly indicating a marriage/sexual relationship. Further, the word used for love here (ahbh; used also in 1 Samuel 18:3 and 1 Samuel 20:17 referring for Jonathon's love for David) is the same word used in Genesis 29:20 for Jacob's love for Rachel, and is used repeatedly in Song of Songs. It is typically translated as love in the context of a marriage or sexual desire (Proverbs 5:19, etc.; see Strong's concordance #0160).
and, you still didn't respond to my question about the things Paul has to say about women. you're telling me that I twist scripture to arrive at my answers, yet you are willing to ignore other scriptures. OR, are you saying that only some scriptures must be interpreted in context?

[dewdrop_world]

I've been watching this thread evolves, and I'm greatly moved by KingdomMinded's pain and confusion, and the compassionate responses thereto.

Like the other responders here, I don't have any easy answers. Fundamentally this is a crisis of faith, and I'm not sure a faith crisis should be easy if it's to mean anything. I can offer another voice of support--you're certainly not alone in questioning and testing. I remember in the year or so after I came out, I would turn on the 700 Club from time to time just to hear Pat Robertson say what awful sinners gay people were. Then I would spend the next few days periodically stricken with terror, wondering, "What if he's right?" It took me some time to realize it was not healthy behavior--and even more time to realize that I could live my life happily and with integrity, as a gay man, with or without the support or approval of any churchly authority.

One of the greatest gifts I've found in being gay is that we must, by necessity, develop a moral compass that is calibrated not by tradition or by community standards, but by an internal pull toward greater and greater integrity. I've noticed that a lot of religious conservatives state, pretty much outright, that there is no such thing as personal integrity. It's a fundamentally pessimistic view: people are corrupt by nature, and the only way people can be rescued from themselves is through a traditional moral law. Personally I think that's a pretty horrible thing to say about God's creation! I can go into that more later. I mention it because it's usually underlying the proposition that people are just twisting scripture to fit their needs. That does happen sometimes, but it happens just as often that the spiritual path leads to genuine insights that contradict traditional views. In that case, what is the appropriate response? Follow the community where it leads, or follow God's path even if it is more difficult?

I'll close--for now--with the thought that, if it really is true that God works in mysterious ways (I have no doubt of it), then it's possible--even likely--that God will work in your life in a way that your birth faith may not be able to recognize. How, then, do you know if it's God? I find God in the quiet places, when I stop praying for things to be one way or another and just listen.

That kind of communion with God--which goes beyond faith, teaching or tradition and is entirely yours--is your birthright. It already belongs to you and it's just waiting to be uncovered. It doesn't demand that you treat your sexuality in one way or another, but it does have the interesting effect that however you live your life, if you do it with integrity, it reveals itself more and more fully.

So what is your integrity? Bring up that question in prayer, then be quiet and sit with it with no preconceptions about the answer. When the answer comes, it will be much clearer what to do.

Courage!
James

[Daniel]

One of the greatest gifts I've found in being gay is that we must, by necessity, develop a moral compass that is calibrated not by tradition or by community standards, but by an internal pull toward greater and greater integrity. I've noticed that a lot of religious conservatives state, pretty much outright, that there is no such thing as personal integrity. It's a fundamentally pessimistic view: people are corrupt by nature, and the only way people can be rescued from themselves is through a traditional moral law.

So what is your integrity? Bring up that question in prayer, then be quiet and sit with it with no preconceptions about the answer. When the answer comes, it will be much clearer what to do.

James,

Your words put in more eloquent fashion what I have wanted to say for quite a while now within these cyber walls. You draw attention to what I consider to be the central issue for those who dealing with being Fundamentalist and Gay.

Yes. There are those who assert that there is no such thing as integrity- for they believe that there must be an outside source to whom one must submit and who also holds you under the constant threat of judgment (it's a fine irony that there is always someone ready to tell us just how we can twist ourselves to fit their idea of moral purity).

Your way has been my way. To sit in silence and be still- that- as the scripture tells us- as excellent a 'stage direction' if there ever was one (having working with many directors one sees that the better ones always tell one what to do and where to go. The mediocre one are always fussing about what they don't like. Very tiresome).

There is a provocative saying in Buddhist thought: "If you meet the Buddha on the Road- Kill Him!"

(I have often thought of this with the word Jesus used. Please don't get alarmed my friends- one has to use abstract thinking to deal with this sort of concept.)

One translation:

You 'know' when you stop 'knowing'.

Another translation:

Don't let your idea of something come between you and the truth you are seeking.

[Zerbie]

Dewdrop, Daniel:

The "sitting in stillness" thing is what I did when I was little and wanted to know "the answer" on the homosexuality issue. All the grown ups around me were shrieking, fighting, arguing, and they all sounded right to me. I knew any answer I got from them would be distorted, so I decided to go into meditation, "plop," right there on the spot.

And while I questioned again, intellectually, many times, always in the end, there was That which I knew.

[Daniel]

...so I decided to go into meditation, "plop," right there on the spot.

And while I questioned again, intellectually, many times, always in the end, there was That which I knew.

Zerbie, Dewdrop,

You reminded me of a Zen saying and the experience of meditative insight:

First Thought, Best Throught.

[Jennifer5]

Very true Daniel:)

[KingdomMinded]

Let me respond to your proverb.

First Thought, Best Throught.

I am a college student, not to bad looking, if I do say so myself. I am also, as most people would remember, entering the most sexually active time of my life. If left to the whims of my body, I would be having sex all the time. I do have parents that would be totally against it, but if I wasn't attending a Christian college, I'm sure I would be very liable to just let myself go.
So what am I saying?
It seems that I have a "natural" desire to have sex with men, LOTS of men. If I see a good looking guy, I want to have sex with him (with some exceptions). If I see a picture of a penis, I am aroused.
But if it's my nature I shouldn't be ashamed right?
Well, the Bible is clear, Jesus says, that if I even look at a woman (and this site might have to take that to mean any person) with lustful thoughts, I have already committed adultery in my heart. This is what Jesus says. So, to those who feel like this lusting comes natural, what do you say to them? How am I supposed to deal with the desire, not just for one man, but for an orgy of men, sex everywhere? This is certainly the fantasy of most; it fills the dreams a of many gay men. So what do we do with this? Is the desire for promiscuity sinful? Is promiscuity sinful? Because It seems like that desire comes more naturally than any other I have.

After this past Passion Week, I am even more thankful for Good Friday. Wow, I am so thankful for Jesus' pain an suffering. I watched the Passion of the Christ, and all I could do was grimace at the whippings and then thank God for this great, perfect, necessary gift! If it weren't for each wound on Jesus body, and if it weren't for his horrible death, I would be damned forever. Thank you Jesus, that we can call that day Good Friday. For that was the day the human race was saved from it's own sin.

Hebrews 12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

[Zerbie]

Hi Matthew. Glad you came back!

The aphorism Daniel quoted refers not to desires, but to intuition and insight. (Yes?) Separate things.

The intuition is the inner knowing - that which comes to us in contemplation and meditation, according to the degree to which we are open to receive and capable of understanding. Insight is clarity.

Desires are another thing altogether. Impulses, really. They do not grow out of contemplation, they are stilled by it.

So how do you deal with desire? That in itself could warrant an entire book! Consider the question. It's your question, after all, so own it for a while and come up with your own best solution. Then accept that the solution might change as life unfurls.

We are corporeal beings as well as spiritual beings. Physical desires ARE natural. Yes. What could possibly be more natural than feeling affection, closeness, attraction, admiration, desire, infatuation, and most wonderful of all - love - for another human being? It is the most natural desire of all. Fellowship, companionship, pleasure, comfort, touch. They are wonderful things. They are also necessities. In infancy, affectionate, caring, appropriate touch is a survival need. As we grow older, not so much a physical survival need, but an emotional and psychological need. Studies show that our physical health still requires that we experience relationship, closeness, intimacy. The entire system needs these things.

To be balanced, one needs to find a way to discipline excessive desires (such as the desire for orgies and harems, does *everyone* have that fantasy?! I've had that thought enough times! :lol: ) . . .back to topic, discipline the excessive desires yet express those that are consonant with our actual needs, physically, emotionally, psychologically.
For most people, that means being in a committed relationship with a beloved partner. If your needs are being met, and your partners' needs are being met, and your relationship elevates both of you, then you are fulfilling a high spiritual purpose: loving, as both giver and receiver, sharing your love and strength with the larger community around you, and learning through your devotion and dedication to your partner, to be ever more devoted to the Lord who gave you life. I heard a wise person once say that most people can never truly love and serve God until they have practiced loving service by loving one's partner in life. Such a relationship is your greatest tool for attainment. Why denounce it for the physical manifestation (male or female) that it arrives in?

[Daniel]

It seems that I have a "natural" desire to have sex with men, LOTS of men. If I see a good looking guy, I want to have sex with him (with some exceptions). If I see a picture of a penis, I am aroused.

But if it's my nature I shouldn't be ashamed right?

How ever did you get from your desires to orgies so quickly with nothing in between? This I don't follow. You're talking to a monogomous gay man- yes we do exist- who sees others guys and goes Wow- ain't that great. But you know what? Looking at the 'menu' is a far cry from ordering and eating. At my 'advanced' age of 47, I can tell you that it takes a lot of energy to be unfaithful to my partner. It's simple physics- running around hooking up with other guys would takes a lot of work.. it's not how I choose to live my life. There are consequences to that. Hello! Do gay (and straight) people have 'open' relationships? Yes. But the vast majority have have pretty normal relationships. Have you heard the joke going around? "If you want to keep gay men from having sex let them marry!" It proves the point- abet with humor- that gay men have the same issues in relationship as straight people. I can tell you from experience what that's all about: intimacy.

The casual talk regarding sexual relationships seems to posit that men, absent the influence of women, would behave as gay men supposedly do. That is, they have unbridled sexual experiences 24 hours a day. Now I don't know whether this thought was born out of envy or actual study, but there are all sorts of thoughts that come to mind here. Practicality for starters: It's real hard to have a life (it isn't a life-style) when you're running around on the make all the time. That gets old after a while and can be akin to chasing your own tail. Boring. Guys who are into that are pretty one dimensional- at least to me. (I wanted a guy with depth). Love- real love- on the other hand- seems to require a whole different set of skills and makes demands- yes- demands- upon us which are worth making- that's been my experience so far. Learning to love and be love has been the most incredible- and the most- important thing in my life.

And what about straight people? Do you really think they don't look at each other with lust or love in their hearts? The only difference is that most of them aren't' wondering whether it's a good or bad.

The journey to love, I believe, has much to do with how we treat each other. What's hidden in the golden rule, perhaps, is how we treat ourselves. That's the first part of the scripture that's often forgotten.

I found that it wasn't my desires that were the issue but what I did with them. Everyone faces this in one way or another. The complexities are endless. What one does with them is a lot more important- as I see it- as the desires themselves. That's where the issue of relationship comes into play.

Lastly, and not to beat a dead horse here, what I was referring to re my 'proverb' has more to do with meditative- that is sitting on a cushion- experience- the kind of experience and 'thought' that is much deeper than we have in our normal eyes-opened consciousness. That is a very different kind of 'knowing'. It speaks to the nature of things- not just the appearance of things. It would 'appear' that you are drawn to- and attracted to- men of your own sex. How you work that out- how you engage another man in relationship- is a much deeper issue than simple lust. I would say that it's about Love.