Being A Gay Christian

[Sticky&Sweet]

I was 19 at that time. I attended a Catholic church, was going to be baptized as a Catholic, but something kept holding me back. It was the fact that deep down inside I know that I am gay and I know that in the eyes of the Catholic church, that is a sin. I was unsure what to do. If I were to be baptized, that means I have to walk the straight and narrow path in the spirit of the Catholic faith. But what if I fail? What if I cannot turn straight? Then I would be condemned to hell.

In the end, after thinking it through and through, I decided I had to be true to my own nature. And so I left. Not only the church but the religion itself.

Spiritually, I was empty, and that went on until university and even after I graduated and started work. I needed spiritual nourishment, but I was afraid to go back to church. I couldn't bring myself to go to a place where I know I had to hide who I am. I wanted a spiritual place where I would be accepted. And as I was racking my head, thinking, thinking, thinking ... and agonizing, I walked past Borders at Wheelock. I went in, hoping to distract myself. Just then, I saw the most serene sight right in front of my eyes.

There, walking slowly but in a sure footed manner, towards me, a slight smile on his face, was a monk in robes. He had the most radiant face ever. I was stunned and mesmerized. Like there was a glow emitting from his whole being. A monk in Borders. Serendipity. Just then, I knew where I could find some answers on how to fill my spiritual emptiness. 10 years later, I am still a Buddhist, and it is a religion where I feel does not conflict with my sexuality. In fact, Buddhism embraces it, in my opinion.

[Guest shenderz]

Cool.

Btw religion not = spirituality.

You can have religious but soulless people or spiritual but not religious people.

[Mercutio]

Well, I feel one needs to define what being 'Christian' entails: does it mean being part of an institutionalized Christian church (e.g. Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Methodist, Greek Orthodox et al) or does it mean that one subscribes to the fundamental tenets shared across all these denominations (e.g. that someone named Jesus who lived in Palestine circa 30 A.D. and was crucified was the Messiah and the Logos incarnate, that he rose again from the dead to redeem the sins of mankind, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, et al).

The definition is crucial because institutionalized Christian churches differ on many points of doctrine and theology, in which case, objectively speaking, the only thing which categorizes them all as 'Christian' are these fundamental tenets [side note: of course, not all institutionalized churches regard other institutionalized churches as 'Christian'. It's a common misconception here in Southeast Asia that Catholics are not Christian, when Catholics are indeed Christian, and it is the propaganda of the Protestant Christian churches who regard Catholicism as having fallen from 'true' Christianity, which the Protestants of course define as Protestant Christianity, that has led to that misconception].

If this definition is to mean institutionalized Christianity, then yes, virtually all mainstream and established Christian churches reject homosexuality because of their interpretation of Leviticus 20:13 (Vulgate: Qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo, uterque operatus est nefas: morte moriantur: sit sanguis eorum super eos. KJV: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. NIV: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. *Forgive the multiple quotations, but there's a reason for that which I shall come to) and to a lesser extent Deuteronomy 23:17 (KJV: There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel).

But if one's point of view is that being 'Christian' is belief in the fundamental tenets, then there is grounds to say that it is not necessarily at odds, which is the foundation behind Christian gay groups. After all, one is hard pressed to find any reference within the Four (standard) Gospels which condemns homosexuality. Instead, there is a incontrovertible theme of Christ preaching to those marginalized in society: prostitutes, tax collectors and the like.

And if one extends 'Christian' teaching to the Acts of the Apostles, we have the incident in Acts 10:11-13, where under mainstream interpretation seems to suggest that God himself has back-pedalled on the old Pentateuch prohibitions against eating of pork and other unclean meats. Furthermore, there have been many well-presented discussions against the arbitrarily selective position of the institutionalized Christian churches vis-a-vis homosexuality - in a nutshell, why are they picking on homosexuality as an abomination because of a phrase in the Old Testament, while conveniently ignoring other rules, such as hmmm women who are menstruating not being able to approach the altar, or being allowed to make slaves of neighbouring countries?

On top of this arbitrary picking and choosing, there is the issue of interpretation and context. Leviticus 20:13 seems pretty straight forward until one considers Deuteronomy 23:17 - it is the opinion of many academic scholars today that the prohibition in Deuteronomy and Leviticus is not against homosexuality per se, but because ritualized homosexuality was part of the worship of other gods. The NIV version of the Deuteronomy verse I quoted above is very clear: NIV - No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute; which is very different from There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. The worship of Astarte, one of the major rivals to the worship of Yahweh, included having sex with the priest/priestess prostitutes. So, taken in this context, it seems probable that the injunction was not against homosexuality per se, but participating in rites of rival deities.

Apologies for the lengthy and probably over-academic post, but what I'm trying to get at is this: decide for yourself what it means to be Christian and come to peace with it. If for you, being Christian requires accepting wholesale what the institutionalized Churches tell you, then you're going to have a tough time. But if it means having a more personal relationship with God, then you could possibly make your peace. The latter is a tougher route, I'd admit, because for a lot of us it's easier to think that the institutionalized Churches have a monopoly on truth and much greater wisdom/ connection with regards to "Christianity". But it's my opinion backed by experience, that many of these so-called elders, experts and priests don't really know beans. I've witnessed so many Bible study groups agonizing interpretations of Bible verses based on English, when the various books were written in archaic Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Consider for a moment a poem written in Song dynasty Chinese and an English translation of such - a great deal of the nuances and meanings are completely lost.

And consider also the historical context in which many of these Biblical texts were written. As a non-Biblical example - many people think Islam is anti-women's rights because Islam permits a man to take four wives. Yet what Mohammad did was to limit men to a maximum of four wives because at that time, men were taking ten to twenty wives. In other words, he was an advocate for women's rights.

Btw, Buddhism as laid out by the Dalai Lama is not against homosexuality per se. However, the Dalai Lama also makes clear that sexual relations of a homosexual nature are not to be practiced, which is similar to the stance adopted by the Anglican High Church.

In the end: my suggestion is to make up your own mind - understand what it is you want and you need. If you don't need spirituality, that's fine. If you do, there are alternatives. I know it's not easy for a lot of people to wrestle with these concepts, and there's always the pressure from the institutionalized Churches - but hey, within the institutionalized Churches themselves, one of the most respected theologians and Doctors of the Church - St Thomas Aquinas - wrote the following in his Summa Theologica: God has given us Reason and Logic, so Reason and Logic must be good things, and therefore should be applied in our understanding of Christ's teachings. So don't let some brimstone and fire wannabe evangelist bulldoze you over with his (probably) half-baked opinions. Think and decide for yourself.

P.S. I don't consider myself Christian btw.

[suckling_pig]

Mercutio,

I only ask because you do not seem to have mentioned it: Have you looked into the current studies of the Gnostic gospels and the very identity of organised Christianity defined at the Council of Nicaea? Many believers from the main spread of denominations, Catholic, Protestants, Orthodox all recite the Nicene Creed but few actually appreciate its significance.

For me the Gnostic traditions actually contain much more truth than the post-Council-of-Nicaea orthodoxy

Edited November 25, 2011 by suckling_pig

[Mercutio]

Mercutio, I only ask because you do not seem to have mentioned it: Have you looked into the current studies of the Gnostic gospels and the very identity of organised Christianity defined at the Council of Nicaea? Many believers from the main spread of denominations, Catholic, protestants, orthodox all recite the Nicene Creed but few actually appreciate its significance. For me the Gnostic traditions actually contain much more truth than the post-Council-of-Nicaea orthodoxy

That's a broader discussion and it may detract from the issue at hand.

There are far more texts than the Biblical ones, even including the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. It is ... difficult to establish that Gnostic texts contain more "truth", because what is "truth" after all. And Gnostic texts are extremely wide ranging in their approach - some Gnostic texts for example claim that John the Baptist was the true Messiah, and Jesus was an interloper. Or even more extreme, that the God of Genesis, the Iadabaoth (sp.?) was a vain lesser god who tried to make his own Creation, and failed, hence the flaws of this world. The Essene texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls probably give a somewhat better insight into "early" proto-Christianity.

And then there are scholastic approaches which challenge conventional interpretations of phrases in the Synoptic Gospels. We are taught that "Son of Man" = "Son of God".... but there is also a valid argument that by saying he is the son of Man that Jesus was trying to stop rumours of him being considered divine, i.e. that he is a son of man = mortal human.

I'm not sure what you meant by the reference to the Nicene Creed and not appreciating the significance. Certainly the Nicene Creed was a landmark in establishing a baseline foundation (but note that the Orthodox churches do not use the same creed - one of the fundamental reasons for the East-West schism was the line Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. The word Filioque was a Latin Church insertion, which the Oriental Orthodox Churches reject).

Maybe we should take this offline.

[suckling_pig]

My reference to the Council of Nicaea was a pivotal point whereby christianity withdrew into itself and accepted only a very narrow view of God and His morality as acceptable. The current pervasive attitude of Christians towards the Bible is that it is some kind of divinely inspired infallible book. It has become some kind of new idol. Narrow bigotted readings of the Bible is a natural result of this retreat into moral exclusivity. This i believe is your chief dissatisfaction with organised Christianity?

I think the most useful advice we can give to those struggling with Christian anti-gay dogma is to suggest to them that the Church's view may not be correct. The Church has changes its views from time to time, and this will undoubtedly be one of them.

Yes i agree with you that, discussing Gnosticism and the Essenes would be going too far off tangent.

I think some form of this discussion can and should be visible in the forum. I am sure there are other earnest seekers out there who may join in. Perhaps it can be split off into a different thead.

Anyways It is my relief to encounter you. At last there is some stimulating discussion in BW!

Edited November 25, 2011 by suckling_pig

[Mercutio]

My reference to the Council of Nicaea was a pivotal point whereby christianity withdrew into itself and accepted only a very narrow view of God and His morality as acceptable. The current pervasive attitude of Christians towards the Bible is that it is some kind of divinely inspired infallible book. It has become some kind of new idol. Narrow bigotted readings of the Bible is a natural result of this retreat into moral exclusivity. This i believe is your chief dissatisfaction with organised Christianity?

Not particularly. Nicaea I was necessary to achieve consensus within Christianity - the issue at hand was not a view of God and his morality, but to manage the rampant divergent opinions of who the Christ really was. The "Bible" itself was not discussed at length during Nicaea I, but established over a series of synods, with books being accepted as divinely inspired or otherwise rejected as an ongoing process. The current attitude towards the books of the Bible is therefore not anything particularly new. But you're right in that Nicaea I crystallized a core set of precepts - although the dismissal or rejection of alternate doctrines as being 'heretical' began long before that.

My chief dissatisfactions with institutionalized Christianity are the following:

(a) the ossification of doctrine without regard for the context of the times - as a counter-example, Hinduism or at least some schools, state that God periodically returns to this world because over time the meaning or context of his last message has been forgotten or lost;

(b) the inevitable additions that are layered over time, which too often are rooted in idiosyncrasies or even worse secular politics and power play. Examples of the former are the teachings of St Paul and St Augustine of Hippo, both great neurotics. Too often we forget that the Apostles hated St Paul because they felt he was distorting the teachings of Jesus. Examples of the latter are too numerous, but one is the doctrine of going straight to Heaven or Hell after death, which was introduced in (I think) the 12th century because the perceived immediacy of judgment after death was a powerful instrument in controlling people.... compare this was the Nicene Creed where it says the dead will only be judged when Christ returns;

© the fact that Christianity started out as a revolutionary religion, not a conservative one, something that virtually every institutionalized church today has conveniently forgotten ... because if they acknowledged that, they would lose out considerably in their power over their congregations;

(d) the claim to owning a monopoly on truth: I find it objectionable that in their opinion, a virtuous man who is not a Christian is nevertheless damned to Hell;

and related to the above,

(e) the tendency to present doctrine, which is really their own particular brand of interpretation, as unquestionable.

In all of the above, I have no particular issue with the Bible per se - only in its interpretation. The Apocrypha outside of the Bible were rejected mostly on fairly sound and reasonable grounds, although some, like the Gospel of Mary, may have been excluded for other reasons. Having said, I also recognize that there are bits and bops within various books of the Bible that have been censored, excised and glossed over, or presented as other than what they are. None of the four Gospels for example were probably written by anyone who could have possibly been a contemporary of Jesus, despite their contents, and were probably penned at least 50 or more years later.

[suckling_pig]

Your points are excellent and i am sure every thinking person would agree. I do think that many readers who are coming to terms with their Christian faith will find it useful.

If i may ask, which direction are you now seeking, for further spiritual development?

[bluesea78]

God will still love both

Sorry Guys, just a young man's perspective here.

I have experienced discrimination due to my sexuality. For starters, let me introduce myself. I am 18 years old, gay since young and currently a student. I spent 12 years in Catholic School, which... sad to say, discriminates and isolates gays. Im going into a rant here ... but i remember I was teased and bullied when my schoolmates found out about my sexuality, even though i tried to cover it. The bullying ranged from mild ones such as subjecting me to endless and embarrassing questions, deleting me on facebook (severing all contact with me) to sarcasm and plain physical abuse.

But the point is, I have never, EVER, believed in the con-gay arguments.

1) They argued that "gay lifestyles are nurtured" and how "it must be due to some emotional imbalances or traumatic event" that led to our homosexuality.

BULLSHIT

Being Gay is not a crime. It cannot be nurtured, at least to me. I knew i was gay from an early age. I remember having the first erection when i was 6 years old ... when i dreamt of guys. My father, uncles, grandparents are as straight and conservative as hell and they certainly didnt rape or molest me. I am perfectly sane. I repeat, being gay is not a crime and it cannot be nurtured. Yes, there are some instances of people turning gay because they were sexually abused or whatever. But they are more sexually confused and only crave the sexual pleasures!! Do they know true gay love? I dont think so.

2) God will send us to Hell for being Gay

LUDICROUS!!

According to the Bible, God loves his children. I am giving a very stupid analogy here ... but i hope it helps you homophobic idiots understand.

- Supposed God is the father of a household. He is the father of 2 boys, one who is born deformed but righteous (gay people) and another who is normal but a wicked, scheming and murderous person (straight). Who would he love more? Is it logical to banish the deformed child but shower the evil one with love? Hypocrisy of religion indeed.

There are tons of other stupid and ridiculous arguments. But due to time contraints (i need to mug for my A levels you know) and the fact that i am typing this from my phone, I shall not go further.

Hoped I didnt confuse you guys

=)

[Marineboy]

Perhaps there is a super being ..most call God.

However i feel most religion is flawed..

Most if not all try to control what you can and cannot do.

They existed in the days where perhaps <10% of the people are literate.

Thru the years the social conditioning has taken effect...we have people starting to dissagree hence the many diiferent sects...each supporting its own wishes the way they choose to see things.

We have religions that you are born into...cannot get out of as it is forbidden...cannot eat this n that...the list goes on.

So its not difficult to conclude it's all in the different ways people think that evolved to what it is today.

You start a church of satan...you still get followers....???

In the dark its good to follow the blind.....but when there is light why choose to follow the blind?

I ask you brothers to free yourself from this bondage and trap that most of us get sucked into.

Be true to yourself and be not afraid...you are given this life ..make the best of it. Be useful helpful kind to those around you.

There is really no need to subscribe to any organised movements.....

You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and stars you got the right to be here....goes the song.

Be at peace with one another

[Mercutio]

If i may ask, which direction are you now seeking, for further spiritual development?

LOL

And with that most innocuous of questions, you've hit the nail on the head as to why the institution of the Church persists and continues to serve a purpose. The honest answer is I have no real direction. For if one has any humility, one cannot pretend that one's personal insights are as valid or weighty as the accumulated wisdom of any body of religion or philosophy. And despite Dawkins's best efforts at thumping his chest, science is not really an alternative - science is by its own definition descriptive, not prescriptive. So I read what I can, and synthesize what I may: it gives a better sense of clarity most days insofar as the conscience goes, but is rather failing in other aspects like sense of purpose or continuity.

[playfulsg]

I love God, He himself is a man.

So is that make me gay?

[greysuperhero]

I love God, He himself is a man.

So is that make me gay?

HAHAA! In Sunday services, singing those worshipful hymns that say 'I will run into His embrace', 'I love Him' etc always made me feel like there's some homoeroticism somewhere inside, haha but omg so blasphemous!

Mercutio has brought up some very cheem and insightful stuff!

[Marineboy]

HAHAA! In Sunday services, singing those worshipful hymns that say 'I will run into His embrace', 'I love Him' etc always made me feel like there's some homoeroticism somewhere inside, haha but omg so blasphemous!

Mercutio has brought up some very cheem and insightful stuff!

Goodness gracious....you have opened my eyes yet again....neber thought God could turn you onz :whistle:

[Turre-toe]

<p>

Religion has no functionality in modern society. Period.

</p>

sounds like a question i will get in my soci module. haha.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Turre-toe

[suckling_pig]

... So I read what I can, and synthesize what I may: it gives a better sense of clarity most days insofar as the conscience goes, but is rather failing in other aspects like sense of purpose or continuity.

I think it is the Buddhists who say " when the student is wiling, the teacher will appear".

To me, insight and revelation can come from anywhere, from the most profound sayings of the various holy books, to the utterances of a fool. What is important is a mind that is open and willing to connect the dots.

SP

[Mercutio]

To me, insight and revelation can come from anywhere, from the most profound sayings of the various holy books, to the utterances of a fool. What is important is a mind that is open and willing to connect the dots.

No doubt. My caveat, which perhaps I did not make clear, is that if we accept humility to be a virtue, then humility dictates that one remains mindful that the insights and revelations one may receive are not necessarily complete or perfect. If one considers that the corpus of institutionalized religious writings is for the most part authored by writers who have devoted their minds and lives to the subject, then one must admit there is a high probability that at least some of these writings may exceed one's own experiences in the degree of revelation and wisdom. The happiest marriage would also be able to blend the best of these into one's own personal philosophy - but humility again must question if one is truly wise enough to recognize the best of these in the first place.

If one is willing to learn, the teacher may appear. But will one recognize the correct teacher when he appears?

I love God, He himself is a man.

So is that make me gay?

I know what you're saying but as an aside, in my personal philosophy I think it's fallacious on our parts to conceive of the Divine as having characteristics. To have characteristics, the Divine becomes a being, i.e. a separate thing of existence, in which case, logically, the Divine must exist within the laws of a broader universe, and in which case the Divine must be a created being, and in which case it is no longer the First Mover. To ascribe even love or mercy, thought or action, to God is to limit the Divine. Man then creates God in his own image and not the other way around.

[suckling_pig]

If one is willing to learn, the teacher may appear. But will one recognize the correct teacher when he appears?

At present i am aware of 2 facets of this saying:

1. The more apparent meaning has "ready" as its operative word. If a wise man appears, and the student does not recognise him, then the wise man was not the teacher the student was ready for. The student was in fact ready for another (perhaps lower level) teacher. But then again teachers do not need to be wise men. They can be fools, books or even an event we witness.

2. Teachers choose their students (i do not mean this in the way of our institutionalised national school system). I mean it in the way of a "guru" and his disciple. Did not Jesus choose his core students whom he told " to the others i speak in parables, but to you i speak plainly". Did he mean that he taught deeper level wisdoms to his chosen few only? In the same tradition of the teachers of his day who taught advance level subjects to those students who could understand? If our answer is that this is likely, then the very pertinent question is: are the deeper teachings contained within the accepted biblical canon or perhaps elsewhere? The Apocrypha? Dead Sea Scrolls? Essene writings? Modern day New Age knowledge? Theosophy?

Edited November 28, 2011 by suckling_pig

[TheVisitors]

The last four years , out of the total of 10 years in a well known all boys Christian school here, we were forced to take up Bible studies as an O level subject .Unless you were a Muslims, or your parents were able to submit a very valid reason for you to be exempted, you were not spared from religious studies torture.

While reading the bible, besides being constantly getting myself in to trouble with the school pastor, for raising questions which he couldnot answer , or thought they were totally absurb, I noticed there was a missing link in Jesus' life.

Between the age of 12 to 30 of Jesus, there were no mentioning of his life during this period.

So what happened?

This missing period truly intrugued me, to question the bible even more.

As it was like Providence's fate, i joined two of my friends to a short visit in India, 11 years ago, and came across this book

" Jesus Lived In India " by Holger Kersten.

Thrilled I ordered and bought all the copies the shop had.

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

It explained the missing 18 years of Jesus ,as he went to Indian, to read the Buddha's scriptures and sutras, and his training in the various schools and forms of yoga.

I had read before the Buddha's Lotus Sutra, in which someone did mentioned to me, the Buddha, had predicted his Nirvana, which that after his entrance into Emptiness, the nex Buddha, presently known as the Bodisvatta Maitreya, will descend from the Heavens to resolve the conflicts in the West.

Thus to some Buddhist scholars, Jesus was actually Maitreya, the next Buddha in line.

Shortly I bought 4 copies of the book, it was said many Churches protested, wrote in a petition for the book to be banned from been further published.

Quite surprised that the book can be purchased online or can be read in ebook download

[suckling_pig]

The (or what later became) Church could pick and choose what books believers had access to at the Council of Nicaea two thousand years ago. Its a little more difficult to do now with the internet. Thank God. Literally

[Guest Lunarstone]

The last four years , out of the total of 10 years in a well known all boys Christian school here, we were forced to take up Bible studies as an O level subject .Unless you were a Muslims, or your parents were able to submit a very valid reason for you to be exempted, you were not spared from religious studies torture.

While reading the bible, besides being constantly getting myself in to trouble with the school pastor, for raising questions which he couldnot answer , or thought they were totally absurb, I noticed there was a missing link in Jesus' life.

Between the age of 12 to 30 of Jesus, there were no mentioning of his life during this period.

So what happened?

This missing period truly intrugued me, to question the bible even more.

As it was like Providence's fate, i joined two of my friends to a short visit in India, 11 years ago, and came across this book

" Jesus Lived In India " by Holger Kersten.

Thrilled I ordered and bought all the copies the shop had.

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

It explained the missing 18 years of Jesus ,as he went to Indian, to read the Buddha's scriptures and sutras, and his training in the various schools and forms of yoga.

I had read before the Buddha's Lotus Sutra, in which someone did mentioned to me, the Buddha, had predicted his Nirvana, which that after his entrance into Emptiness, the nex Buddha, presently known as the Bodisvatta Maitreya, will descend from the Heavens to resolve the conflicts in the West.

Thus to some Buddhist scholars, Jesus was actually Maitreya, the next Buddha in line.

Shortly I bought 4 copies of the book, it was said many Churches protested, wrote in a petition for the book to be banned from been further published.

Quite surprised that the book can be purchased online or can be read in ebook download

There's another variation in that Jesus was brought to Tibet to learn from the monks there. The idea is that at the time of Jesus' birth, there was a star in the sky right? This star was (I can't remember the whole story) towards the east. The 3 wise men were also from the east.

[Guest Lunarstone]

Ancient scrolls reveal that Jesus spent seventeen years in India and Tibet

From age thirteen to age twenty-nine, he was both a student and teacher of Buddhist and Hindu holy men

The story of his journey from Jerusalem to Benares was recorded by Brahman historians

Today they still know him and love him as St. Issa. Their 'buddha'

http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

[TheVisitors]

There's another variation in that Jesus was brought to Tibet to learn from the monks there. The idea is that at the time of Jesus' birth, there was a star in the sky right? This star was (I can't remember the whole story) towards the east. The 3 wise men were also from the east.

In the bible, it was mentioned the three wise men came from the EAST.

Thus one sharp observation was that the three wise men were Tibetans.

Tibet at that time was a center of Buddhist teachings, and one of the ancient secret scroll they had were dates that predicted the incarnation of Bodisattva Lord Maitreya on earth, who was the next future Buddha .

This Bodisattva will be the one who will then descend on Earth for the last time, to attain his enlightment and Nirvana as the next Buddha, as to salvage and save the Earth from 5000 years of darkness, due to the human wickedness, which is smiliar to that in the Bibles' book on the Revelation

It was speculated that Lord Krishna was one Maitreya's incarnation.

Jesus was one

Even the famous spiritual teacher , Jiddu Krishnamurti was said to be one of the most recent incarnation.

It was said, only after his death did they discovered a copy of a Maitreya;s sutra under his bed.

But at that time, in 1986, that sutra was not not even revealed to anyone, for there was only one original ancient text stored in the Tibetan Buddhist library.

Jiddu's version was found to be word for word actually to the original text.

They found it a mystery where and how could he possess another copy

According to Bertrand Russell, one of his controversial book, Why Am I not A Christian... I think it was him who cited about the loopeholes in the Bible.

It was about the part when was it John or Simon, who asked Jesus , when they were passing thru a village, " Oh Lord my Lord, why is this man BORN BLIND?"

And Jesus replied him " Due to the sins of his past deeds "

This actually illustrates the belief in reincarnation which the modern day Church and Christians denys

This is the book , or rather a recorded sample of his debate

http://users.drew.ed...enz/whynot.html

Another book on his 17 -18 years in Tibet was by writer Prophet Elizabeth - The Lost Years of Jesus

http://books.google....id=BvnanFM53fYC

Edited November 29, 2011 by TheVisitors

[justgymguy]

Dear all, I think we should just stick to the topic of being a GAY CHRISTIAN. We are not discussing on the issue on the authenticity of Jesus being God, all the doctrines, the discussion of Jesus's lost years. I seriously think this thread is currently walking on some thin ice over religious harmony in Singapore.

I will not want to go into any discussion/debate on the matters raised by the fellow members. I admit I am not well read as them. I admit I am not so intellectual as them. However, I just want to share something with all the readers here.

I have been a christian since I'm 18. All these 20+ years as a christian is nothing short of miracles after miracles. It is the experiences and encounters that I have which convinced me to the very core of my being that the very existence of Jesus as a living and loving God. Nothing in this world is able to dispute with me the very existence of Jesus and His Love for me.

From the articles that was shared and books written by others, I find it entertaining that there will be people reads them as if the author has the final authority in the matters discussed which in my opinion they are not. I once heard someone said this "the greatest lie is not, not telling the truth. It is the inclusion of some truth and mixed it with lies". This in my definition is conspiracy theories. something that we can find almost in every matter/area on earth. From UFOs, to Green Technologies, to Global Warming, to internet, to HIVs, to computer viruses, to Bird Flu, to 911 incident, to Mas Selamat, to Obama being President and the list can go on and on.

This is the thing that I want to share. Every religion has its so called loopholes. As ultimately it is written by men. Men will made mistakes. However, Christianity is one that focus on having a relationship with a God we called Daddy and with someone we called Jesus. Read it carefully, It is a RELATIONSHIP. And if it is a relationship it is not entirely meant to be debate, analyze, logical thinking, ensuring that it is faultless and no loopholes. It is just like any other relationships that you will have. A friend. A BF. Relationship is using your heart to feel. Not your logical thinking, not your analysis of the person, and most importantly, accepting the person's flaws. Just like some of you have experience. This BF or partner that you have. It goes against every criteria that you have for the right one for you. However, your heart tells you otherwise. your time spent with him tells you otherwise. your experience with him tells you otherwise.

I know some of you would say that i'm naive, stupid and any other names that you can called me. I'm not bother by it. I'm also not here to impose my views, my opinion, my belief on others. I can't speak for all Christian, but I know for sure, I do not discriminate any other people's religion. I do not go around sharing what in my opinion of the "flaws" or "loopholes" of other religions (especially, I was a devoted believer of another religion, whereby I spent my early years learning the scriptures/mantras). Because I respect the other person's belief.

My posting here is not to debate with anyone in this forum. But merely sharing something when I read postings of such. Maybe someone should start a thread "Being a buddhist/muslim/hindu gay". And see how the thread can spiral into a heated debate of religion and then see how the authorities would closed down the entire forum. Please be mindful of what you share in here.

Lastly, TheVisitors, the quote that you have shared, about the question that John or Simon asked Jesus. I do have a question for you. I believed that it is a quote that you extracted from the book by that author? If so, did you verified it in the bible? If you have not, I do recommend that you verify that quote from the author in the bible. You do not need to reply me on this. I'm not expecting an answer from you. But just a suggestion if you have not.

Thank you all for reading my super long post.

Have a nice week ahead.

[TheVisitors]

Dear all, I think we should just stick to the topic of being a GAY CHRISTIAN. We are not discussing on the issue on the authenticity of Jesus being God, all the doctrines, the discussion of Jesus's lost years. I seriously think this thread is currently walking on some thin ice over religious harmony in Singapore.

I will not want to go into any discussion/debate on the matters raised by the fellow members. I admit I am not well read as them. I admit I am not so intellectual as them. However, I just want to share something with all the readers here.

I have been a christian since I'm 18. All these 20+ years as a christian is nothing short of miracles after miracles. It is the experiences and encounters that I have which convinced me to the very core of my being that the very existence of Jesus as a living and loving God. Nothing in this world is able to dispute with me the very existence of Jesus and His Love for me.

From the articles that was shared and books written by others, I find it entertaining that there will be people reads them as if the author has the final authority in the matters discussed which in my opinion they are not. I once heard someone said this "the greatest lie is not, not telling the truth. It is the inclusion of some truth and mixed it with lies". This in my definition is conspiracy theories. something that we can find almost in every matter/area on earth. From UFOs, to Green Technologies, to Global Warming, to internet, to HIVs, to computer viruses, to Bird Flu, to 911 incident, to Mas Selamat, to Obama being President and the list can go on and on.

This is the thing that I want to share. Every religion has its so called loopholes. As ultimately it is written by men. Men will made mistakes. However, Christianity is one that focus on having a relationship with a God we called Daddy and with someone we called Jesus. Read it carefully, It is a RELATIONSHIP. And if it is a relationship it is not entirely meant to be debate, analyze, logical thinking, ensuring that it is faultless and no loopholes. It is just like any other relationships that you will have. A friend. A BF. Relationship is using your heart to feel. Not your logical thinking, not your analysis of the person, and most importantly, accepting the person's flaws. Just like some of you have experience. This BF or partner that you have. It goes against every criteria that you have for the right one for you. However, your heart tells you otherwise. your time spent with him tells you otherwise. your experience with him tells you otherwise.

I know some of you would say that i'm naive, stupid and any other names that you can called me. I'm not bother by it. I'm also not here to impose my views, my opinion, my belief on others. I can't speak for all Christian, but I know for sure, I do not discriminate any other people's religion. I do not go around sharing what in my opinion of the "flaws" or "loopholes" of other religions (especially, I was a devoted believer of another religion, whereby I spent my early years learning the scriptures/mantras). Because I respect the other person's belief.

My posting here is not to debate with anyone in this forum. But merely sharing something when I read postings of such. Maybe someone should start a thread "Being a buddhist/muslim/hindu gay". And see how the thread can spiral into a heated debate of religion and then see how the authorities would closed down the entire forum. Please be mindful of what you share in here.

Lastly, TheVisitors, the quote that you have shared, about the question that John or Simon asked Jesus. I do have a question for you. I believed that it is a quote that you extracted from the book by that author? If so, did you verified it in the bible? If you have not, I do recommend that you verify that quote from the author in the bible. You do not need to reply me on this. I'm not expecting an answer from you. But just a suggestion if you have not.

Thank you all for reading my super long post.

Have a nice week ahead.

Every religion has their own loopholes, and questionable practises and valuable, if you were to just extract yourself away, observe and question the nature and authencity of such beliefs.

Understanding and realizing the truth is one thing, belief is another.

The truth is what you finally experienced all by yourself, cannot be described in words, belief are merely unfounded truth, which mostly are accepted without questioning, and rather, a social conditioned behaviour.

In another words, beliefs are not truth.

Beliefs are known, truth are the unknown.

The unknown can never be known or experienced, unless you can let go of what you have already conditioned to know.

For the known are limits held in time, and thoughts, while truth are beyond time, nourished by eternity.

Truth can only be experienced, yet, it cannot be described, or can it be fully explained.

Yet, truth is beyond your ability to destroy it, but it is in your ability to experience and to accept .

To illustrate this simple point, the pain or the joy you feeling inside you, only you can feel and understand it, which cannot be described in plain words.

When I posted what I have to share, remember this.

In the convention Christianity view, which is echoed by the Church, if you are a Christian, you cannot be gay, for gays are sinners to be condemned to be burned in eternal hell.

While emphazising so much hate against gays, but loving and respecting their founder, Jesus, his founders, simply forgot his famous line , where he taught them about humanity

" Love thy neighbour as thyself"

Jesus didn't teach them to Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself, except gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender in the Bible.

Because the Christains themselves, have simply overlooked this very important teaching, and have yet to understand and grasp love and acceptance of another being, thus their own ignorance, had caused so much suffering, confusion, and inconveniences to the minority like us.

Besides this overlook, the bible was edited by Constantinople for political manipulation of the Christian Masses in somewhere 600 AD.

Along the way, many of the actual teachings and truth were lost and distorted.

I am not going into that part of the History.

You can do your own research, if you are interested.

I didn't create the case in the last bit, regarding the case of the blind man and reincarnation in Christianity.

Bertrand Russell did.

I read that book after my O level, and it was subsequently misplaced, but I did remember the example from the book, which awaken me to a possible loophole.

As a Christian yourself, I am sure you are aware that there are hundred and one version of the Bibles in this world.

Which Bible did Bertrand quoted from, sorry, I really don't know.

Edited November 30, 2011 by TheVisitors

[justgymguy]

When I posted what I have to share, remember this. In the convention Christianity view, which is echoed by the Church, if you are a Christian, you cannot be gay, for gays are sinners to be condemned to be burned in eternal hell. While emphazising so much hate against gays, but loving and respecting their founder, Jesus, his founders, simply forgot his famous line , where he taught them about humanity " Love thy neighbour as thyself" Jesus didn't teach them to Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself, except gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender in the Bible. Because the Christains themselves, have simply overlooked this very important teaching, and have yet to understand and grasp love and acceptance of another being, thus their own ignorance, had caused so much suffering, confusion, and inconveniences to the minority like us.

Visitors - I do agree with you on the above point that you have raised with regards to the point of Christians condemning gays, bi, lesbians and etc. However, a new revelation of the church has come... I do not want to sound preachy on this matter. I will keep it short. The ONLY SIN that will bring anyone and be condemn to hell for eternity is not accepting what Jesus has done on the Cross for them. This is the new revelation that the church has begin to realize.

Because of what Jesus has done, He has opened the way for us to be accepted into the family of God. Jesus himself said "For God so loved the world, that He gave His Only Begotten Son..." Are you part of the world? Then you are loved by God and Jesus.

Quoting from someone I respect a lot, he once said. God love all sinners. What He hate is the sin in you. Just like, if your love ones is suffering from cancer. Do you still hate the person or the cancer in the person?

So what's my point? What visitors shared (as quoted above) and what most of the readers here may have experienced in the past from the traditional churches are true. I'm not denying that. But no one should share such sensitive issues (loopholes in their beliefs) or to generalize one religion in a public domain such as this. Not just to christianity but to the other faiths/beliefs as well. Unless the thread is started with such intention, which apparently in this case, not so.

As mentioned earlier, I have spent my early years studying the mantra/scriptures of another religion, more than 10years. I too find the loopholes in that religion and no one was able to answer me. But do I use that as a license or the right to share openly what those loopholes were? Do I go about sharing with others in an open public forum as this on my findings? No I do not. WHY? Because I am mindful to respect the religion of others. I do not want to be the stumbling blocks of another person's faith/belief. It is one responsibility that no one can bear. unless you are the saviour of the world, which none of us are.

Visitors - what I am writing is seriously nothing personal against you. If I have in one way or another offended you, I do apologise. What I am against is the possibility of others who are younger in faith to be disillusioned. I don't care what you think or beliefs are. But I care for those younger ones in their faith. That is my sole purpose of posting in here.

Lastly, Visitors, yes there are hundreds of versions of the bible. But there is always the original version to refer too. The New Testament was written in Greek. So check out the original Greek version to see if it says as such by the author. A word of advice. If you want to quote someone who has in turn quoted something from another source. I would personally check out that source to see if it is true before I shared it with anyone. If not, always do a disclaimer. Always be mindful of what you share with others.

Anyway, this shall be my last post on this matter. I have never like to engage in such discussions. Life is already quite complicated as it is. I do not wish to complicate it further.

Have a nice week ahead.

[Mercutio]

Well, I feel Justgymguy has a point in that this thread should perhaps focus on exploring ways by which gay men and women could try to balance Christian belief with their sexual orientation, should they choose to follow Christianity. It's a different subject to discuss the validity of Christianity itself, or of any or all religions for that matter, although I agree with TheVisitors on the personal nature of spirituality and the necessarily man-made structure of any religion, even if they have "divine" (however that is to be interpreted) truth at their kernel.

I wasn't going to comment on the other matters raised, but the itch is too much and I have to scratch:

Theories about the "lost years" of Jesus abound, but insufficient evidence exists to elevate any of these beyond speculation. There aren't enough cosmological parallels between Christianity and Buddhism to support Jesus having studied Buddhism. It's a bit of a stretch for me to think that anyone (especially at that time) could earnestly study Buddhism in scripture and practice, and come away with teachings of compassion and peace but reject the central tenets of reincarnation, nothingness and karma.

Furthermore, it's not like there was no contact between the Roman Empire and Buddhism, and Jesus brought something so new and unknown to the Mediterranean that it couldn't be recognized as borrowed philosophy. Three centuries before Christ, Greek philosophers accompanying Alexander on his campaigns already conversed with the gymnosophists ("naked philosophers") of India. The fact that the few records which survive of these Greek philosophers already demonstrate a clearer Buddhist influence than any of Jesus's teachings (e.g. "Nothing really exists, but human life is governed by convention" - attributed to Pyrrho, or the entirety of the Skeptic tradition), casts doubt that Jesus was greatly influenced by Buddhism. Clement of Alexandria, an early Christian father, knew enough to comment about "those of the Indians that obey the precepts of Boutta, whom through exaggeration of his dignity they honour as a god". There was also the gnostic Manichaeist sect, which was probably Buddhist influenced: in the text of Archelaus, one Terebinthus is said to have declared himself 'Buddas' after being filled with Eastern wisdom. That the Manichaeist and early Christians clashed doesn't suggest much brotherhood or commonality of philosophy.

It is improbable that the Wise Men were Buddhists, and impossible that they were from Tibet. The Greek word used to describe them in the Gospel of Matthew, which is the only reference to them that exists anywhere, is 'Magi'. It doesn't mean 'wizard' or 'magician', contrary to what RPGs tell us. It's a very specific term for the Zoroastrian priestly caste from Persia. It is entirely possible the word was misapplied, but the scant clues from Matthew support this probability - the Zoroastrian priests were astronomers ("for we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage") and their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh would suggest a Mideast culture. At that time, the Parthian Empire (of Persia) stretched from Southeastern Turkey to Baluchistan, which places it directly east of Judaea. The actual text in Matthew says the Magi came from (meaning approached, not necessarily having origin from) the direction of the rising sun, but having been warned in a dream, returned home by another way.

Further, it would seem a little odd for Buddhists to bring frankincense and myrrh: not really traditional Buddhist gifts or treasures. One could argue they purchased them along the way since they would have to travel through the Middle East to get to Nazareth, but ... you know, if you saw a great sign in the heavens, I doubt you would have to pick something up along the way because you forgot to bring a present from home. Buddhism doesn't have a strong tradition of astronomy either. And hmm, Tibet wasn't Buddhist circa 1st century AD. Tibet only became Buddhist in the 7th century AD, so there's a chasm of six centuries plus in-between.

P.S. Matthew is silent on the number of Wise Men. The idea of there having been three is a later invention.

[playfulsg]

It was about the part when was it John or Simon, who asked Jesus , when they were passing thru a village, " Oh Lord my Lord, why is this man BORN BLIND?"

And Jesus replied him " Due to the sins of his past deeds "

This actually illustrates the belief in reincarnation which the modern day Church and Christians denys

That is so wrong, I never read bible who says such things.

here's the passage that you looking for:

¹ Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. ² And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

³ Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.

Then on verse 9, Jesus healed this man who born blind. And indeed this miracle are recorded in Bible, thus this man who born blind is neither blind because of karma or sin of his past or sin of his parent. just because it's for the Work of God to be revealed in him. as simple as that.

reference:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%209&version=NKJV

[Mercutio]

And indeed this miracle are recorded in Bible, thus this man who born blind is neither blind because of karma or sin of his past or sin of his parent. just because it's for the Work of God to be revealed in him. as simple as that.

Well-quoted.

You've just reminded me of Luke 13:1-5, where there seems to be an outright rejection of any operative moral causality (karma) in this world. I've reproduced verses 4-5 below (ISV):

4. "What about those eighteen people who were killed when the tower at Siloam fell on them? Do you think they were worse offenders than all the other people living in Jerusalem?"

5. "Absolutely not, I tell you! But if you don't repent, then you, too, will all die.”

Having said, I would avoid singular quotations as being "proof" of this or that. Taken out of context and especially without reference to the nuances of the original language used, any scripture, including the Bible, can be used to support almost any point of view.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Mercutio

[Marineboy]

I find it interesting when one chooses to believe the talking snake but not talking wolf in red riding hood.

Johan and the whale is ok but jack and the beanstalk is a fairytale.

Even when science now is able to open your eyes that the earth is indeed a lot older than 10000years....we choose not to see it.

Peace to all.

In the dark it is wise to follow the blind as his sneses are indeed superior.

However when it's daylight what's the use of following the blind anymore??

Edited December 3, 2011 by Marineboy

[EasleyLim]

I find it interesting when one chooses to believe the talking snake but not talking wolf in red riding hood.

Johan and the whale is ok but jack and the beanstalk is a ferrytale.

Even when science now is able to open your eyes that the earth is indeed a lot older than 10000years....we choose not to see it.

Peace to all.

In the dark it is wise to follow the blind as his sneses are indeed superior.

However when it's daylight what's the use of following the blind anymore??

Well, faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing, or a belief that is not based on proof. Personally, I've never trusted organized religions, including Christianity. They seem so devoid of logic and sense imo.

[Mercutio]

Even when science now is able to open your eyes that the earth is indeed a lot older than 10000years....we choose not to see it.

Peace to all.

In the dark it is wise to follow the blind as his sneses are indeed superior.

However when it's daylight what's the use of following the blind anymore??

Yet, we also pick and choose what we would like to believe in the "scientific/rationalist" paradigm. How else would there be scams like heavy water, cold fusion, red mercury and, most recently, copper isotope powder? Furthermore, science is only correct until the next discovery that disproves the incumbent theorem. One of the concepts behind sympathetic magic is that things that were once together continue to act on each other even when apart: that's how tying a lock of someone's hair to a voodoo doll is supposed to work. Up until recently, that would have been scoffed at by scientists (if you're not sure what I'm referring to, go check out quantum entanglement).

And I've mentioned before: science is descriptive, not prescriptive. It offers no rule for morality, no means of self-realization. It will tell you that if you take this chemical, it dilates blood vessels and relieves pain, and also causes deformities in foetuses. It will not tell you not to cause deformities in foetuses. That is a value judgment. Perhaps that example was too extreme to be illustrative: say one day we crack the genetic code and discover how to tell our cells to stop dying. What next? Do we quickly all rush to become immortal? Or do we weigh the potential moral outcomes of our actions first? What happens if we all become undying and populations explode? Do we cull the children first or the old or do we draw lots? Worse, we can't even cull them (because their cells can't die), so do we mash them into a pulp (they remain alive and conscious) and throw them down a pit?

And science is somehow incomplete in its description of things. It can define the Golden Ratio to be 1.618, but what the heck is that? But stare at a Da Vinci painting and one appreciates what it means. And knowing the Golden Ratio has not suddenly made scientists incomparable artists. There is, in my opinion, a little bit more out there, than what science can capture under current scientific paradigm.

Having said, I agree that science at least constantly challenges itself and is willing to admit past faults and change doctrine when doctrine is disproved, which is more than most religions do.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Mercutio

[TheVisitors]

That is so wrong, I never read bible who says such things.

here's the passage that you looking for:

¹ Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. ² And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

³ Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.

Then on verse 9, Jesus healed this man who born blind. And indeed this miracle are recorded in Bible, thus this man who born blind is neither blind because of karma or sin of his past or sin of his parent. just because it's for the Work of God to be revealed in him. as simple as that.

reference:

http://www.biblegate...09&version=NKJV

As i had said, it was quoted from Betrand Russell's Why Am I Not A Christian, from the Bible version he read.

There are so many versions of the Bible. So many Christian denominations, with each claiming they are the truth

Which is speaking the truth doesn't bother me, for each tries to reign over each other.

I am not interested in who said what or where was it written

You guys can go ahead to proclaim and argue how much you know, including the science or history lessons you all are giving here.

I am not interested what happened 2000 yrs ago or so in the past. For I don't live dwell, nor allow some of the past teachings, which I find redundant or have nothing to do with me, to control who am I as in the present.

I am only interested in the beauty of the Present, this Totality , this Source which links with the peace in myself.

" For the flow of Life lives in every man, only when he listens to it, it can teach him the wonders of life and mysteries, more than what were wriiten in all your books and your histories "

Peace to all

Edited December 3, 2011 by TheVisitors

[playfulsg]

I find it interesting when one chooses to believe the talking snake but not talking wolf in red riding hood. Johan and the whale is ok but jack and the beanstalk is a fairytale. Even when science now is able to open your eyes that the earth is indeed a lot older than 10000years....we choose not to see it. Peace to all. In the dark it is wise to follow the blind as his sneses are indeed superior. However when it's daylight what's the use of following the blind anymore??

I accepted your peace message. That's why I reply in peace too.

I myself was an atheist before, and struggling to accept creationism, but yet at the same time I found that hearing evolutionism teached in school doesn't work on me. I find it so hard to accept evolution even when I'm still atheist. It stir me alot of questions especially if, a simple four legged rodent, transformed into a menacious lion, how the "in-between" species survive? how this "in-between" rodent & lion can live and find it's food, while it's teeth & claw are not function properly yet, neither their organ have changed to adapt for their food. I find that it takes alot of "FAITH" to believe in evolution myself.

But now that I'm embracing creationism it's much easier for me to accept that the world is indeed younger than what you think.

Source: It's A Young World After All by Dr. Paul D. Ackerman

http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/index.htm

http://www.creationism.org/articles/HumphreysYoungWorld.pdf

There's one evolution that I believe existed. Cars have "evolved" tremendously during the 20th Century, with the guiding hand of "engineers and designers". And again this may prove more of creationism than evolution

Atheistic evolution is unscientific. In science "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". Similarly stated, science shows us that: "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" (to include its transformed counterpart: energy). The sum total of the universe today, no matter what the scientific experiment, remains the same. If you take a closed empty box and leave it on a shelf for a long time, just how long would you have to wait for a "Little Bang" to happen inside? That would be unscientific, huh? Something from nothing for no reason is inherently unscientific. Belief in the "Big Bang" is superstitious in origin; just like hoping for an unscientific "Little Bang" to happen all by itself in an empty box on a shelf.

Source: http://www.creationism.org/articles/genesis.htm

OK, to go back to the topic about being Gay Christian, (instead of debating Christianity)

Yes I do love God. I totally believe and understand when one saying that Christianity is about relationship and not a religion. I 100% agree. It was because of my own experience.

I "Believe" in God, not because someone preach to me, not because someone bring me to Church, or talk to me about Jesus, not because hearing a pastor preach. Gosh, I hate all those things. It's more raw than that. Just because I read one novel. (Not Bible) And it's because God Himself want me to be His. He captured me, while I keep rejecting him.

I'm from a Catholic background & abusive family, but I know deep inside that I was born Gay. I attracted to male's body even from a young age. I heard about all those Christianity, I heard that it's a sin to have sex with guys. And I reject that. I consider myself a thinker and I don't believe in any bullshit that Christians told me, and I get irritated hearing Christian music (even until now, unless I'm the one who sing it )

My encounter with God personally, is really just because He capture me. God know how much I rejected Him, how I reject Christianity through my Atheist view. And He use a very creative way to reach out to me. He use my Buddhist friend to reach out to me in a way that nobody ever used before. He use my love for a Novel reading to lure me. It was during my study in Uni that I found my Buddhist friend reading a fiction novel titled "Left Behind". It brought stir my curiosity so that I borrowed that novel from him.

It was then in my own room, I discover a story of a person who have the same Character like me, left behind during an event that Christian described as 'the rapture'. Basically it was a novel about the end of the world. It was there in the closet of my own room, I discover what God been trying to reach out and tell me all along. That He loves me for who I am. Even though my family reject me, though my friend reject me, though I myself reject me for who I am, that I'm gay and a sinner, He love me still and accept me just the way I am. My eyes are open that I'm guilty of my sin, I've done terrible things and there's no way I can go to heaven. On that moment I only have two choice, ignore His voice in my heart, or accept His love & His forgiveness, by Accepting Him. I choose the latter. It become my first time I pray to God, alone. And It became my genuine conversion toward Christianity.

I take God as my personal, and closest person I ever loved, and trusted. I never been loved so much in my life, as God love me.

Accepting God forgiveness is like hearing from the Judge that you are found guilty, but then the Judge drop all the charges and release me, just because I am forgiven of my trespasses. I can walk out free, and do the same thing again, just as no matter how clean you wash a pig, it always go back to a pit. But God Loves me too much, to see me stay the same. In my 7 years of Christianity, God taught me about humility, self-confidence, leadership, and forgiveness. I learn to forgive my parents, my sisters, and my friends. Those who reject me for being gay.

After I forgive my parent, I brave myself to approach my Dad and say I love you Dad, and give him a hug. I say, I love you Mom, eventhough she never approve of what I'm doing. And I forgive my Sister, though she always abuse me with words. Because of what I did, my parent start to learn express their feeling to their Children through words and affirmation. My Dad told me, out of four children, I'm the only one who give him a hug, from young till old. Being a cold hard man, he still human who needed embrace and love from his children. I have no problem showing my Dad, some love, because I already learned about love from God and He taught me that.

So If you ask, how is like to be a Gay Christian?

I won't say that a Christian is the end product that you guys can look upon. We are all human on process. ALl of Christians are on a journey to Christ-likeness. We are not a perfect human, thus we making mistakes. There's only one human who able to live a Christ-likeness, which is Jesus Christ himself.

But we all on a process, toward that.

What do I do with my gayness? Am I still gay? Yes I am.

I will continue on part 2 of my sharing toward Christianity, if any of you ever bother.

Edited December 4, 2011 by playfulsg

[Marineboy]

Playfulsg

Thnx for sharing.

I was brought up a catholic....so for many years of sermons and lessons..one cannot help but think like they way you were told.

Perhaps there is a God ..perhaps there isn't

Being a Gay christian...i had my struggles. I even had a gfren and stayed with her for a year...praying and hoping that God might do something for me....change me to normal.

I speak to him in my quiet time....trying to understand....is this a test i can overcome...after all i was told God will not test you beyond your ability to cope.

I admit that i have not read all of the bible....but mainly thru cathocism classes.

Then i chanced upon the protestant churches with my other frens/colleagues...

I find much fellowship and bonding much stringer since its a much smaller group...you have much less people unlike 500+ in the big churches.

I started to align myself with them.

What blew me was ....once the pastor was giving communion...he invited the congregation to receive the body of christ....then he remarked that Catholics are not welcomed.blah blah blah

WTF....i was stunned....it was my 4th session.....it shooked my mind quite a bit.

I started to question and wander....what the hell was going on here????

The passage of time has yet to provide me solutions...i got into alternate literature.

Found them intersting and indeed most do not have a questioning mind...we were told to accept not judge not question.

I begin to realise indeed organised religion should be relooked.

It appears to me it's all about power money and controlling the flock...much like a goverment/ politics/dynasty/tyrany/corp

I also begin to realise its all in your mind really....if you choose to believe...then God exist be it Buddha/Allah/Johovah/Jesus/Mohammed/etc etc

Science may not have all the answers...but at least it tries to find some...it has progressed since.

The dark ages....people fear natural occurances...like eclipses...thunder/lightning ..tsunamis...we are certainly more informed now though we do not have all the answers.

My Gfren still believes God can cure me....that we can be happily married etc....but i outed to her and told her i have Bfren now. We even had dinenr together.

She did mention we were doomed for hell...but we remain cordial.

I had to share...there is no satan here....we are decent humanbeings that happen to like each other. Society dictates it's wrong or even evil in nature.

I told her a have prayed for years...i realise its not gonna work for me. I cannot see how God can hate condemn this love to persons hv for each other thought they may be of the same sex.

Reminded her that we will remain good frens and that i found her to be a special human being too but i will not try to deceive her any longer.

Gayness remained and chiristianess faded more as i discver atheism and their logical explainations.

Though i may not debunk a creator or supremely being or intelligence...i certainly not able to associate with organised religion any longer.

They demand your time...your money and your unquestioning obedience it seems.

Whatever will be will be.

[TheVisitors]

Playfulsg

Thnx for sharing.

I was brought up a catholic....so for many years of sermons and lessons..one cannot help but think like they way you were told.

Perhaps there is a God ..perhaps there isn't

Gayness remained and chiristianess faded more as i discver atheism and their logical explainations.

Though i may not debunk a creator or supremely being or intelligence...i certainly not able to associate with organised religion any longer.

They demand your time...your money and your unquestioning obedience it seems.

Whatever will be will be.

From your last paragragh, you have finally seen the light of your own truth and freedom, thus slowly detached from those past associates, which are meaningless to you.

There is still a Supreme Intelligence, which i had experienced a few times, which cannot explained in simple words.

As much as how much I do respect the religions of others, I realized , those who subscribe to a set of religious beliefs, belong to a religion organisation, conform and obey to some of the rules and rituals of their religious beliefs, all conform to the herd instinct of fear.

The fear of not having an identity, and the fear that if you do not conform, you will be deemed as abnormal in some ways by the others.

To conform out of fear, means they have limited themselves to a confinement, where they do not or have never even question some of their practices and beliefs that are pretty absurb, which they have been observing and practising for years.

To conform means fear exist. Thus when fear exist, there is no love in you. When there is no love in you, you have no freedom in yourself, to even find out things for yourself.

Not even the the tiny bit of freedom, which is essential to your own growth and life which you have choosen and answerable for.

This love is the powerful lifeforce, which resides in all of us, that guide us, nurture us along our growth.

It is this love that teaches us to have the innate compassion and morals to the lesser and the less fortunate, which doesn't need to be told and taught by religion beliefs and teachings

In short, religious ethnics teach and breed people to be so fake in their outwardlyw show of goodness.You look and observe around and you will get what I mean.

If people are geninuely real and are responsible for their own actions, they will have brave enough to face the consequences of their actions.

It is those who are immature and weak, who cannot face their responsibilities of their action and so called sins they created out of their own thoughts and actions, very often create an idolized Saviour, then transfer all their sins to be this Saviour, and then by prayers and conformity, they hope this Saviour will clean their sins and dirt, making them looking so sinless and perfect.

( And then when they are so self deluded that they are perfect, they start to judge and condemn others as Sinners !! )

In short, they are just getting someone to do the dirty job for them....

Peace to all.

Edited December 4, 2011 by TheVisitors

[playfulsg]

To marineboy.

As i hav said. Its about relationship.

Those that u said is what makes me hate christianity in the first place.

Im blessed to have a chance To know a mentor who have helped me in my spiritual life. She was my ex-gf.

I explained to her that i'm gay. N she still giv me chance. It just that i cant imagine to hav sex w her. Thus i break up.

I'm not looking or asking God to make me normal.

I accept who i am.

Like He accept me.

I'm out of this topic.

Peace

[Guest Marad44]

A buddy took me to a church service for LGBT in Canada. It was beautiful to watch singles & snuggled couples in their Sunday best, solemnly reciting their responses, singing, taking communion and coming up to me at tea after the service, to greet & introduce themselves. They were reconciled with The Almighty. The couples had been married in that church. The pastor was a straight female.

Wouldn't it be nice if that happened in Singapore?

[suckling_pig]

............ Wouldn't it be nice if that happened in Singapore?

It does. Go check out Free Community Church

[jaden]

It does. Go check out Free Community Church

Been there and a good recommendation. However, u may want to note that the sermons there may be your typical traditional or mega church kind of teaching. Can be quite radical depending on the speaker. its a good supportive community consisting of gay friendly Christians.

[alien0505]

A buddy took me to a church service for LGBT in Canada. It was beautiful to watch singles & snuggled couples in their Sunday best, solemnly reciting their responses, singing, taking communion and coming up to me at tea after the service, to greet & introduce themselves. They were reconciled with The Almighty. The couples had been married in that church. The pastor was a straight female.

Wouldn't it be nice if that happened in Singapore?

Yes when the church is small you can. When the is church is very hardly.

[alien0505]

Just remember you are serving God not human.

[alien0505]

I hope dear bro: your oso can share your feeling over here let those bros can pray for you. No matter which church you are in we serve the same God. No matter which you are in. Is still the same God we are wokshipping.

[Guest shenderz]

I will always remember this quote:

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi

I was a christian when I was 15. After abt 10 years or so

I moved on.

I am happy I did. Religion is not for me cos it does not equate spirituality.

I embrace taoism, Buddhism, zen, Sufism, hinduism or whatever makes me a better person.

This world is much bigger than the heaven and hell envisioned by Christians.

I m not ani-christians. Just that I hv given the most important years of my life to it. So no more.

[Guest shenderz]

Someone once said tat the only religion is about your relationship to yourself. If u cannot accept urself for who u are, how can u even accept Jesus or God?

A zen monk said tat religions are like fingers pointing to the moon, which is the truth. Instead of focusing on the moon, we argue which finger is the right finger.

[Guest shenderz]

Someone once said tat the only religion is about your relationship to yourself. If u cannot accept urself for who u are, how can u even accept Jesus or God?

A zen monk said tat religions are like fingers pointing to the moon, which is the truth. Instead of focusing on the moon, we argue which finger is the right finger.

[Cube3]

In Christ, there is no man or woman...or gays...!

[crazyfreak]

i came to a conclusion after some thought...y am i being blamed for something that i did not choose and that has been a part of me since youth i mean if i was created in this way and God hates me y m i created in the first place when God is love and ALL his creation are loved and are good?

So i kinda accepted the fact that it is ok to be gay but not live to slp ard and stuff tt is the sexual immorality that God gets angry about I feel...but being in a loving relationship is ok...

[gammaray]

I wanted to. He wasn't there and I'm no one. There is no gawd to pray to.

[Koh Chong Lip]

Gamma, cheer up. There are troughs in our lives when God seems so far away.

Even Mother Theresa encountered long stretches of her life searching for God even whilst she was in the slums.