Sex - So Controversial...

A long-standing friend and I stood at the window of a bar overlooking an indoor climbing gym. At that point he told me about a rebuke he received from a church elder on one of their evening meetings. As expected, it was over the issue of greeting each other with hugs instead of a stiff handshake. I asked him whether my name was mentioned. His answer was yes, the issue was between him and me. This particular case made it more of an annoying issue because I was not present to defend my case nor his, since these Sunday evening meetings were geared more for students and other people generally young enough to be my grandchildren.

In my annoyance I announced that all this began from a complaint made by the son of another one of our church members, and I told my friend directly that this young man, who is no longer with us, is in the closet. Hence all this palaver about such intimacy "spoiling the imagery of our church among unbelievers" and "to be to the likes all men" are so nonsensical and hypocritical. My friend defended his case by saying that hugging is the norm within African churches, as for some years he spent months doing missionary work, which included installing an electric power generator over a local stream, and making possible the building of a hospital. How the elder responded to such an answer I was not told.

The conversation continued about his own experience on how other college-age singletons had admitted to him about their struggles on sexual libido and fetishes when aroused by the appearance of someone of the same gender. His testimony backs my experience in encountering men who may appear godly and devoted to God on the outside but struggle secretly within when another good-looking fellow is in the same room. And too afraid or reluctant to share to others in case this may bring judgement, condemnation and possible feelings of rejection.

And my friend at the bar should know this well. There are some African nations with a Christian constitution where homosexuality is illegal and offenders can receive a death penalty. One good example is Uganda. On You-Tube, you can click on a video about a British presenter Scott Mills, himself openly gay, and investigating on why there is a high level of homophobia in Uganda along with such a fear of the death penalty. His findings has shown that the three main sources of homophobia were the churches, the Government, and politicians. Echoes of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas and its late radically homophobic pastor, Fred Phelps, who enjoyed displaying street placards condemning homosexuals to hell, along with the rest of the USA for tolerating it. With such hatred and with many cases of physical abuse, even murders, it's no surprise that even here in the UK, known for its easier and liberal stance on the matter, people are still too much afraid to leave their tightly-shut closets.

 Scott Mills rebuked by a homophobic church leader in Uganda 

And despite of all this, hugging is as natural as it can get in African churches. And as my friend knows it, we hug each other often. And he is a married man with two daughters, just as I too am married and fathered three daughters. And to add to this, it's often a case of him desiring a hug from me as well as me from him. And about a year ago there was a case of an African visitor, himself a married man with children, who after getting acquainted with me, gave me a prolonged rib-crushing embrace, which took place within view of the English church complainer whose son is a secret gay. Not surprisingly, after remarking about the reluctance among Brits to display such emotion, this black charismatic character soon left our church for another fellowship elsewhere. Without doubt, I guess he was firmly rebuked, which prompted him to leave. 

It is within me to hug other men in the church, whether they are married or single. However, I have a greater caution about hugging women, in case of offending, although there are some women I do hug. But these I know well enough not to take offence. Nevertheless, among countless man-to-man hugs over four decades, only one complained to the elders, which eventually led me to conclude that he is in the closet. And that is without ever suspecting his fetishes whilst he was still with us. And as I have already mentioned, he is by no means alone. There are a number of others found in churches whose libidos clashes with their Christian faith, and therefore struggle in their conflicts.

Yet I know where my elders are coming from. They'll be the first to quote Leviticus 20:13:-

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Paul the apostle backs this up when he wrote to the Romans:-

Because of this (idolatry), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations with unnatural ones. In 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 (STD? AIDS?) for their perversion.

Romans 1:26-27.

So hugging is condemned! Or is it? Is there a difference between greeting someone with a hug and a scene resembling this:-

Before (Lot and his two guests) had gone to bed, every man from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them" (or, we may know them - KJV). 

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who had never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door.

Genesis 19:4-10.

And so by hugging another man to greet him in church places me onto the same platform as these inhabitants of the city of Sodom, according to my elder's perception. Or for short, I can be classed as a sodomite! Incredulous. No, I don't believe this. Because even then there is a world of a difference between those Sodomites and these Christian believers who are struggling with their sexual orientation, their fetishes, and their libidos. And so the Christian singleton who totally abstains from any sexual contact even from his girlfriend or fiancee, he is praised by his colleagues as living a holy life, while at the same time his friend, who has a desire for another man standing nearby, is not only wondering whether he has ever been regenerated or not, but lives in fear of discovery and judgement. The snag is, the "spiritually pure" hetero who is engaged to be married and is perceived as living in godliness, is not necessarily free from a sudden rush of blood if he glances at another pretty female standing nearby.

And where heterosexuality is concerned, there has always this perception within churches that to cohabit outside marriage is wrong and sinful. No, I am not advocating cohabitation. But I am rather surprised, and somewhat relieved too, by not seeing a chaperone whenever a church member pairs off with a girlfriend and start to deepen their relationship. Am I being cynical here? In the church I attended between 1975 and 1990, there was a deacon who was a self-appointed chaperone and always interfered whenever a young man, normally a graduate, gets friendly with a similarly aged female. Fortunately for Alex and myself, there was no chaperone to interfere with us before we married, since this was long after I left that church. Therefore we did cohabit for a few months before we married, including having sex. When a member of my former church - who was chaperoned along with his future partner before they were married - found out about us living together without a wedding ring on our fingers, he got quite cross about it.

He began to lecture me about sex being reserved for married couples only. He then blushed as he attempted to splutter out the second chapter of Genesis. As he was blushing, I could almost see the accusing finger of God pointing at him rather than at me. The reason for this was simple. He was, and still is, a staunch evolutionist, and therefore denied the historicity of pre-Abrahamic Scriptures and in effect calling God a liar. Little wonder if I were to say to any unchurched:- Cohabitation without getting married is against my religion - I would put anyone off seeking faith in God, and be a slippery path towards atheism.

The way I see it, this is rather a delicate subject. Especially when I read things in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. For example, Abraham slept with at least one woman aside his own wife Sarah. He slept with Hagar, who gave birth to Ishmael. Then his grandson Jacob was a bigamist, for he married both Leah and Rachel within a week of each other. And I doubt whether any church at present would endorse bigamy. Then there is the case of King David. And here I read something of specific interest. Yes, we all agree that David sinned against God when he slept with Bathsheba, because she was the wife of another man, Uriah the Hittite, a soldier for Israel who was very loyal to David. But what Nathan had to say in judgement to the King I find interesting:-

This is what the Lord the God of Israel, says:

"I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this has been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the Lord  by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own.

2 Samuel 12:7-10.  

The issue here is that God gave Saul's wives and concubines to David. So apparently David did not sin against God when he slept with all these women. Instead, this was in keeping with Middle Eastern culture and tradition - for a king or rich aristocrat to have a harem of concubines. King David had ten concubines, according to 2 Samuel 15:16 and 20:3. This was perfectly normal. In fact, Jesus himself used the same Middle Eastern custom in his Parable of the Ten Virgins to illustrate the Kingdom of God (Matthew 25:1-13). They were all virgins. Five were wise, five foolish. When the king arrived, he took in the five who were readily available to form his son's harem. They were distinguished from the son's actual bride, the king's legal daughter in law.

So with all I can perceive, it is sinful to lie with another man's wife. And this applies to divorce, about which Jesus says that anyone who marries a divorcee commits adultery (Luke 16:18). Apparently, as God sees it, a divorcee is still married to the former spouse. So according to Jesus' words, to marry someone divorced is to commit adultery. And becomes even worse than that. All the guy has to do is look at a woman lustfully and his has committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28). I suppose this could apply to someone who has a fetish for someone of the same gender:- I say to you, if any man looks lustfully at another man, he has committed sodomy with him in his heart already. Little wonder any Christian with this problem struggles and often falls away.

And this whole matter seems grossly unfair. A man looks at a woman with lust and he is condemned, even if he does nothing to her. Then we read of David having ten concubines, any one of them welcomed to his bed. Or how about David's son Solomon, perhaps the most wise king throughout all history. Not only had he impressed the Queen of Sheba with his wisdom but managed to get a thousand wives and concubines into his bed! That is one woman each night for three years (1 Kings 11:1-4). It is worth noting here that Solomon married and slept with foreign women, those who were not of Israel. Solomon's sin was allowing himself to be led astray into idolatry. If he had kept his harem within the realm of Israeli women, more likely he would have stayed true to God, and the splitting of the nation between Israel and Judah which followed his death might have been avoided.

It's so messy, coming to think of it. So controversial. Here is Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon sleeping around rather freely. Even Jesus used the harem in one of his parables. Then come to the present, and we see the church judging any believer or member having sex outside of marriage. Really, as one of the guilty party myself, where do I stand?

And it's here where the Gospel comes in. Gospel simply means Good News. Very good news indeed. Because as Paul also wrote to the church in Rome, all one has to do is believe in his heart that God raised Jesus physically from the dead and confess him as the Messiah, the Son of God, and he will be saved (Romans 10:9-13). This is the promise of God, that his salvation is open to all believers, regardless of his background or what he has done. Whether a married man faithful to his wife or a pimp with prostitutes or a homosexual out on a cruise - salvation is open to all.

Open to all who believes in his heart the Resurrection of Jesus. He who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God - 1 John 5:1. The Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth regenerates the heart, the threefold revelation brings new desires, which includes a new spirit which cannot sin, and the ability to turn away known sin. But not out of compulsion or legalism. Nor for the fear of punishment. Rather, by the gradual replacement of old, sinful desires with good, God-honouring wishes. The work of grace. 

Andy Pandy and Teddy - Ahem...

Throughout the mid-to-late 1960's, during my last couple of years of compulsive schooling, my parents were successful in acquiring a Border Collie puppy from a choice of two pups available from the same mother bitch. We chose the male in preference over its sister. It spent the whole of its life with us. A rather spoilt life as such, as none of us trained it to stay away from the dinner table. As a result, it kept on whining as it begged for scraps of morsels as they were finger-fed into its mouth whilst we sat at table. But I always remember the times when the main bone of the Sunday roast lamb was left for the dog, and it would saunter to its basket with it in its mouth. But dare you approach whilst it's chewing on the bone! Its snout would furrow, its upper teeth bared whilst tightly shut over its bone, and emit a low, threatening growl. We all knew better than to tempt fate by teasing it.

Border Collie

With a newly-acquired puppy, it was my idea to name our pet Bruce, after the comic multi-millionaire Bruce Wayne, played by the late Adam West, who also was the costumed crime-fighter of the fictitious American metropolis of Gotham City, as the heroic Batman. This series of family viewing topped the statistics during the late 1960's, especially among us teenagers. Batman's sidekick Robin, was played by a younger and rather good-looking actor Burt Ward. When not in costume, both Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson lived at the Wayne Manor, a mansion a little way outside the city. Meanwhile, the head office of the Gotham City Police Department was occupied by two incredibly gullible heads: Commissioner Gordon and Chief O'Hara. With both of these officers having dined with Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson at their manor more than once, it remains a mystery on how neither had ever sussed out that Bruce Wayne was actually Batman and Dick Grayson was Robin. After all, both "pairs" were of the same physical build, the same age, and most obvious - the same voice tones and accents. 

But that is the mystery of innocence. Coming to think of it, the only room in the manor we were able to look into was the lounge which boasted a sliding panel, secret enough for one of the servants to be totally unaware of - despite her many years of working there. Whilst she was always elsewhere, the panel would slide open to reveal a fireman's pole which took them to the underground basement, or the Bat-Cave, already fully dressed in their costumes, in a matter of a couple of seconds. The innocence of it all. As a teenage fan of Batman and Robin, it has never once crossed my mind on why we never saw the inside of the kitchen and bathroom, nor for that matter, the bedroom. Neither I, nor any other Batman fan at school I was aware of, had ever questioned the sleeping arrangement of Wayne and Grayson when not in their costumes. After all, we may never be able to prove that they didn't share a double bed, but we cannot disprove this either. Could this be the reason why the more recently made Batman Returns sequel of movies which were made in the early 1990's, he was featured as being alone, without Robin as his sidekick. This, along with later re-makes of the movie, Batman remains alone, fighting his own demons as well as crime within his metropolis.

Most likely at present it would be too controversial to feature Batman and Robin living in the same house without any thoughts of personal intimacy occurring behind the closed bedroom door. And so we go back a few more years to my primary school days. As a young boy, Thursday and Friday teatime were my favourite evenings of the week. On Thursday, preceding the 17.50 News, was twenty-five minutes of cartoon animation Popeye the Sailor Man, with is long-suffering girlfriend Olive Oyl. A handy can of spinach always gave him that super-strength in his biceps to ward off his persistent bully Brutus, a bearded giant of a man who had his eye on Oyl, and always attempting to win her over. It was through these cartoons that I developed a fondness of spinach. And Fridays? Oh yes, on the same time-slot it was Huckleberry Hound, along with Mr Jinks the cat with his two mice, Pixie and Dixie. The upright-standing feline always ending up chasing his rodent companions around the house after being outwitted by them. And Yogi Bear and Boo-Boo, both living in a cave at Jellystone Park. Innocence prevented me from pondering what those two got up to inside their cave after the cameras were no longer filming! 

And throughout the fifties, I could I ever forget Watch with Mother, a daily fifteen-minute afternoon slot featuring lovable puppet characters. These were the days when mother stayed at home to raise her young children while the husband and father was at work, fulfilling his role as sole breadwinner and provider. It was on Tuesdays that Andy Pandy, along with Teddy and Looby Loo made their appearances. When the cameras were off, Andy shared a small basket with Teddy, and they can be seen at the start of the show popping up together and then dropping back down out of sight in a game of peekaboo before both of them jumping out of their basket to play in the garden.

Looby Loo was the incredibly shy little girl who only made an appearance after Andy and Teddy were out of sight. After a few minutes of performance, she made a quick disappearance before the other two returned. The show ended with the two jumping back into the basket, where they would, I suppose, remain for a full week. The age of innocence. Boys like myself would watch all these programmes without ever a single thought or hint of any homosexual connotations. Indeed, the creators might have thought that any dalliance Andy Pandy would have made with Looby Loo would have sent Teddy into a jealous rage. We can't have that can we?  So to keep her a secret, even out of Andy's awareness, was the best solution to avoid in-basket fighting!

Are you sitting comfortably? Then let us begin.

As this week has celebrated fifty years since the Government has discriminated homosexuality between two adult partners within the privacy of their home, gay-themed docudramas were shown on the BBC. These stories were based on historical facts, including interviews with the actual individuals who were represented in these dramas by actors. Before the legislation, for two men to even hold hands in public warranted arrest and possible imprisonment. This also included two men hugging, even in privacy of their own home. One victim of such circumstances was journalist Peter Wildeblood, who in 1952 had an affair with Naval officer Edward McNally. Apparently they were both caught whilst on board a ship sailing towards Malta. Wildeblood, during his Court hearing was promised a reduction of his prison term from five years to twelve months if he disclosed the names of any other partners he was involved with. So he betrayed his partner McNally to the Court. Indeed, his sentence was reduced to twelve months, but McNally himself, unable to cope with the prospect of Court, committed suicide before his first hearing.

After his prison sentence was completed, Wildeblood pleaded his case with a Member of Parliament to consider strictly private affairs between two consenting adults to be decriminalised. After, on his way home, a stranger stopped him in the street and began beating him up. One punch followed another with full force until Wildeblood lay on the ground, his bloodied face receiving more punches until he was barely able to speak, until he finally gasped, 

Why are you doing this to me?

Because your'e a f- homosexual! The assailant shouted his answer before rising to walk away, leaving his victim lying unattended on the ground. It would be another ten years or more before the legislation became effective in 1967.

Watching the beating in the street on television has reminded me of a true Mid-West story of a young homosexual male out one evening cruising (out looking for a partner) when a car containing two or three burly men pulled up alongside. They got out, grabbed hold of and bungled the lad into the vehicle and drove off to a remote area, where he was murdered. And with another beating of a gay celeb which took place more recently in London's Clapham Common which attracted publicity, "queer bashing" is something that can still prevail, even up to half a century after legislation. And such are dramatised, like in the fairly recent incident in the soap EastEnders, where two young gay men: Ben Mitchell and Paul Coker, were accosted by a gang of men in the West End whilst on a night out together, resulting with the murder of Paul, followed by the difficulty for Ben in getting these killers to face justice. If soaps are meant to reflect real life, then this must be an indication that "queer bashing" still occur, albeit rarely.

It could be said that hatred towards gays is to honour Britain as a country with strong Christian ethics and morals, as homophobia is often linked to far-right extremism, along with racism and antisemitism. Not that long ago there was a documentary about the far-right hate group against Muslims, Britain First, whose activities were centred mainly in Luton, and who argued for Christianity against Islam in the UK. The very issue of making homosexuality illegal seemed to have stemmed from the Empire days of Christian constitution. Or in short - from Religion. And so men and women with a same-sex preference are held by these moralists as anti-Biblical and a pariah of society. And here is the irony. Despite its religious-based origin for homophobia, much of the Christian faith here in the UK has been discarded into the trash bin, mainly because of the so-called "Creationist myth". It should be noted here that if Adam and Eve had never existed, but instead we are all descended from apes or similar primate species as Darwin himself taught, then without the Fall there would have been no need for the Atonement to be made on the Cross, and no Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This makes the Bible and the Christian faith totally worthless. Atheists, many who are in support for homosexuals, would be right in discarding the Bible as a book of useless fables, together with their perception as the source of the homosexual's misery.

Ben (left) and Paul in EastEnders

This leaves these moralists with an ironic situation. They say that same-sex relationships are wrong because such relationships are unbiblical. But the very same people who says such things are themselves denying the verity and historicity of the Bible. In other words, homophobia is only Biblical when it suits them. Other passages found in the Bible, for example, in rebuking classism and wealth favouritism - ah! That's a different story altogether, even though James classifies this sin as Murder (James chapter 2). If classism is the bulwark for a strong Britain, then let classism flourish because that is perfectly fine, murder notwithstanding!

It is very unfortunate that even regular church-goers can be get caught up in this homophobic scenario. Often I have quoted the late infamous Fred Phelps, one time leader of Westboro Baptist church in the Kansas city of Topeka. His stance against homosexuals, along with calling down God's wrath and his campaign to send them into the hottest realms of Hell, has become a notoriety on an international scale. And there many other church leaders who calls down God's wrath on gay men in particular. Their followers carry their hateful spirit into their homes, their schools, their workplaces, and out into the streets, as well as through the Media. The trouble with all this anti-gay lobbying and cursing by church members, is that this kind of attitude throws fuel onto the flames of atheism - the fuel being petrol or gasoline to be more precise. It also makes the gay person feel less uncomfortable in a secular surrounding, as well as providing a cause to hate God with a vengeance. Indeed, church morality is the homosexual's deadliest enemy.

How Jesus was so different when he was around to minister to the people! He was accused by the Pharisees and other religious people of "mixing with tax collectors and sinners" - the same pariahs to them as church leaders see gay men and women as pariahs at present. He even said that these "tax collectors and sinners" will enter the Kingdom of God before the Pharisees will (Matthew 21:31). The "sinners" depicted here are the prostitutes. Both prostitutes and tax collectors were despised by the Pharisees as gays are despised by moralists today. But Jesus loved them. He loved them so much that he was willing and ready to give his life for them - and in a cruel and torturous method. He was willing to give them eternal life whilst at the same time give the Pharisees the most stern of rebukes, as recorded in Matthew chapter 23.

Jesus would never attempt to pull the bone away from the dog's jaws. He knew full well that such an action would bring out the worst in a dog. Fierce growling, angry barking, along with a few bleeding wounds. No, it's not nice at all. So what would Jesus have done? Or what would any sensible man do? He would show the dog a piece of sumptuous steak. Only then will the dog willingly drop the bone in order to receive the meat.

No church would bring a homosexual into the arms of God's mercy by censoring and rebuking. Trying to take away what he has will never lead to a conversion. Rather, the Christian can only demonstrate that what he has is far better than what the sinner has. If the sinner can perceive that the Christian has something far better to offer, only then will the sinner be more willing to leave behind his former lifestyle if it means becoming a recipient of something more fulfilling - eternal life through Jesus Christ.  

Bias in the Sauna.

As a completely naked slim young man of just 23 years old, I pulled open a door of one of two sauna cabins and nervously saw a space on one of the upper tiers. I entered and instinctively closed the door behind me, and climbed to sit at the vacant space, to sample the heat rising from a small stove at the opposite corner. Someone threw a ladle of water onto the hot coals. The harsh hissing and a sudden rise in temperature, as well as a fresh waft of eucalyptus filling the air had made me an instant convert to this form of leisurely relaxation, as the sweat started to pour down my torso. So was such a first ever visit to a sauna during the Summer of 1976, after receiving a recommendation from a work colleague.

The environment was far from sedate however. About half a dozen men, all entirely naked, were engaged in a loud conversation, with plenty of swear words, coarse jokes, smut, and of general criticism of any eccentric males, lousy workers, erratic car drivers, the general habits of all women, and just about anything of interest which could transpire into a full-blown discussion. It had a very working class, club-type atmosphere where everyone knew each other well, which I felt as an outsider, could be intimidating. So I sat there, somewhat on the shy side, quietly listening in, and smiling at their smut. Not to do so, or to display any moralistic or judgmental attitudes would have courted disaster, even if I was a believer in Jesus Christ back then, as I had been for the past three and a half years. These guys were all manual workers, married and with families, and considerably older than myself. The most dominant was Harry, a builder, overweight and sporting a beard. He was the chief speaker, the life of the party, a powerful extrovert before whom I cowed, therefore treading carefully in his presence. Those were "the good old days" of sauna attendance, when men and women bathed on different evenings of the week, and being a single sex facility, we were allowed to bathe starkers, and to free ourselves from any self-reserve we would have had on the streets outside. 

And yet was hard to believe that in the very next sauna cabin, which was smaller and slightly cooler, the more intellectual of the male population bathed, along with the gays. The entire suite was the only one in town, while the more popular mixed facilities at Coral Reef Water World existed only on the Council's drawing board. Yet I had never seen any skirmishes erupting between the two parties. On the contrary, my physique had attracted the attention of homosexual men, who were drawn to the suite through an advert posted in a gay magazine or newspaper by a staff member. Apparently, I was the only one of Harry's group to be amenable enough to court friendship.

It was many years later, while I was bathing alone at Coral Reef Sauna World, when Harry entered the cabin and sat on a lower bench. Not that Harry was ever a regular there. Rather this was due to the closure of the old sauna facility a mile down the road, as a result of a massive renovation of the original suite, transforming the area into a pristine, American-style spa centre. The old atmosphere would never be the same again, as many of Harry's former mates had passed away, and others having moved to different locations, the swanking new sauna cabin no longer has the more intimate club-like feel within it - as it began to draw in members of the wider public with the introduction of mixed bathing and the need for compulsory swimwear.  

So Harry and I sat alone together at the sauna one late Saturday afternoon, when I asked him:

What do you think of Jesus Christ?

He flew into a rage as he delivered his answer, explaining that he was brought up as a Roman Catholic, and as he spoke, I felt no need to be told, as I could clearly feel his deep antagonism he had felt against his church. I fully understood, and I knew where he was coming from. As a former Catholic myself, I have always been fully aware of the highly fickle God who needs the Virgin Mary to constantly intercede for us, or there is no chance of Heaven after death, but only the terrors of intense suffering in a fiery hell. I too, have always been familiar with the need to confess our sins to a priest, to do penance as a result, to consciously refrain from sinning, and the utter necessity to attend Mass every Sunday and Holy day. Failure to attend without a proper reason, along with any mortal sin committed, and the grace of God is forfeited and it's hell for ever. But just as frustrating, even if the Catholic lives a holy life, he would still suffer a temporary hell known as Purgatory. It has always been slavery to the Church, with the burden of hell hanging over anyone who would walk away from the faith.

Let's face it. It is utterly impossible to love such a fickle deity! Fear him, yes. But to love him as a wife loves her husband - well that is something altogether different. - Although many a Catholic may deny this. The husband/wife relationship makes a good illustration. How would a wife feel about her husband who is constantly reprimanding her, and withholding his love for her until she performs to his exact standard? He may be absolutely perfect, but the problem lies with her - she isn't perfect, therefore she's constantly under his wrath. How long would their marriage last? As soon as another man arrives who shows unconditional affection, she'll be gone from her husband's presence like a shot, only to be found in the arms of his rival. Her willingness for adultery would not be so much out of love for his rival as her own underlying hatred for her husband, and her desire to get even with him.

Associating with gay men at the old sauna suite back in the seventies has allowed me to be gay-friendly rather than having a judgmental or a high moralistic attitude towards them. Therefore once the Internet became very much part of our lives, I found a gay sports and fitness website, and registered as a member. In their forum posts there is a column set aside for spiritual matters, and it's here where I have found their postings most intriguing, and rather depressing.

The hatred towards God by the LGBT is quite outstanding. Their defense of Darwinism is very strong, whether they can present adequate evidence to support such a theory or not. When I admitted my beliefs in Creationism, I was ridiculed for being something of a lunatic, was called a "fundie" - and I was generally ostracised by other members. This is weird in a way. If, for example, I were to say something about their Democratic president suggesting the idea of reeling in welfare to help save the nation's economy, I might have received some postings rebuking me for such a daft idea. Then again, I might have even received some replies of agreement as well. But either way, it would have remained unlikely for me to have been ignored afterwards. Or perhaps question the rights the Palestinians have over Eastern Jerusalem - such could begin a long thread, with one side supporting the rights of the Palestinians, while the other favouring the Jews. Such an ongoing thread over this controversy had occurred on this site in the past, and has stretched over several pages.

But suppose I was to contribute my support for the Republican Party. Already, so to speak, I would receive dark looks, and probably have a thread of nasty postings trailing my opening post, along with being looked on with suspicion. I am already aware of at least one gay Republican who has been ostracised on the website. Why would this be the case? Could it be that there is a closeness of support between the Republicans and the churches, particularly the fundamentalist kind?

As what I have seen over the years, it seems to be the churches which has driven a wedge between God and the homosexual, making them bitter, even angry, with the faith. One pastor had reached a high level of national infamy within America's gay community, and that was the late Fred Phelps, of Westboro Baptist Church, in the Kansas town of Topeka. He paraded his street placards emblazoned with God Hates Fags, God will destroy America, and Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, along with other insulting messages of hate and bias against homosexuals. All that has made him an object of hypocritical disgust, and I believe, had played a major role in making God and the Christian faith such a object of revulsion, that very seldom would a gay find salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Leviticus 18:22 reads:
Do not lie with a man as a man lies with a woman; that is detestable.
And Leviticus 20:13 is even more specific:
If a man lies with a man as a man lies with a woman, both of them has done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be upon their own heads.

Ammunition for Fred Phelps and his ilk! Strange, however, that he was a lot more quieter when it came to mediums and spiritists, (20:6) the cursing of parents, (v.9) adultery, (v.10) incest, (vs.14,17) bestiality, (vs.15,16). Then not to mention the sowing of two different crops, or the wearing of clothing made of two different materials, (19:19) eating of meat with the blood still in it, (19:26) visiting the barbers, (19:27) or calling at a tattooist, (19:28). Then there is the case of observing the Sabbath, (19:30) and not to discriminate against foreigners living in your country, even immigrants, (19:33-34) and cowboy contractors, especially in the building trade, are condemned by God as well, (19:35-36).

Too often we tolerate to a certain level just about all the others which God considers sin, along with those which are passed over as small or insignificant, such as secretly lusting over a woman not your wife, holding a grudge against someone without forgiving them, and so on. As such, we look upon homosexuals as perverts, objects of contempt, and they become victims of gay-bashers, even murdered, under the guise of "Christian culture" or "Church bias." If pastors such as Fred Phelps had a seat in Government, he would have made every effort for the death penalty for every homosexual in America. Little wonder that the average gay hates the churches and ridicules the Christian faith, especially in its belief in Divine Creation.

And so we go back to Harry, and his underlying bitterness he has over the Catholic faith. Really, there is hardly any difference between the likes of this heterosexual extrovert of a builder, and that of a closet gay who is too timid to "come out" in case he becomes a victim of his church-going society. Neither would ever see the light of Christ if they believe that pleasing God is by abiding with the law, whether by Moses or by the local church.

I have been going through the Old Testament book of Nehemiah. What I have found intriguing was the whole of chapter eight. In it, Ezra, Nehemiah, along the rest of the leaders, read out the Book of the Law of Moses to a vast crowd of Jews who had assembled in Jerusalem. These Jews had returned to their own land from exile in Babylon, and had rebuilt their Temple and the city wall. As they stood and understood the Law of Moses, they began to weep (Nehemiah 8:9,11). The weeping, I believe, came from their realisation that they were unable to keep the Law, and they were afraid of further wrath of God coming upon a future generation. So Ezra exhorted the whole nation to feast, eat well and rejoice in their deliverance.

And that is what I feel every unbeliever needs to hear. Yes, the reality of sin and alienation from God, but also the one and only solution - the love of God through Jesus Christ crucified. I would even go as far to say that the average homosexual does not need to be told that he is guilty. He instinctively knows. Paul the apostle writes:
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified...
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
1 Corinthians 1:22-23, 2:2.

Paul says here that the message of Jesus Christ crucified is universal, it's for everybody, straight and gay alike. None of us need moral high horses shouting judgement down on us. That does not bring us to God. Instead, we all need to believe on the One crucified, was buried, and resurrected on the third day. The Resurrection is the most important of the three. It has proved that this Jesus, who was crucified, is God, Lord, and King, and all who believe this in their hearts receives a new birth, becomes a new creation, and adopted forever into the family of God, bathing in his love for all eternity.

And that's much better than bathing in a sauna with an angry heart.