Discussions with Kirby

It had been a while! I replied to Kirby over a month ago, and didn't hear anything back. I have now heard back and am deciding to wish Kirby well and send him on his way.


He will probably say that he was correct and that I am ending the discussion because I do not want to face the truth of his argument. My usual reply to this is that I have been down the road these arguments lead and have found them wanting. "Been there, done that." I am not going to get involved in the whole "he said/he said" thing. When the Pope is lifted as the ultimate authority and it is argued that all revelation ended with the disciples, it is at this point that I realize that carrying this discussion on any farther is fruitless. I am not the pope, not an original disciple. Anything I say will be disregarded.

Kirby, blessings on you as you pursue your path to find God. And yes, I will keep you in prayer.

Discussion with Kirby

I have been having an on-line discussion with a person named Kirby. It has been pretty amiable so I will continue. The whole dialogue can be found here, here, here, and here.

Although some, including Nick, have warned me against this endeavor, I have decided to continue. Even if the whole thing is futile, at least it keeps me up to "fighting speed." But so far the exchange has been civil so I have no problem continuing.

I also need to restate a disclaimer: I am sorry if I keep bringing up the age of Kirby. I think there is a great difference in how one sees the world at 18 and at 43. I am not disregarding the experience of the 18 year-old and not disregarding the idealism, we all need idealism. I am, though, saying that there is also something to be noted about experience.

That being said, let's look at what Kirby has to say:

First of all, I do not want you to think that because I do not agree with you, that I am throwing all that you have to say out the window as baseless and useless. I have examined all you have had to say and read the article you suggested. If I was not interested in the conversation we are having, I would not be using precious study time to indulge in this argument.

The article did have many clarifications and was very informative for me, and I am sure you and your partner Nick have a loving relationship, yet the article does not have any proof or bass for some of the assumptions it makes. In Romans it condemns homosexual activity as a whole, and although there does exist loving same sex relationships in today's world, the relativistic society we live in cannot blur the words of St. Paul.

But we do blur the words of St. Paul. Again, I would bring up the situation of women teaching in the church. The rector I am working with is a woman. I have worked with pastors who are women. Granted, the Roman Catholic church does not allow women to be priests, and this is one of the areas that I differed with the Catholic church. It is also one of the reasons I left the Catholic church.

Now it seems that where we differ for the most part in our debate in views
on interpretation. I claim that I have the true and ultimate interpretation in
that of the Catholic Church, you claim that there is no perfect interpretation
and we merely must do our best with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (if I am
off base on your belief, please correct me) please do not think that I am a
Catholic who accepts the doctrine of the Church blindly and never questions the
word. I never hesitate to challenge an interpretation of the Church which I feel
odd about, yet to this day, I have been proven wrong on every doctrine. I was
raised Methodist and sent to a Catholic school because the public school I would
have attended is the number one meth school in the nation. So as a protestant in
a Catholic school, I questioned every aspect of their faith hoping to prove them
wrong. Most of the time I succeeded, but only because the majority of the
students do not know their faith very well, because when I came across one
teacher in particular, I was taken step by step logically to an answer. Every
question I had, he had an answer. But although I have left the Methodist Church,
I feel no bitterness towards it, and I even often go to Church with my Mother on
Sundays.

What I was getting at in that small tangent was that you should keep your
mind open to at least hear the defense of the Catholic Church and not be ready
to end the conversation with every minute Catholic teaching that is thrown in. I
feel the only way I can get what I am trying to say across to you is to attempt
to get the true message of the Catholic Church across; so that whatever corrupt
view you have of the Catholic Faith may be corrected. So now I would like to
know the doctrinal differences, other than views of homosexuality, which you
left the Catholic Church because of.

If you are willing to share those with me I feel we could make some
progress in our conversation, otherwise we will continue to but heads on every
detail.

Yes, it does come down to interpretation. (Concerning your comment that I should "keep [my] mind open:" please realize that I have been at this process for longer than you have been alive. If anyone should be pleading for someone to keep their mind open, I should be making that request of you.) I have been preaching on the scripture for over seven years. Every time I approach the scripture, I find something new. If it weren't a matter of interpretation, all we would have to do is have one sermon or homily and just repeat it every three years. But life changes and our understanding of scripture changes. This change in understanding is Biblical. Peter was challenged to change his understanding of what was clean and what was unclean. (Acts 10)

We too have are challenged to change our understanding. Our understanding of the place of women in the church has changed. Our understanding of slavery has changed. Our understanding of divorce has changed. Perhaps our understanding of homosexuality needs to change too.

My theological understanding is that the Holy Spirit is still at work in the world. The Holy Spirit is still expanding our knowledge and understanding of the scriptures. Just as Peter's understanding of what was clean and unclean was changed, our understanding also must change. The world is not static, our understanding of scripture must not be static either.

Ok, why I left the Catholic church.

One, I could not stomach the separation of clergy and laity, especially the priests. They were people, just like me. They may have been singled out for a specific calling in life, but that calling did not suddenly make them superhuman and above question.

Two, I stated my feeling about women in leadership positions. How can be deny people whom God has called? You may say that they can become nuns, but that is a cop out answer. We are telling them that because of their gender (and gender alone) they are less fit to lead. That does not make sense.

Three, praying to saints. Saints are people like you and I. We do not need a mediator, we have one. He is named Jesus.

Four, the ever-virginity, immaculateness of Mary. This is just an excuse to not be about the work of God in the world. We can say that we have not been endowed with the "special gifts" that have been given to Mary (or the saints for that matter) so we could not possibly do what they did. So therefore, we are off the hook. But if we realize that God works in this world through, to paraphrase Joan Osborn, "slobs like us," then we see that God can use us to do incredible things.

Five, closed communion. How dare we have the hubris to turn someone away from God's table!! Would Jesus, who ate with sinners, turn anyone away? Jesus even fed Judas before Judas went off to betray him. If that is not table hospitality, then I do not know what is! And the Catholic church would turn people away? That does not strike me as very Christian.

I will continue to keep you in my prayers Dr. Benton Quest!
I would like to inform you that my name is Kirby Longo, that may clarify all the confusing issues with the Kirb and Longo 15 names, I keep having to create new screen names for the blogger

Kirby, again thank you for the prayers, we all need them. But be aware of what you are praying for: if it is that I receive insight, maybe the prayers have been answered. There is the possibility that I actually have received insight and this conversation is a product of the Holy Spirit to spread this insight to you and to others. I cannot know this, but it is a possibility. Perhaps I am to receive insight from you? Who knows? But again, I will repeat your entreaty back to you, "keep your mind open."

Peace,

Benton

Response to Kirb or longo15 or Whoever!

I received this response from longo15 a while back but with Christmas, New Year, and all, I haven't had the opportunity to respond. So here is a response. I will be interspersing my responses into longo15's comment.


longo15 stated:

First of all, I have to clarify that I am Kirb, Kirb and longo 15 are the same
person, I am sorry for switching screen names on you. Yes I am only 18. Its a
shame you have bills and socks older than me.

As for your belief on the few universal truths in existence, how can you say
that the call for chastity is not one? It is clear the call to chastity is not a
person to person situation, there are no special dispensations, there are no
Joseph Smiths in the Christian Religion.

I have to wonder what you consider "chaste?" If you are going to limit "chaste" to marriage, then we need to agree on which definition of marriage we will accept. Do we accept Adam and Eve who were not married? Do we accept Jacob who was married to the sisters Leah and Rachael? Do we limit marriage to David who had many wives but was also a "really good" friend (good enough to strip in front of: 1 Samuel 18:4) with Jonathan? (Aside: I have had many friends, but there is only one that I took off my clothes in front of other than being at the gym or the pool. And that one happens to be my partner.) Or Solomon and his hundreds of wives and concubines? Or Peter who appears to leave his family to fend for themselves? These are all Biblical, so which one should be choose?


longo15 continues:

I apologize if you felt that I was condemning you as a person, for I am not. I
am, however, judging your actions. There is an absolute right and wrong, it is
not up for Interpretation. You say that because I sin I cannot judge your sin.
The difference between our situations is, I do not justify my sin as correct! It
seems now according to what you have said that we have established the correct
interpretation of Romans one, that homosexuality is included among the eternally
forbidden sins.

No, we have not established the correct interpretation of Romans 1. Unless we can go back to Paul himself, we cannot know the CORRECT interpretation. That is the point! We can make stabs at an interpretation, but we cannot KNOW this side of the eschaton. Besides, sin is sin. If you are going to buy into the venial and mortal sins classification, then this conversation comes to a halt. Sin is sin. And the wages of sin is death. ALL SIN. We all have fallen short.

longo15 says:

Let’s make a deal, I will list my sins and you can judge them accordingly. But
although you are judging my sins, I know you are not condemning me as a person,
which I agree is wrong!
1) I masturbated 2 weeks ago
2) I struggle with my lusty thoughts,(although the high school girls don’t help me out)
3) I lied to my parents
4) I took the Lord’s name in vain.
5) I used to be addicted to chewing tobacco, and still chew occasionally
6) I am often controlled by material possessions

This is what I can think of off the top of my head, although I am sure there many more. I do sin, just as all human beings, yet I do not attempt to justify my sin as correct. I feel grief for my sins, and I then attend confession and do penance. If I do not attend confession soon after sins such as lust, the grief is overwhelming.

I could care less how often you masturbate or have lusty thoughts. Welcome to the human race! I am not going to judge you. It is not my place. Did you read Romans 2:1? I will post it for you: "1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." By saying what I do is wrong, you are passing judgement. You have shown that you are of the assumption that you have the definitive interpretation of the Bible and can then pass judgement on others. Instead of being of the assumption that you have an understanding that works for this point in your life. When I was your age, I thought homosexuality was acceptable in others but not in me. Even thought I wanted to be held by my buddy, I would not let it happen. I also decided it would be wrong to have gay sex so I would have no sex at all. But my understanding of God and of the Bible changed. God is loving. God is not looking through my bedroom ceiling taking notes.

I throw parts of the Bible out? This amazes me because I do not remember ever
catching myself throwing parts of the Bible out to justify sins. The laws you
accuse me of throwing out were written for specific situations. Leviticus was
written after the Golden calf incident and were the laws of the Jews "probation"
which they were to observe during the 40 years in the desert. Deuteronomy, or as
you probably know is the "second law" was written in the fields of Moab after
the Jewish men were seduced by the prostitutes. They were then made by God to
walk the desert 40 more years.... no they weren't! God made compromises with
them. He met them where they were at during that moment in time. This is the
reason Deuteronomy was full of compromises and laws we might not follow. Laws
formed from the Jews "hardness of heart."

You might know all these things, but the point I am trying to make is that these laws were made for those specific periods in time and we are in no way throwing them out, because they never applied to our current time! They were not meant for us, so there is no need to throw them out.

You say you do not throw parts of the Bible out and then you proceed to justify not paying attention to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Since Some say that Paul's words were not meant for us, by your logic we can totally disregard Romans and other writings. Do you pay attention to women who teach in church?

I will not elaborate why the Catholic Church, which I assure you there are many! [I have no idea what longo15 means here.] But if you can truthfully say to yourself that all human beings who are allowed to interpret the Bible for themselves with no outside guidance would interpret it correctly, there is nothing which can convince you. The Bible has other things to say on the subject though "Consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you. Speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction just as they do the other scriptures" -2Peter 3:15-16 The saints and I continue in fervent prayer for you Benton

Well, thanks for the prayers. As far as interpretation without outside help, have you read the article I suggested? This is not just me pulling ideas out of my hat. These are scholars who have done much research and have come to learned conclusions. Besides, I do not consider my opinion on these matters to be without merit. My seminary degree was earned at Trinity seminary in Columbus OH. You could not know that, but to assume that an opinion that does not mesh with your own or that which you have been told is "gospel truth" is without foundation is hubris.

I have a feeling this discussion is going nowhere. Most of the arguments you bring up are ones that I have already contemplated and found wanting. The arguments about the Catholic church are also ones that I have left behind. (I was raised Roman Catholic.)

Response to longo15

longo15 responded to this post. What he said is posted below.

Hey Pastor,

You are correct in part of your truth journey, for you found friendship and acceptance, but you CANNOT base your whole truth on feelings. Certainly we are called to friendships and community. I am 18 years old and plan on entering into the Catholic seminary. As a teenager, i still am attracted to women, yet as I pray I gain strength in my chastity. I still feel attracted, but it can be overcome. This is true for everyone, although you have an urge to continue in homosexual activity, you must take into consideration what the Bible says. You are throwing it out on translation and speculation. There are times in the Bible when laws are based on certain times in history, yet it is clear in Romans 1 that the law is not temporary. Read the whole chapter and leave nothing out. This is not an insult because I am sure as a pastor you have read this passage numerous times. What baffles me is that you have read it so many times and still managed to ignore it.

This entire argument is based on translation. Don’t you think, as someone who loves God with all his heart, that he is smarter than to leave something as Holy and powerful as the Bible unattended? This is one of the reasons I have converted to the Catholic Church. I do not claim to know all things, but I do claim to know who does, and that is the church. "The Church of the living God, the Pillar and Foundation of truth" -1 Timothy 3:15. This is important in order that all are able to receive the true interpretation of the Bible.

"Consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you. Speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction just as they do the other scriptures" -2Peter 3:15-16
Many cannot interpret the Bible for themselves; this is why the foundation of the Catholic Church is so essential! Do not close your mind to the whole truth while twisting scripture to mean what you would like.

For a man in your situation who teaches scripture, it is so important that the correct interpretations are taught. If you are throwing certain parts of scripture out on supposed interpretational errors, you are placing distrust in the word of God. I will continue to keep you in my prayers. The saints will also continue to pray for you Benton.

I really don't know where to start in response. My first reaction was to say, "You are only 18?! I have socks older than you! I have bills older than you! (Actually not, I have paid off my undergrad loans. I wish I could say the same for my grad school loans!)" And although there is probably some truth to that feeling, it is also insulting to longo15.

I do get a little skeptical when I read where someone states unequivically, "This is true for everyone..." In my life, I have found little, if anything that is true for everyone. Ok, I will backtrack, there are two truths that I will claim; those being God loves everyone and Jesus' death and resurrection brings forgiveness to everyone. As I said to Kirb, if we cannot agree on these two points, then I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Joyous New Year. I will not discuss any farther because it would be fruitless.

Ok, on to Romans! I think it is telling that people like to comment on Romans 1 but forget to mention Romans 2:1-4. The chapter and verse designations in the Bible are arbitrary, they were not in the original manuscripts. To put the chapter break where it is is also arbitrary. If we read the parts together, we get the condemmation of the ungodly, yes, but then we get, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on soneone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, becasue you who pass judgement do the same things." (Romans 2:1, NIV) ...becasue you who pass judgement do the same things! This is a "we are all sinners" kind of thing. You cannot judge because you are just as guilty. So, if we don't want to get into selective reading, then this pretty much ends the discussion. We are being told to quit judging one another. Period.

longo15 said,"What baffles me is that you have read it [Romans 1] so many times and still managed to ignore it."

I "ignore" it because it does not apply to me. Although I may question God, (which has a long and glorious history) I continue to give glory to God. I have not ceased to give glory. So, if what I am doing is causeing me to be gay, then I would need to cease belief in God to become "not gay"? That sounds silly. Maybe you are suggesting that I have not given glory to God; that is hubris. That is also not for you to judge.

When we look at the list of sins in Romans 1 26-32, can ANY of us say that we have not been given over to these sins? "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. THey are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderes, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heatless, ruthless." (Romans 1:29-31) If you wish to claim that none of these can be applied to you, then again, this conversation is over because you: a) do not exist or b) are dillusional. In either case, it does not lead to a good discussion.

The Biblical truth here? We all fall short in faith. We all have logs in our eyes. We need to be loving in our interactaions with others because there will be a time when we will want and need a loving, compassionate, judge. Ok, I guess this is a third thing that is true for everyone. We all fall short and we all desire loving comapassion.

To not provide loving compassion is to not be a follower of Jesus. Calls us to follow in his ways. Jesus did not condemn, he forgave. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind." "Love your neighbor as yourself." Herein lie the law and the prophets. It is not that hard.

longo15 said:

For a man in your situation who teaches scripture, it is so important that the correct interpretations are taught. If you are throwing certain parts of scripture out on supposed interpretational errors, you are placing distrust in the word of God.

Huh? We constantly throw parts of the Bible out. We interpret the Bible with the Bible. The Jesus who calls people to love their neighbor as themselves would not be calling people to buy, sell, or bequeith slave as we find in Lev. 25:44-46. And no amount of contextual analysis will save it. But we do not go around allowing slavery. Jesus' law of love would not let us. We disreagard that one every day and are appalled when we hear about those who keep slaves even though to do so is "Biblical."

And nowhere is it found that one group was held up as righteous in a historic context throught the repression of another group. Whenever mass repression has occurred, history has never been kind.

longo15 said:

Many cannot interpret the Bible for themselves; this is why the foundation of the Catholic Church is so essential! Do not close your mind to the whole truth while twisting scripture to mean what you would like.

Sorry, I cannot go there. I am a recovering Roman. A church that would silence and excommiunicate people for seeking the truth is not someting that I wish to be part of.

Biblical Truth vs Literal Truth

(A nice calming picture is good for everyone!)

I hope kirb doesn't mind, I am again posting his comment into another post. I think points that are brought up are worthy of more than just a comment section.

kirb said...

Actually, doc, i do happen to take everything in the Bible as "Bible truth". It seems as though you have written off the Bible in your explanation. Some of the laws were certainly written for that time in history (for example: in Matthew 19:7-8 the pharisees asked why Moses allowed divorce and Jesus answered because of the hardness of their heart, but it was not so from the beginning). Others, such as the Ten Commandments, were written for all eternity. You can not merely throw all of them out. does that make sense?

I would argue that homosexual acts are eternally forbidden based on Paul's letter to the Romans chapter 1. Here, Paul puts it in a theological context. He says that homosexual acts are the result of a darkened mind, those who have rejected God's word. They were also penalized for their perversity.


I encourage you to check out a book called "Beyond Gay". Also, i beg you to look into a group i know of called "Courage". It is for those who have been involved in homosexual activity but are now trying to live chaste lives. I agree that you have been going through some rough times and that makes this all the more important. You, as a paster, are put in a position in which it is crucial to teach the whole truth. I urge you to meditate on Romans 1, and ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit of Truth, who will "guide us into all truth" Jn 16:13 i'll keep you in my prayers constantly, as i am sure all the saints will!!

I would also like a reply.

Ok, there is a difference between "Bible truth" and "literal truth." When we get these mixed we get into trouble. "Biblical truth" - adultery is a serious problem and we need to work to preserve the sanctity of marriage. "Literal truth" - stone those caught in adultery. If you are of the assumption that "Biblical" = "Literal" truth, then our conversation is over. I can appreciate your view of the Bible, but I think using the Bible in this manner is idolatry. I know that we do not speak Greek, let alone Aramaic or Hebrew, so what we are getting in the Bible is already in translation. Even if we could go back to the "original Greek" that is still a translation from the spoken Aramaic. And each time you encounter a translation, you are encountering an interpretation.

Even in English which we both purport to speak and read, we have interpretive problems. I can type the words, "Who cares?" (And, yes, this did really happen to me.) I meant it as in, "Who cares, it is good to have it presented." What was interpreted from the words was, "Who cares, it was a stupid idea to begin with." So even when we can agree on the meaning of words, we have trouble in finding definitive "intention" to written words, even today. How much more when the words we are talking about are close to 2000 years old and from a totally different place and understanding? (And again, the translation thing comes into play.)

If you have not read the article, consider reading just pages 9-13 concerning Romans 1. There are many interpretive stumbling blocks there. To say that one interpretation or translation is definitive is hubris. If you are claiming to have "THE" interpretation, then I wish you well and live well the truth you have found. But I think God has more respect for the intelligence God has given to us all. Conversation is the tool through which the Holy Spirit moves.

Someone (for the life of me, I can't remember who) said that we bring the wrong questions to the Bible. The Bible is not a "how" book but a "why" book. So many of the places people get hung up on things is when they use the Bible for "how."

When I lived with the Bible as a "how" book, I was depressed, despondent, frustrated. I prayed to be changed. I prayed for the power to live a celibate life. I prayed to not notice that really cute guy who was kneeling at the communion rail. I prayed that no one would be in the locker room at the pool when I went to swim. I prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide me. I PRAYED! I assume you did not mean to be rude, but your comment, "I urge you to meditate on Romans 1, and ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit of Truth, who will 'guide us into all truth'" is one of the rudest things a person can say to another. As I said, I DID pray for guidance. I prayed for guidance and was lead to a therapist, a supportive community, a supportive family, and a wonderful partner. I believe the guidance and truth I sought was found in my partner, Nick. (A pastor also.) Maybe it is you that needs to pray for the truth of the Holy Spirit?

All who use the comment about praying for the truth seem to think that they have already received the truth. Then they say that those who disagree with them will continue to badger them until the badgerers (is that a word?) get what they want. What never seems to enter the mind is that maybe the badgerers are the ones who have the truth of the Holy Spirit. The "church people" of Jesus time did not want to hear the message of Jesus and his followers. I believe they were good people who were trying to do what was good. They followed their scriptures in the way they had learned and had been told. Even when the ultimate "New Interpretation" of the word was in their midst, Christ himself, they did not see it. God is still at work in the world. Revelation did not end with John.

Even God "changes." (I am not going to look up all the chapters and verses because that would make blogging too much like work.) God presents to Peter clean and unclean food and tells Peter to eat it (Acts 10:9-16, I know, I looked up the verse, I lied!!) God says not to call unclean what God has called clean. I have been called. This has been shown repeatedly by various communities of faith. Even with my "gay persona" faith communities have looked to me as a leader. If God has called me to be a leader, why should there be those who say I am "unclean?"

I am sure as you read this, you could envision me as all "wild-eyed" and ranting, but I assure you, I am very calm. Please read it with that tone running through your head. (I almost typed "heart" instead of "head." A Freudian slip of the best kind!) Have calmness running through your heart, too! This post could be used as an example of how the written word could be misinterpreted and how our initial expectations can cloud how we read and interpret. We need to be careful when we make definitive judgement of written words.

I guess this was more testimony than academic, but, hey, the Holy Spirit seemed to be directing me in that direction.

Peace, Kirb.

Response to Kirb

A person who goes by the name of "Kirb" left a comment on a post from a while back.

hello, doc so i was just wondering how you can justify homosexuality in the Bible. due to the fact that you are a protestant and all your beliefs come from the Bible alone, i would like a Biblical explanation of homosexuality. Also i have recently spoken with a lutheran [sic] who says Pastors are not allowed to express homosexuality and that the stand of the Lutheran church is No gay pastors.
One thing that scares me about your whole situation described above is your willingness to throw God out on a whim when you are merely going through one tough time. i would hope that all the preists [sic] who guide me, although they are not homosexuals, would not let hard times effect their faith.

This is the same post someone else decided to post a critique of my ability to deal with life. I find that interesting.

My answer to the first question, how do I justify homosexuality? Well, there are plenty who are far more eloquent than I and whom have taught many lectures I sat through, who have addressed this question. Of course, if you approach the subject from the prospective that the "question" of homosexuality has been absolutely and definitively answered, then these essays will not change your perspective. If, Kirb, you truly want to learn, read the material from the perspective that the Holy Spirit could be working in our world today and God is not done with educating us.

A quick, off the cuff, answer is, "We don't take everything in the Bible as "Bible Truth" (stoning adulterers, silencing women) why are these six verses lifted up for special consideration? While I was in seminary, there were people who were divorced, there were people had tattoos, there were even people going to Red Lobster and wearing blended material! And although these are things that are prohibited by the Bible, there was no problem with ordaining them. But if, as this past week's lectionary states, you will know the tree by the fruit, the fruit of the spirit I see in many GLBT people far exceeds that which I see from hateful fundamentalist churches.

To address your questioning of a leader who can question the existence of God. Well, from what I can see, I am in good company. John of the Cross, Mother Teresa, Henri Nouwen, Thomas Merton, and even David in the Psalms, have their moments of doubts. If you have read any other parts of my blog, you would see that things in my life have been quite difficult. I do not consider that I was "throw God out on a whim when [I was] merely going through one tough time." Well, if you consider the prospect of losing my job, my home, my car, my friends, my family, and my whole self-identity as one tough time, then I guess I am spiritually weak. But if you would have read, you would have seen that my whole basis of self-identification and every facet of my life were about to change. I was feeling that if I weren't gay this wouldn't be a problem. I was feeling that I had gone through a ton of self-deception to try to convince myself that I was not gay. I keep hearing that all that I have to do is pray and trust and God will deliver me. I have prayed and trusted but God did not deliver me. So either God did not exist or God was some kind of sadist that enjoyed my suffering. It was actually easier to assume God did not exist than to believe that the God who created me and the world wanted me live in loneliness and despair.

Now, if you think that I should have remained depressed and despairing and believing God was purposely not answering my prayers, and just "shut up and believe," well... All I know, is I would not have been good to anyone until I could come to terms with God. Thank God for the billboard! It is through our struggles that we are able to help others. If this were not so, support groups would not exist.

Thanks for your comment, Kirb! I truly mean that! Please look around and ask more questions!

Peace