Do you think that your being homosexual(attracted to the same sex) is one reason why you might keep God at arms length? I ask because I think that is why I kept God at arms length, in order to justify my way of living and doing what I wanted with no moral boundary. After not finding true peace or happiness anywhere else(men, drugs, alcohol, materialism etc) I knew that there had to be something more to life than this.
That assumes I believe in God… But yes, one of the reasons I don’t believe in God is because I don’t find the Church’s rejection of homosexuality to be reasonable. And yes, I think a part of that is because I do want to have a relationship with another man and don’t see anything wrong with it.
I came to know Christ in 1993 and the desire to drink, drug, and homosexuality was taken from me. This is just my experience. I am happily married with 3 children.
Thank you for sharing your experience.
I am interested in your thoughts, including the other two questions asked of you by the other members.
I believe that one can know God exists, and yet not choose to serve this God. This would be a form of agnosticism.
Uh. If someone “knows” God exist, they aren’t agnostic. I’ll quote the person who *invented *the term, Thomas Henry Huxley:
When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist, a materialist or an idealist, a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. The one thing on which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain ‘gnosis’ — had more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure that I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there; most of my colleagues were ‘-ists’ of one sort or another; and I, the man without a rag of a belief to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of ‘agnostic.’ It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the ‘gnostic’ of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.
Does “agnostic” fit you better, than the term “athiest”?
*Not *in the kind of “agnosticism” you talk about, which you said they “know” God exists but don’t rely on him.
But, I’ll clarify my position on my atheism anyway: I’m someone who holds no belief in God. My belief in his existance is sort of like my belief in an invisible, undetectable reindeer flying over my head. I guess it *could *be real somehow. But I wouldn’t really know unless it became univisible. And until it does, I’m not going to believe in it.