Christian Homophobia

[MercyBurst]

And how is that different from the legalist who says that Jesus died so that we can be justified by obeying the Law?

No difference whatsoever.

 

[MercyBurst]

Actually -- if Jesus Christ died so that we can obtain righteousness by obeying the Law -- there wasn't much reason for Him to die anyway, was there?

And that's the point of the entire Letter to the Galatians, BTW. Read it, sometime.

Here I am reading Galatians, exactly as you say, and I see this verse:

Galatians 3:13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law


Jesus died for the law so we wouldn't have to -- will you deny this as well? If He didn't die for Lev 20:13, then tell me who did. Who removed the curse from Lev 20:13?

I love God's grace. I hate it when somebody tries to minimize it. It sounds so odd for a christian to criticize and belittle the very foundations of their own salvation.

 

[UberLutheran]

yes, and Jesus died for the law so we wouldn't have to -- will you deny that as well? If He didn't die for Lev 20:13, then tell me who did.

I love God's grace. I hate it when somebody tries to minimize it. It sounds so odd for a christian to criticize and belittle the very foundations of their own salvation.

I love God's grace, too.

I especially love the fact that justification by grace, through faith means that I'm not subject to obtaining righteousness before God by having to observe the Law.

Of course, some people like trying to earn their righteousness before God by observing the Law. Different strokes for different folks, I guess...

 

[MercyBurst]

I love God's grace, too.

I especially love the fact that justification by grace, through faith means that I'm not subject to obtaining righteousness before God by having to observe the Law.

Nobody said that you are justified by living by the law. But a christian should respect the Savior's perfect work. He died for the law which contains Lev 20:13. So let no one say the law is irrelevant. Without God's grace, somebody is still under the law, or Christ died for nothing.

Does God's grace still apply to unconfessed sin? Apparantly not according to 1st John 1:9. I don't think that means they are sent to hell, but I think it means they'll have to face up to it before they can enter heaven. How can God let unconfessed sin enter heaven?

Some denominations believe a person can sin away their grace by living in a lifestyle of sin. I'm inclined to believe they are wrong to believe this, but on the otherhand was someone saved to start with if they did not fully repent when they were saved?

 

[UnitedInChrist]

I'm going to leave it at this because the mods are getting somewhat upset on how this thread is going,..



That is in our bible. Look up the word in the greek and you will find that it correctly translates over to homosexual. There is nothing here to leave one not understanding the context.

The mods can erase this if they like, but the greek is exact on it.

Good day.

Dave,
Yes...the mods are here to clean it up and I'm glad. It was getting out of hand and it was ruining the thread for others coming here. Any apology I owe you you have since you really got me worked up. You are correct in your post above (not that you would need to hear that from me). Homosexuality is referenced. However, what I would point out is was not the sexuality "issue"..it was the ACT, which was the violent raping of temple prostitutes in order to take property (slaves). It would be similar to the way "rape" is used today. It was not referenced as in a loving, monogomus, and committed relationship. You won't agree with this, which is fine, however, as off the wall as you think it may be...very many believe it to be just that. Lets agree to disagree, and let others enjoy the thread. Have a safe wknd.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

Uberlutheran, WOW...thanks for ALL of those posts! WOW. I knew someone like u was out there somewhere. Thank you for stating your bible perspective so rationally. You're much better at works, and analogies than I cam...so props to you!

 

[sunlover1]

I don't exalt a book.

That's not what I meant, and in fact my post did not read as i meant it to.

I didnt mean to be offensive, I meant it that since we're both Christians, then it follows that we'd both exalt the Word of GOD over the words of men.

So , just disregard both of the posts.
sorry.

sunlover

 

[sunlover1]

I love God's grace, too.

I especially love the fact that justification by grace, through faith means that I'm not subject to obtaining righteousness before God by having to observe the Law.

Of course, some people like trying to earn their righteousness before God by observing the Law. Different strokes for different folks, I guess...

Absolutly cannot earn our righteousness.
Jesus Christ is our Righteousness.
But licentiousness isn't the answer either:

1 John 3:8-9
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;
for his seed remaineth in him:
and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God.

 

[MercyBurst]

Absolutly cannot earn our righteousness.
Jesus Christ is our Righteousness.
But licentiousness isn't the answer either:

1 John 3:8-9
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;
for his seed remaineth in him:
and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God.

Good point. Carnality is ALWAYS the enemy of spirtuality.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Really? In what way?

Because some of us don't read the Bible literally?

Because some of us don't believe in a literal, six-day creation; or that a literal Adam and Eve just magically "appeared"?

Or that we don't believe that a 480-foot ziggurat fell somewhere in Mesopotamia and that's supposed the reason for the all the languages in the world?

Or we don't believe that water covered the earth to an altitude of 29,070 feet?

Did it ever occur to fundies that if there was enough moisture content in the atmosphere to condense to produce FIVE MILES of water, that the pressure of that atmospheric water would have crushed every living thing even before the Flood ever started?

Did it ever occur to fundies that if water rose to a depth of 29,070 feet, the top two and a half miles would have been solid ice and would never have melted?

You know what I think is sad? Fundies who leave their common sense, their ability to reason, their ability to distinguish between literal fact and metaphor on the the hat rack by the door and assume that since something is in the Bible, it has to be 100 percent, absolutely, infallibly, inerrantly, literally true -- and who insist that everybody MUST believe just as they do or those people are "not Christian".

Sad, sad, SAD.

Yes it is sad that you try and put God things in the same place as man things.

I assume you believe that Christ was born of a virgin, but yet God couldn't do those other things?

I will again assume that you believe God raised Christ from the dead, but you can't believe He could have make man from dirt?

The Bible tells us that it hadn't rain on the earth before the flood. It says that a mist came up from the earth to water it, so that would mean the atmosphere was different then. So were those finding about the solid ice done from what we know now with the earth as it is after the flood or before?

At one time science thought the earth was flat, but as the Lord showed us more and more we now know it isn't. Science can't make dirt, but yet you think that the God that did couldn't have made Adam from it?

If a person by common sense can't believe those things than how can they believe that when they die they will be with the Lord? You know in a place that science doesn't know about, because the Lord hasn't shown us yet. You believe the Bible, I guess, that when the Lord returns that the dead in Christ will rise first and then those that remain will meet Him in the air? Or do you?

If it is to hard to believe God could do those other things how do you know He can do the once I mentioned? Do you believe that Jesus healed thousands of people when He was here? I will assume your answer is yes, so I will ask if He can make a man that was born blind see again by spitting in some dirt and rubbing it on his eyes then why couldn't He have taken dirt and made Adam?

I have common sense and I use it. I don't have a box for God tho. To believe that He can raise you from the dead, but couldn't have made you from the dirt, well common sense tells me by faith that He can do both those things and many more. The Bible tells us that Gods ways are not our ways, but yet we take what God has allowed man to know so far and try to answer God things with them. Sorry just doesn't make any kind of sense to me to do that.

Oh and by the way, why do you always make such statements like if you are conservative and fundamentalists you don't believe a person is a Christian if they don't do, say or believe this or that? As I said in another post you need to stop painting with such a broad brush, because all you're doing is showing you don't know as much as you would like people to believe you do.

The things you mentioned have nothing to do with salvation, so frankly, altho I find it strange that you can't believe God did what we are told He did if you at least believe the parts of the Bible that tell about what a person must do to be saved...................well thats all that really matters.

I am one of your conservative, fundamentalist, etc. etc., so maybe some here need to get the facts, as I was told to do by another poster, before assuming or stating things as facts that aren't. Just a thought.

 

[UberLutheran]

Yes it is sad that you try and put God things in the same place as man things.

I assume you believe that Christ was born of a virgin, but yet God couldn't do those other things?

I will again assume that you believe God raised Christ from the dead, but you can't believe He could have make man from dirt?

The Bible tells us that it hadn't rain on the earth before the flood. It says that a mist came up from the earth to water it, so that would mean the atmosphere was different then. So were those finding about the solid ice done from what we know now with the earth as it is after the flood or before?

At one time science thought the earth was flat, but as the Lord showed us more and more we now know it isn't. Science can't make dirt, but yet you think that the God that did couldn't have made Adam from it?

If a person by common sense can't believe those things than how can they believe that when they die they will be with the Lord? You know in a place that science doesn't know about, because the Lord hasn't shown us yet. You believe the Bible, I guess, that when the Lord returns that the dead in Christ will rise first and then those that remain will meet Him in the air? Or do you?

If it is to hard to believe God could do those other things how do you know He can do the once I mentioned? Do you believe that Jesus healed thousands of people when He was here? I will assume your answer is yes, so I will ask if He can make a man that was born blind see again by spitting in some dirt and rubbing it on his eyes then why couldn't He have taken dirt and made Adam?

I have common sense and I use it. I don't have a box for God tho. To believe that He can raise you from the dead, but couldn't have made you from the dirt, well common sense tells me by faith that He can do both those things and many more. The Bible tells us that Gods ways are not our ways, but yet we take what God has allowed man to know so far and try to answer God things with them. Sorry just doesn't make any kind of sense to me to do that.

Oh and by the way, why do you always make such statements like if you are conservative and fundamentalists you don't believe a person is a Christian if they don't do, say or believe this or that? As I said in another post you need to stop painting with such a broad brush, because all you're doing is showing you don't know as much as you would like people to believe you do.

The things you mentioned have nothing to do with salvation, so frankly, altho I find it strange that you can't believe God did what we are told He did if you at least believe the parts of the Bible that tell about what a person must do to be saved...................well thats all that really matters.

I am one of your conservative, fundamentalist, etc. etc., so maybe some here need to get the facts, as I was told to do by another poster, before assuming or stating things as facts that aren't. Just a thought.

We've gone over this in previous posts and responses, but I find it amazing that fundamentalists have absolutely no problem making assumptive comments like:

"Yes it is sad that you try and put God things in the same place as man things. "

"You believe the Bible, I guess, that when the Lord returns that the dead in Christ will rise first and then those that remain will meet Him in the air? Or do you?"

"Oh and by the way, why do you always make such statements like if you are conservative and fundamentalists you don't believe a person is a Christian if they don't do, say or believe this or that? As I said in another post you need to stop painting with such a broad brush, because all you're doing is showing you don't know as much as you would like people to believe you do."

" The things you mentioned have nothing to do with salvation..."
​

and holding us accountable for things we never said, just because these conservatives think we believe those things; but these same fundamentalist conservatives are the first to complain that we're "persecuting" them by having the audacity to express a belief that they don't hold?

You know: over an 10-month period, I started collecting statements made over and over and over again by fundamentalist conservatives, and condensed it all into a post called 50 Ways To Win An Argument With A Liberal. I'd love to take credit for all 50 items being original material, but the truth is these are all things which have been posted AT me, or gay Christians, or liberal Christians by fundamentalist conservatives, which these same gay and/or liberal Christians sent to me with the accompanying links: all I did was compile them into one OP.

You might want to take a look at the link. It'll give you an idea of what it's like being on the receiving end of "loving the sinner and hating the sin" and "if you believe in evolution then you don't believe in the Bible and if you don't believe in the Bible, then you don't believe in God" and a lot of the other presumptive nonsense posted AT us by fundamentalist conservatives.

As far as some of the other parts of your post: "science" never thought the earth was flat, because "science" disappeared in the West with the fall of the Greek and Roman empires after Christians sacked and burned the library at Alexandria, and "science" didn't re-appear until the late medieval period; and even then it was a matter of official church dogma that the universe revolved around the earth and if one sailed too far off the horizon, one would fall off the earth. (Even Columbus believed that when he set off on his voyage in 1492: the idea was to find a quicker way to the Orient by sailing west.)

But don't take my word for it: here's another link explaining what happened when Galileo countered official church doctrine regarding a heliocentric earth:

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/

(For the record: I don't agree with the entire website, particularly the claims that Jesus never existed — there's plenty of proof to show Jesus did exist and that He did make the claims He is stated to have made; but the fact that the author of the website and I disagree on one issue does not diminish the fact that he is exactly right on another issue. As tempting as it may be, don't use the website as an attempt to "prove" that I "am an atheist". I'm not.)

Common sense would tell us that there was water on the Earth before the Flood: were there no water, no life could have survived, let alone flourished. Take a look at Mars to see what happens on a water-less planet. 29,070 feet of water didn't just magically appear all at once from "the deep" — that moisture would have had to be held in the atmosphere to precipitate; and the pressure caused by the amount of moisture in the atmosphere needed to precipitate to the depth of 29,070 feet would have crushed every living thing to death.

Given the fact that there had to be precipitable water in the atmosphere in order for things to live (and thrive), there would have been rain before The Flood; and given that water refracts light and rainbows are caused by the refraction of light as it passes through rain, there would have been rainbows before The Flood.

Oh, I believe God's ways are not our ways; but I believe that the Bible does not have to be literal, or infallible, or inerrant for God to do what God needs to do. I happen to believe that the Word of God happens to be bigger than the bible.

 

[savedandhappy1]

We've gone over this in previous posts and responses, but I find it amazing that fundamentalists have absolutely no problem making assumptive comments like:

"Yes it is sad that you try and put God things in the same place as man things. "​

"You believe the Bible, I guess, that when the Lord returns that the dead in Christ will rise first and then those that remain will meet Him in the air? Or do you?"​

"Oh and by the way, why do you always make such statements like if you are conservative and fundamentalists you don't believe a person is a Christian if they don't do, say or believe this or that? As I said in another post you need to stop painting with such a broad brush, because all you're doing is showing you don't know as much as you would like people to believe you do."​

" The things you mentioned have nothing to do with salvation..."​

and holding us accountable for things we never said, just because these conservatives think we believe those things; but these same fundamentalist conservatives are the first to complain that we're "persecuting" them by having the audacity to express a belief that they don't hold?

You know: over an 10-month period, I started collecting statements made over and over and over again by fundamentalist conservatives, and condensed it all into a post called 50 Ways To Win An Argument With A Liberal. I'd love to take credit for all 50 items being original material, but the truth is these are all things which have been posted AT me, or gay Christians, or liberal Christians by fundamentalist conservatives, which these same gay and/or liberal Christians sent to me with the accompanying links: all I did was compile them into one OP.

You might want to take a look at the link. It'll give you an idea of what it's like being on the receiving end of "loving the sinner and hating the sin" and "if you believe in evolution then you don't believe in the Bible and if you don't believe in the Bible, then you don't believe in God" and a lot of the other presumptive nonsense posted AT us by fundamentalist conservatives.

As far as some of the other parts of your post: "science" never thought the earth was flat, because "science" disappeared in the West with the fall of the Greek and Roman empires after Christians sacked and burned the library at Alexandria, and "science" didn't re-appear until the late medieval period; and even then it was a matter of official church dogma that the universe revolved around the earth and if one sailed too far off the horizon, one would fall off the earth. (Even Columbus believed that when he set off on his voyage in 1492: the idea was to find a quicker way to the Orient by sailing west.)

But don't take my word for it: here's another link explaining what happened when Galileo countered official church doctrine regarding a heliocentric earth:

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/

(For the record: I don't agree with the entire website, particularly the claims that Jesus never existed — there's plenty of proof to show Jesus did exist and that He did make the claims He is stated to have made; but the fact that the author of the website and I disagree on one issue does not diminish the fact that he is exactly right on another issue. As tempting as it may be, don't use the website as an attempt to "prove" that I "am an atheist". I'm not.)

Common sense would tell us that there was water on the Earth before the Flood: were there no water, no life could have survived, let alone flourished. Take a look at Mars to see what happens on a water-less planet. 29,070 feet of water didn't just magically appear all at once from "the deep" — that moisture would have had to be held in the atmosphere to precipitate; and the pressure caused by the amount of moisture in the atmosphere needed to precipitate to the depth of 29,070 feet would have crushed every living thing to death.

Given the fact that there had to be precipitable water in the atmosphere in order for things to live (and thrive), there would have been rain before The Flood; and given that water refracts light and rainbows are caused by the refraction of light as it passes through rain, there would have been rainbows before The Flood.

Oh, I believe God's ways are not our ways; but I believe that the Bible does not have to be literal, or infallible, or inerrant for God to do what God needs to do. I happen to believe that the Word of God happens to be bigger than the bible.

So you believe that when we die we go to be with the Lord, right?

I will assume the answer is yes, so that we don't have to do the you say yes and then I say why I ask thing.

Can you tell me how is that any easier to believe then God created Adam from the dirt?

So how many people who claim conservative and fundamentalist beliefs said those 50 ways to argue with liberals? If we took that number what percentage of conservatives/fundamentalists would we come up with? Would that be 2, 10, 40, 50 percent or higher?

I have read several articles that give survey results saying the 86% of pedophiles are homosexual, so does that mean that all homosexuals are pedophiles? I don't believe it does. Yet, if I am understanding you, all conservatives/fundamentalist are a certain way because some percentage of them ask or said these 50 things at some time.

I will have to check and see what the normal research time is for most things that are stated as fact, but I kind of have the feeling it is longer than 10 months. Could be wrong tho, so will have to do some research on that.

A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. [W.D. Erickson, et al. "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters." 17 Archives of Sexual Behavior 77,83 (1988).]

In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested. [Freund & R.I. Watson. "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study." 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992).]


Good Day.

 

[UberLutheran]

Is it safe for me to assume you didn't bother to look at either of the two links I furnished?

(Unlike many of the fundies I've encountered, I at least bother to ask before I make an assumption.)

 

[davedjy]

It is safe to assume that, yes, it is Uber! Jesus is coming soon, we are Satanic freaks that will be swallowed in the fiery pits of hell! hahahaha!!!!!

 

[LoG]

Actually -- if Jesus Christ died so that we can obtain righteousness by obeying the Law -- there wasn't much reason for Him to die anyway, was there?

And that's the point of the entire Letter to the Galatians, BTW. Read it, sometime.

There is a little more to Galatians.

Chapter 5
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies,
21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelings, and things like these; of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
23 meekness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
24 But those belonging to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

That section tells me that it is through His sacrifice that we now have the power to overcome the lusts of the flesh. I couldn't find the section that says we are ok to continue indulging in the lusts of the flesh. Sanctification is a process not an event (ie, progress, not perfection) but it still requires a goal that is being worked towards. That goal is still the fulfilling of the Law no matter how imperfectly we are at it.

Is it safe for me to assume you didn't bother to look at either of the two links I furnished?

Last I looked, this thread was about Christian Homophobia. Not about the dynamics of debates between the adherents of Liberal and fundamentalist theologies or Origins.

 

[Ave Maria]

It is sad that many Christians are homophobic. As for myself, I am friends with at least two gay people. One of which is a gay Christian, the other is a gay Wiccan.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

So you believe that when we die we go to be with the Lord, right?

I will assume the answer is yes, so that we don't have to do the you say yes and then I say why I ask thing.

Can you tell me how is that any easier to believe then God created Adam from the dirt?

So how many people who claim conservative and fundamentalist beliefs said those 50 ways to argue with liberals? If we took that number what percentage of conservatives/fundamentalists would we come up with? Would that be 2, 10, 40, 50 percent or higher?

I have read several articles that give survey results saying the 86% of pedophiles are homosexual, so does that mean that all homosexuals are pedophiles? I don't believe it does. Yet, if I am understanding you, all conservatives/fundamentalist are a certain way because some percentage of them ask or said these 50 things at some time.

I will have to check and see what the normal research time is for most things that are stated as fact, but I kind of have the feeling it is longer than 10 months. Could be wrong tho, so will have to do some research on that.

A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. [W.D. Erickson, et al. "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters." 17 Archives of Sexual Behavior 77,83 (1988).]

In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested. [Freund & R.I. Watson. "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study." 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992).]


Good Day.

Check out what is posted at the Child Molestation hotline. I'd think they would pretty much know the nuts and bults of the sickness
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/sexual_abuse_of_boys.htm
one of the highlights that may interest you:

The overwhelming majority of child sexual abusers are adult heterosexual males who are married and maintain normal adult responsibilities and relationships within their community. They are not homosexual (exclusively attracted to the same sex) or Pedophiles (exclusively attracted to prepubescent children) and they are not mentally ill. Adult female sexual abusers comprise a much smaller but significant percent of the total abuser population and generally fall within one of two groups: a blood relative who, interestingly, is frequently mentally disturbed or a woman in a position of authority who engages in an “affair” with the male child, such as a teacher. In other words, we cannot spot a child molester from a mile away, or even from the next room.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Is it safe for me to assume you didn't bother to look at either of the two links I furnished?

(Unlike many of the fundies I've encountered, I at least bother to ask before I make an assumption.)

Lets see one statement and a whole lot of questions, must mean that this isn't directed to me?

I assume you believe that Christ was born of a virgin, but yet God couldn't do those other things?

I will again assume that you believe God raised Christ from the dead, but you can't believe He could have make man from dirt?

I was going to copy and paste all the questions but they are just a few post back so know that you can see the question mark after each question, so no need to, right?

 

[savedandhappy1]

Check out what is posted at the Child Molestation hotline. I'd think they would pretty much know the nuts and bults of the sickness
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/sexual_abuse_of_boys.htm
one of the highlights that may interest you:

The overwhelming majority of child sexual abusers are adult heterosexual males who are married and maintain normal adult responsibilities and relationships within their community. They are not homosexual (exclusively attracted to the same sex) or Pedophiles (exclusively attracted to prepubescent children) and they are not mentally ill. Adult female sexual abusers comprise a much smaller but significant percent of the total abuser population and generally fall within one of two groups: a blood relative who, interestingly, is frequently mentally disturbed or a woman in a position of authority who engages in an “affair” with the male child, such as a teacher. In other words, we cannot spot a child molester from a mile away, or even from the next room.

rick,

Good to see you. You might one to go back and read my post again so you can understand what it was I was trying to say. Here let me re-post it for you:

I have read several articles that give survey results saying the 86% of pedophiles are homosexual, so does that mean that all homosexuals are pedophiles? I don't believe it does. Yet, if I am understanding you, all conservatives/fundamentalist are a certain way because some percentage of them ask or said these 50 things at some time.

Now lets look at what I said, ok? I said I have read several articles that say that 86% of pedophiles are homosexual, so does that mean that all homosexuals are pedophiles?

I then stated how I didn't believe it.

I wasn't posting the survey to say that it was fact, but how some people could state things as if they were a certain way and it not be anything close.

Anyhow, I thank you for the link. I will look it over but it has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. Which simple is that not all conservatives/fundamentalist are the same, just like not all homosexuals are pedophiles. Sorry if it was clear.

 

[UberLutheran]

It is sad that many Christians are homophobic. As for myself, I am friends with at least two gay people. One of which is a gay Christian, the other is a gay Wiccan.

*blink*