I would have to say that I am often tempted to sin in this particular way. The word 'fool' is not a kind one, though it is often so adequate to the need of a descriptive word that is at hand. But since I must refrain from its use, perhaps it will serve to quote instead the passage of text which tempts me so.

Were I allowed to join the False Witness Union, I'd respond to this therein. Since I'm not allowed to do as much, the blog is my only recourse.

Now I realize that this homosexual Christian has stated that he is celibate and does not have sex. Other professing Christians, like "Where's The Fruit D?" have even commended him for his decision of celibacy, even expressed admiration for him and his determination. No one has even suggested to him that his thread, as a professing Christian might be poor Christian testimony to a lost world.

Nor should they, if they honestly believe in Christian testimony. Putting aside the issue of homosexuality for a second, what was the content of the thread. A professing, faithful Christian declared, in the OT forums (not exactly a nest of tolerance where Christianity is concerned, no thanks to the efforts of the CWU), that it was his intent to abstain from sexual activity until such time as he was married to a woman.

Of course, he's homosexual, so what he was basically saying is that he is pledging himself to a life of celibacy, rather than fall into sexual sin. But really, the homosexuality is irrelevant here; had Theo been asking for advice in asking a girl on a date, he'd have admitted his commitment to remain abstinent until marriage as a condition of any resultant relationship.

How -- no, seriously, someone explain exactly how!!! -- is this poor Christian testimony?

I suggest that not only is this homosexual Christian putting himself in a situation that could lead to sin, but as a professing Christian, his thread could prevent a stumbling block to the lost in their coming to Christ.

Any person who dates another person, regardless of the gender of the people involved, puts him or herself into a situation that could lead to sin. Interestingly, a similar issue cropped up on the CWU forums a while back, and of the two people I would wager that Theo's approach to human sexuality is healthier and more Biblical. Yet Theo is condemned by the other person, and the other person is accepted.

Who is really being the stumbling block here? The gay man attempting to reconcile himself, morally and practically, to the law of God? Or the other Christians telling him that even his commitment to total celibacy (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7) is not good enough?

As Christians, we are called to present the truth of the Gospel and defend the truth of God's word in the face of error, not place potential stumbling blocks in the way of the lost by seeking our desires of the flesh. It would be just a bad for a professing Christian to seek help in securing drugs, or any other activity that could lead to sin or is sinful.

So it can be assumed, then, that none of the members of the CWU have any intention of dating, can it? Because if the person making this statement means it, 100%, then that is what must result. Because really...whether one is gay or straight, male or female, asking someone out on a date creates a situation in which a potential for sin exists. A back seat of a car works as well as an empty apartment for such things.

But nobody is talking about that, are they?