God in Sin
Submitted by David on January 12 2001 02:39:24
In reply to My own thoughts. submitted by hyper173 on January 11 2001 03:42:05
|
Are we evil? Good day: I never realized it how theorietical this forum is, we are like the old French Marxists, sitting around talking about abstract things like "sin vs. minor sex" when really in the practical world nothing for boylove is happening. We sit here with our heavy discussions about this particular point, when we really we must look at boylove itself, and granted as Christians it is done in a Christic context, but nonetheless we must look at our own humanity first so we can find Christ and NOT look at Christ and then find our own humanity. Is looking at a boy sin? Does that truly matter? Sex cannot be sin because it is a deep root of the human condition, sex is not shame, but the a form of bodily prayer, and union with an other in the most physical sense, granted as boylovers this union cannot be gained, and so we must turn away to other unions, other prayers. Our prayer is not so much physical but psycho-emotional. WE may fanatasize and hope, but we must accomplish, we must strive for our cause. To be human implies sin, because sin means not-God, and we are not-God as such. We may enter into the divine being as times, and find him within actions, but in ourself we are God in order to be transcended, and God means with regards to sin, that God is something forever reached for, something to which a striving is continual. And this is why the French Marxists never had thier day because they wanted to take the striving away fromthe human being. Man strives, and alwys will because to not strive is to remove our humanity, and enter into a borg like scenario. For even our God must be transcended. God is not an idea to be belived, but an expierence to behold: and as ideas help us to expierence in regards to Christian boylove we have a road that will get no where in theory. Go up to some boys mother and say "I want to start a relationship with your 12 year old son, he and I love each other, and in theoretical studies it has been found that a boy needs a positive male influence for him to develop into a sensitive man....." and so on. She will slap you and bid you goodday. And so how are we to be free? Theory is something that comes after a freedom, not before. Discussing "sin and boys," is merely a distraction from what we must be doing. Looking at a boy is not sin, but a prayer to the most beauitful image of God. Sin occurs when we are taken from God, and coping with our boylove is anything but sin. To sin would be to deny ones feelings, and repress them only to have them explode in the wrong situation. Repression of boylove leads to rage and depression, but so does coming to terms with it. When one admits his boylove he finds relief, but also rage at the injustice toward us. I don't mean to sound like a 60s radical, I am sorry. The rage is the boy inside that cannot express. There is a love that exists within the abstract love, a non-sexual love, that can be held between a man and a boy, and when a man is a boylover he can invite the boy into the inner most being of his heart because that is where his own boy lives, and so the inner boy and the outer boy become one, as Jesus said "make the inner like the outer." And so we need to formulate these ideas of what and how, but only insofar as they bring persistance to our movement. A rallying cry is to offer one prayer for boylove liberation each night before one goes to sleep. That is as radical as you can get, so please do- iof you want to help yourself and others. I have often found that I can pray for boys in a way that only a boylover would be able to, and so I ask myself "is my sexual feelings for boys a sin?" Cetainly not, it is a blessing. Think of the boys we save in our prayers and actions. Repressing sexuality is never good, but we must because the world is not formulated for us. Jesus had to sacrafice and so too do we. We can bow down to the law and accept it, or we can be like Jesus and be nailed on a cross. I dare say we want neither, so a nice middle ground like Paul, or Mary is good, either praying or proving the neccessity of boylove. I belive it was Jean-Paul Sartre who said "Man only knows himself through what he needs," and so we must ask ourselves is boylove a necessity for us? Is it US, and if it is US than it is not a need, but an inherent necessity. There comes a point when one abandons his boylove, or accepts it. Both are frieghtneing. For boylovers in this modern era are like Moses at the beginning of the 40 years. We are a long way to liberation, and none of us will see it in our lifetime, but since the 1980 the movement has begun to slowly move on. Even though we have been left by the Amercian gay movement nonetheless the International gay movement supports us: and though we may not be the classical gay, we are: becuase classical homosexuality is that of a older man and a young boy. We are the true homosexual, and we are the root, the root of western society which has been annihilated by the religion we profess. And so our root as true homosexuals, must get at Jesus's root which is freedom from sin: which as this points out is impossible--but sin must be cut through so that we may grow ever closer to the Holy One, even though to escape sin is to escape humanity and being. We need sin: and boylove liberates us from this sin- to grow into a diferent sin, a sin that is closer to God, not sex, but new necessary sin, for we only know God by our sin, for Jesus is the in-itself of sin, thus negating sin. We must be lead through sin, to new sins, for sin usually has a negative connatation but here it is a divine name. Boylove is a sin because we cannot express it, and thus it is a wall betwen us and our journey toward God, and so liberation of the legalistsics of boylove is also a liberation for us as people, so that we can march on with time, toward the timeless one, who is always under the cloud of sin. Without sin we are nothing, with sin we are true. God Help Us God Speed David |
Follow ups: