How can I help a bisexual Christian feel comfortable

[rva_jeremy]

It's certainly possible to help another entity directly.

Yes, you're right -- thanks for correcting me.  I was not very clear in stating my personal interpretation of these passages, and I regret any confusion.  The following is my interpretation and should not be taken as those of Ra's message.

I do think it's important to understand that help is not help unless it is desired and this is paramount in respecting free will.  We can only offer assistance, but that's as far as we can go--whether it is accepted or not is entirely on the other, and whether it ends up actually resulting in a better condition for the other cannot be known ahead of time, setting aside the fact that "better" is subjective and only one person's opinion really matters there.  An offer of help that does not accept the helped's desires can often be intense catalyst for those of us who seek to help.  

To use one of your examples, Stranger: if somebody is hungry and needs food and clearly wants food, we can feed them without introducing further distortion or causing other blockages.  If somebody, however, is suffering from an anorexic condition and does not desire food, as hungry and malnourished as they may be I do not believe it is a straightforward decision--either to feed them or not to feed them.

I also think those of Ra's ideas on healing are instructive here because there's a lot of overlap between the kind of assistance the OP is asking about and the act of being a healer.  I'm thinking specifically of 66.10:

The healer does not heal. The crystallized healer is a channel for intelligent energy which offers an opportunity to an entity that it might heal itself.

I think this can be generalized to all kinds of assistance to the extent that the problems needing help from other-selves are the result of blockages and thinking, but we can't really know exactly what those blockages and thought patterns are, how functional they are in the person's life, and even if we could know these things, we can't ethically or even reliably directly change their thinking that has created the condition.  So the point I was trying to clumsily make, Stranger, was that you can lead somebody to the light but you can't make them see the Creator.  And especially when dealing with another's hangups, blockages, thought patterns, pain and wounding, etc. one should tread lightly because that catalyst is at least as instrumental as the assistance, if not profoundly more so.

Something I was talking about in another thread is how much empathy and what has been called imaginative labor are constitutive to service-to-others.  We have to imagine ourselves as the other in order to start to narrow in on what genuine help might be offered at all (beyond the obvious stuff, like helping old ladies cross the street and the like).  This takes self knowledge, but it also touches on something Stephen Tyman spoke about in A Fool's Phenomenology that has kind of haunted me:

You fancy you have chosen, then? And you seek to serve the Other? First, beware that the Other is not a subtle projection of the self!  Too often it turns out to be so.

I think this is a point really wrapped up in this philosophy of help I'm teasing out; that to help is to understand the helped not simply as another "Jeremy" whose experience is simply like mine but with different events; it's to understand the helped as, in some ways, a totally alien creature whose absolute uniqueness demands we question any certainty we have about the other's state of mind, intent, interests, etc.  In other words, often we help because we put ourselves in the other's shoes and think "if I were him, I'd want help".  I don't think this is bad or objectionable at all, but there's a side of it that is simply blind, because respecting the other is about respecting and accepting not simply what we recognize and identify with but also what we cannot recognize or identify with.  That alien, unfamiliar stuff is also the Creator, and not less so merely because it's inconvenient to contemplate or feels radically different. To quote Tyman again:

In the final analysis, all acceptance, to be purely what it is, must be of the objectively unacceptable.

With all that said, let me just reiterate: please understand this is an extrapolation from the material and is totally subject to criticism, all of which is welcome.  I appreciate the opportunity to dive into this quite interesting topic a bit more!  Would love to hear others' thoughts on this.  Have a placed too fine a point on this?