Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

This is worth it's own post. (Re, "Homos." I am an equal-opportunity offender. I call myself a "redneck." Bite me.)

The following excerpt from the comments, betwixt me and Bitch, Ph.D., is an example of how to disagree without personal attacks, and ensued in response to previous post "Conservative Democrat," below :-) (No offense, Nick; just tryin' to preserve the thread betwixt me and B!)

xxxxx

Ok, I gotta ask: you, personally, think God is necessary for moral beliefs? And you, personally, think homosexuality is wrong? I ask b/c you said the quiz results "nailed" you...

# Above posted by bitchphd : 1:48 PM

Ah, good questions, B. Perhaps "nailed" was too strong a term. I think I was surprised to see that "Conservative Democrat" was actually on the list. And I have always considered myself a Conservative Dem -- but mostly on defense and foreign relations.

Actually, I am at variance with the God part. I mean, I have my beliefs, but I do not insist that others share them, or that they even have a God belief, to be morally moral.

As for the homosexual thing. Tough to parse. Do I believe it is wrong? Yes, but I do so probably out of habit. It makes me uncomfortable, which has nada to do with right and wrong.

About a Christmas or two ago, I had something of a "come to Jesus" over it, while pondering the Web site of the United Church of Christ -- http://www.stillspeaking.com -- wherein I found myself weeping over a lifetime of arrogance over the subject.

Further, I believe in freedom -- freedom to live life as one sees fit, as long as it doesn't impinge on others' rights -- realizing that we do not have a right not to be made to feel uncomfortable by others' lifestyle choices.

And that's another thing: I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is a choice, while same-sex tendencies are a complicated mix of the whole nature-nurture conundrum. Like, genetic, or medical obesity, for example, is one thing; what people do about it, embrace it and celebrate it, or submit to God's grace with it, is another. Same with most everything else.

My tears over that Christmas were born on the sudden realization that the idea that one's sexual orientation, and what one did about it, were more important than any other shortcoming-sin-decision-tendency vis-a-vis God, was bullshit.

Some bottom lines: There is God. I am not He. Jesus saves sinners. All have sinned.

Two things, from the United Church of Christ Web site.

1. A description of their commercial, on TV now and then; this is what made me see my own arrogance:

The first commercial features two muscle-bound "bouncers" standing guard outside a symbolic, picturesque church and selecting which persons are permitted to attend Sunday services. This represents the alienation felt by some persons toward church and religion. Written text interrupts the scene, announcing, "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." A narrator then proclaims the United Church of Christ's commitment to Jesus' extravagant welcome: "No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here.

One of the main lessons of the Bible is that Jesus didn't turn people away. The UCC seeks to be a place in today's world that welcomes all who come through our doors.

2. From the UCC "What We Believe" section:

We believe that all of the baptized ‘belong body and soul to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.’ No matter who –- no matter what –- no matter where we are on life’s journey -– notwithstanding race, gender, sexual orientation, class or creed -– we all belong to God and to one worldwide community of faith. All persons baptized -– past, present and future -– are connected to each other and to God through the sacrament of baptism. We baptize during worship when the community is present because baptism includes the community’s promise of ‘love, support and care’ for the baptized – and we promise that we won’t take it back – no matter where your journey leads you.

# Above posted by ThePress : 2:21 PM

Yeah, I would've expected your libertarian tendencies to trump religious dogmatism on things like gay rights. And as you say, "discomfort" is neither here nor there--that would be your problem ;)

You've surely already heard this, but the "being gay is a choice" thing--do you really think anyone in their right mind would deliberately choose to be a social pariah? Same thing with fat, actually--if it were a question of willpower, there would be a lot fewer fat people around.

See, that's where your conservative belief that people can lift themselves up by their own bootstraps clashes with my more classically liberal belief that individuals are conditioned by social systems...

# Above posted by bitchphd : 2:50 PM

:-)

Re, ' "the being gay is a choice" thing--do you really think anyone in their right mind would deliberately choose to be a social pariah? Same thing with fat, actually--if it were a question of willpower, there would be a lot fewer fat people around.'

Actually, right now, being gay seems to have a certain ... what IS that word ... well, "coolness" about it in some circles. Blue circles. Very blue circles. :-)

And, in those circles, NOTHING that comes out of the current administration or Congress is given much weight. So, so what if the Repubs, then, think gays are pariahs?

But note: I distinguish between "being" and "doing." What I was trying to say was this:

One might have the genetic propensity to alcoholism, which is not a sin, and, once aware of it, surrender to habitual drunkenness, which is a sin. One might have a genetic propensity to obesity, which is not a sin, and, once aware of it, surrender to gluttony, which is a sin. One might have a genetic tendency toward insatiable horniness, which is not a sin, and once aware of it, surrender to acting on unbridled lust, which is sin.

And, in my view, one might have a genetic tendency toward homosexuality, which, if genetic, is not a sin, and, once aware of it, surrender to acting on it, which is, according to almost every group of Christians I know of, a sin.

One thing's for sure: If a bunch of drunks, or mean, fat assholes, or militant in-your-face homosexuals, march into any church and demand to not only be accepted but approved of, and allowed in church leadership positions, in spite of what Scripture suggests and what church tradition and corporate interpretation generally say, then there is no humility, no hint of repentance, no sign of self denial -- well, that ain't right.

And now, I am fixin' to answer my genetic addiction to tobacco with a cigar, my predisposition to like a nip now and then -- usually more now than then -- with a little Sunday-afternoon Geo. Dickel Tennessee whiskey, and my unnatural affection for my dogs by headin' to the back yard for a spell to read about huntin' for beaver -- and y'all all just get yer minds out of the gutter. I'm talkin' about the fur trade -- huh-huh, he said "fur" -- of the 19th century. :-) My mind is liable to be even more opener when I return.

#Above posted by ThePress : 4:14 PM

Oh, I see.

Well, I disagree about your interpretation of scripture, but as usual, I find comfort in the fact that basically we aren't really that far apart. I would interpret the things you call "sins" less literally--sin, like god, functions best as a metaphor imho--and I'd argue that there's something fundamentally different between alcholism (which is destructive) and having a sex life (which isn't). And I think you vastly overrate the "coolness" of being gay; even among liberals, gay men and lesbians are often subject to discrimination that the rest of us don't have to put up with. But basically, yeah; if you want to think of drinking, or sex, or smoking, or whatever, as "sinful"--in the context of an acknowledgment that we're all sinful, of course ('course, I would say, it just means we're all human--w/out the sort of Miltonic sense that "human" necessarily means "fallen," either). I'm on board with the idea that hey, people do shit we think they oughtn't, but then we do shit they think we oughtn't, so a certain level of minding-our-own-business is called for.

'Course I can't refrain from pointing out that there seem to be a lot of mean, fat assholes running churches nowadays.

# posted by bitchphd : 4:38 PM

And on this we definitely agree: " 'Course I can't refrain from pointing out that there seem to be a lot of mean, fat assholes running churches nowadays. "

:-)

Hey, I don't like-admire-support-read ya 'coz I agree with ya alla time. I do so 'coz yer intelligent, expressive and honest.

;-)

# Above posted by ThePress : 6:02 PM

...

Well and ditto.
# posted by bitchphd : 6:14 PM