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

I say I've followed the "discussion" on the other blog, but because of my own personal choices about how I'm going to spend Holy Week, I've opted out of engaging in the mess.

This is not, in my opinion, the right time to be engaged in a stone-throwing contest from either direction. Lent is a time to decide not to look at someone else's faults, flaws and sins. Instead, it's time to prayerfully reflect on our own individual relationships with God.

So tempted as I may be to comment, I won't.
 

So commenteth Trixie. :-)

Of course, talking about God's grace is always a good antidote for rancor and is always a good Kum-Bah-Yah subject, especially during Holy Week. But I understand.

I never, ever want anyone to feel obligated to weigh in on anything here. Or even to come by. :-)
 

Yeah, I watched you get into it with Marcus. Did you fill up your need for masochism?

I decided that If he was going to get into fruit flies to prove his point I'd stay out of it.

So I didn't point out the homosexualality of dolphins for example.

But sometimes me thinkith that the boy doth protest too much. Makes you kind of wonder what deamon is haunting.

Does anyone here know the rabinical law regarding homseuality? That would be a clue to what Jesus thought about it.
 

I do not know what the rabbinical teaching was-is ...
 

You know, I've asked a couple of times for Mark to confirm whether or not he thinks that men who lay with men ought to be stoned, as the Bible dictates. Or disrespectful children, as it also dictates. I've asked him if he thinks eating shrimp is an abomination.

Not only is he refusing to answer, but I think he isn't even going to post the question this last time.

I'm just wondering if he really thinks we ought to take the Bible fully literally (which I don't think anyone does - after all, Jesus told us to sell all we have and give it to the poor, I see no rush to do so), and if not, that we must be about the process of deciding with God's help what parts are applicable to us and which aren't, and how.

To acknowledge that you don't take every word literally is not to deny the divine inspiration of the Word.

But then, I'm preaching to the choir here I reckon...

Still, I'm shocked if he's deciding not to even post the question. Maybe I haven't given him enough time. He doesn't strike me as the cowardly type...
 

It seems to be a trend that after a perplexing serious confrontational blog, bloggers tend to do their next one on a safe subject, such as a cat or dog.
Might be a Federal Grant to study that in there somewhere?
 

Drlobojo, I do the same. I think it's a natural thing to do for someone who is trying to hit some sort of middle and trying to attract a variety of readers, and, well, to let things calm down a bit.

It IS a sign that someone is not just keeping a personal log online, but is keeping a public log with personal observations and content.

In a personal log, there is no concern at all for how others react, because there are no others.
For someone who is actually out co communicate with others, establishing such a rhthym is natural.

I give Mark that: Whether I agree with him or not, think he has a solid basis for his assertions, think he is *good* at writing or communicating or not, he does seem to have some of the fundamentals of communication down pat -- except when it's a particularly hot topic to him, or when he gets tired is is overwhelmed by readers' responses. I can be the same way.

Dan, Mark has repeatedly declared that as "the Word of God," the Bible is to be taken literally, without question, in everything. He has said as much. He has suggested strongly that it also is a source for science, politics and other things apart from one's relationship with God. He is not alone. Huge swaths of this country -- including the neck of the woods I grew up in -- are filled with churches that teach the exact same thing. Grace on them all.
 

Yep, ER you were partially in mind when I said that.
 

Mark and I are -- gulp! -- alike in some ways! :-)
 

You know one of the curses of Bible Literalism is that when you learn it that way and then you discover that it isn't always true, then that one flaw often spoils the whole thing for you.
As Frost said...
"Some as soon as through it all, as through a part away..."
The only way not to find contradictions in the Bible is not to read it. That works for many many people.
 

ER,

I did not follow the mess over there because I need to keep my blood pressure below stroke levels.

Honestly, I just think it is easier for so many folks to argue about meanings and other intellectual (even if they are not so, um, intellectual in their arguments) issues than to open their hearts.

Nowadays we all spend so much time in our heads. Thinking thinking thinking. And for the literalists, it is so comforting to believe in a rigid, inflexible set of rules. It's like a cookbook Jesus. There is no struggle, no ambiguity. No feelings. A=Right and B=Wrong.

Now, they would argue about the no feelings part. They certainly pull off indignant rather well. But I am talking about the Jesus-like feelings. You know, things like compassion and desiring love more than power.

It really all comes back to power and control. As I've said before, power and control is not His style.

SuperB
 

Looking at the way that mess ended kind infered that the instigator began to feel as though he had swam a little too far from shore for comfort and had to paddle back quickly and definatively.
 

"What say ye all?"

What say me? I say I agree with your point in this post. completely. Totally.

It really doesn't matter whether they are born gay or chose to be gay. What matters is that God loves them and has a plan for them to reach everlasting life.

Dan, I answered your quesion in my comments. perhaps you should go back and read them all over again. Or perhaps you already did but refused to accept my answer, in which case I cannot be held accountable.

And I did post all the comments you made. If there is one missing, maybe it didn't post for another reason.

Just one comment on your comment here: "after all, Jesus told us to sell all we have and give it to the poor"

Actually, he didn't tell all of us that, he told the rich young ruler that, because he knew that the rich young ruler's wealth was an impediment to his total allegiance to God. That is not necessarily the case with all wealthy people.

ER, I do not take all of the Bible literally. There are stories and illustrations in the Bible that were not meant to be taken literally, but to make a valuable point. Some of Jesus' parables are examples.

All in all, it was a very stimilating discussion in spite of the fact that no one proved their point as far as I am concerned. I might be mistaken, but I believe it set a personal record for number of comments on one post.
 

Mark, I appreciate that. It got hot as blazes over there. I don't believe one always has to prove one's point, or accept all of another's point, for good results to ensue.

Made me think about grace and what it means. Made me think about acceptance of grace and what it means. Made me think about repentance and what it means. Made me think about judging others and what that means.

And, it, believe it or not, helped me rein back in a little.

I believe God's grace is irresistable once accepted -- but it certainly is possible to resist God's grace in the first place.

Anyone who baldly marches into God's presence demanding grace won't get it, since it's a gift.

But anyone who seeks it will get it, no matter what.

And I am incapable of judging the difference, so I don't judge people.

I confess that I don't understand -- and I don't believe anyone does, fully -- the mystery of the fine point of connecting with God.

If we could repent, we wouldn't need grace. But if we *don't* repent, we don't *get* grace.

That's where faith comes in, I think -- throw-your-hands-up-and-trust-in-Jesus faith.
 

Mark said:
"Actually, he didn't tell all of us that, he told the rich young ruler that..."

Well, yes, he told that to the RYR, but he also told all his disciples:

Do not be afraid any longer, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom.
Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy.
For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.

Luke 12:32-34

So, it's another case where we have to interpret: Did Jesus mean we were to sell all our belongings or just some of them to give to the poor?

Mark also said:
"I do not take all of the Bible literally."

This was my point, my question, which never read at your site, Mark. Maybe I missed it.

Yes, you're exactly right and we agree - we do not take all of the Bible literally, none of us do or should. Some of it is historical in nature, some of it parables, some of it spoken to specific people in specific times and some Truths remain valid forever.

What I was saying is that there is nothing in the Bible that suggests that condemnation of homosexuality is in the Big Truths category. The fact that men laying with men is called an abomination is not justification, because so is eating shrimp an abomination.

You provided no passage that suggests same-sex committed relationships are wrong. It is a cultural thing that some misuse the Bible to endorse, as some misused the Bible to endorse slavery.

This is all I'm saying:

We don't take the Bible literally. We ought to take its truths literally. What are those truths?
 

"You provided no passage that suggests same-sex committed relationships are wrong."

No, Dan, Mark didn't.

ELashley did.

Go back and read the thread again. It's in there.

And your point about the shrimp is ridiculous, unless you are then ready to be consistant, and assert that there are some people who have to have shrimp, to the exclusion of all other foods.

I believe that a lot of us (me included) are going to have a LOT of 'Splaining to do about our attitudes and beliefs when we stand before God in the end...
 

Hidy, Tug.

OK, Dan, et al.

There is no denying the following is in the Bible. Now, what does it mean? I think it alls bpilsd down to the definitins of "sexual immorality" and "perversion," in the light of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, to which it refers.

Was the immorality and perversion homosexual behavior per se, or was it sexual abandon, selfish surrender to the flesh and defiance of God? Whatever else Soddom and Gomorrah were about, they were *not* about monogamous, loving relationships -- of any stripe.

Bath houses and truck stop trysts are no more or less perversion and immorality than an unmarried man and womnan hooking up for a romp in a no-tell motel, are they?

I don't know. I'm asking.

JUDE

1Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,
To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by[a] Jesus Christ:

2Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.

The sin and doom of Godless men
3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.

11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.

12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

A call to persevere
17But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." 19These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
20But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. 21Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

22Be merciful to those who doubt; 23snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

Doxology
24To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
 

Woof. The fact is, this is dangerous territory for me. I've been real busy these last two days (both of my employers have deadlines on Friday), and I haven't wanted to get too far into it.
Having said that, lemme give the perspective of the guy who has never had any serious religious belief, and who thinks there's nothing wrong with religion except for the prickly issue of evangelism.
I, like everyone I've ever met who is religious, wants to be a good person. It doesn't mean that I have unrealistic expectations about that-I'm human, and therefore fallible-and it also provides me with nothing in the way of superior feelings about those with whom I disagree.
Sure, maybe I think they're stupid, but that's just my fallible nature talking, and even then I still want to hear what they have to say because they're human, and their opinion means something to someone. Considering that they disagree with me, maybe that means that I have something to learn, and should shut up.
Indeed, the thing that pisses me off so much about Maness is that even though the guy has a good twenty years on me, he phrases his arguments in as adolescent a way as possible. I know twenty-two year olds with more grace. That's to be expected: he's human too. The thing that really pisses me off is that it drags me into the same sort of mind set...And I thought I was so much better, blah blah blah.
I want to set a good example, gawd help me. I want to remind people that the urge to do good by one's fellows resides in everyone, regardless of whether or not they believe in a god. (You oughta see the shit I give Satanists, however: "So...You're a Christian?" 'Cause I don't believe in That, either.)And that without any written code of ethics, or indeed a prescribed need to evangelize, I'm happy and try to do right when I can, and not spend all month beating up on myself when I haven't.
In any case, it's still clear to me that blogging while drunk or exhausted (of which I am both, at this moment) remains a bad idea, but man-what a great way for people who don't really know each other to talk, and yes-piss each other off.
 

If you follow what Jude, the brother of James who was the brother of Jesus, says in the above passages, you will see that he is say that God will destroy these people.

"11: Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion."

Balaam was a soth sayer that used a talking donkey that had the gift of prophecy, and used it for profit. Balaam a follower of Bal caused 24,000 Israelites to be slain soon after they came out of Eygypt and into the Siani. God did smote him for that.
Like-wise, Korah, who was played by Edward G. Robinson in the Charlton Heston movie version of the Ten Comandments was the guy who did the Golden Calf trick while Moses was up on the mountain and got swallowed by a earthquake along with 200 of his followers.

Jude is saying up front, God will deal with them. Don't worry too much about it. Meanwhile, you guys take care of your own selves and those that need you and that you can help. The end is near.

By the way this Jude is the Patron Saint of Lost Causes and is the one to whom my garden is dedicated.
 

Then *anyone* who stands in defiance of God -- either wallowing in self or in ungracious self-righteousness, is doomed.

Oh yeah, there's some stuff about not putting certain body parts onto or in other certain body parts. Pft.

I think anytime we get hung up on the flesh -- whether our own or others' -- and what we do or do not do with it, and start putting a checklist of "good" and "bad" behaviors between us and God and His grace, we're missing the whole point.

I'm sure homosexual behavior appalled partriarchal ancients as much as it appalls some today. So, inspired, but still using the life material they had at hand, they wrote about it.

And I'm sure it was on the list of common do's and dont's that all *good* and *upstanding* citizens carried around in their head, and that made it into Scripture, in the New Testament.

And maybe Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was that he had homosexual urges. The man expressed the agony of a still-closeted queer Republican fundamentalist at a bull sale in the Texas Panhandle.
 

"The man expressed the agony of a still-closeted queer Republican fundamentalist at a bull sale in the Texas Panhandle."

ER, you DO have a way with words!
 

Dan said:
"You provided no passage that suggests same-sex committed relationships are wrong."

Tug responded:
"ELashley did.

Go back and read the thread again. It's in there."

No, he didn't. There's not a word in the thread about committed same sex relationships because there's not a word in the Bible about them. Good or bad.

Now, what some tend to do is take the few passages that condemn abusive homosexual behavior and applied that to all homosexual behavior.

Others of us tend to see our gay friends who are Christian and know for a fact that they are Christian and realize that the Bible is talking about abusive relationships and behavior - which is all that is mentioned in the Bible the few times that homosexuality seems to be mentioned at all.
 

I haven't read all the comments, but my take is that the New Testament trumps the Old when there is a discrepancy. So I tend to favor love and forgiveness over sacrifice and judgement. Thats my guide in life.

As for homosexuality, if its a choice, how did we come up with so many folks who were completely ashamed of the way they felt (back when they had to stay in the closet)?

I believe eating shrimp is an abomination. Not neccessarily a sin, but it tastes abominable.
 

Well, then, Miss Cellania, you've obviously never had shrimp done right!

In the NT, Jesus prepared shrimp in a wok with rice and generous amounts of teriyaki sauce which, as we know, was considered a tool of the devil in the OT.

But Jesus reinterpreted that when he said, "For lo, our Great Creator did not make humanity for teriyaki sauce, but teriyaki sauce for humanity."

John 32:2 or some such...
 

Just a thought about literal (non) interpretation of Scripture - those who do so are usually interpreting it for only themselves at that particular moment,which denies the universal and eternal truth that Christians believe resides in Scripture.
 

Ya because who wouldn't want a lifetime of alienation, descrimination and to be at the butt every joke in the world.

I am not saying there aren't a few people who just choose to be gay but that would probably represent the minority as opposed to the mojority of the gay population.
 

Over at Maness' place, I went on record as saying that there's both. This wasn't seized upon and turned into a larger discussion, but it was something significant.
Growing up in the Northwest, I've been around all sorts, since in theory, this is where everyone else is heading. I've met no-doubt-they're-queer and have been since day one types, and people who chose it consciously, as adults, for a variety of reasons.
I met my first ladies who chose to become lesbian (at least until graduation) in college, in Olympia, Washington. They uniformly said that they had chosen to do so for political reasons.
That struck me as an oddly self-defeating way of fighting the power, and often said so. But I was living in a ground zero, of sorts, of the new radical feminism, and found myself often at odds -with people that I'd always viewed as allies- simply because I was a white, blonde haired, blue eyed, heterosexual male.
And I had a vision: I'd learned all about the mechanism that the Oppressor uses, and now had to learn all about the self-defeating mazes that the Oppressed (or upper-middle-class educated white chicks who think they're oppressed) fall into.
For the whole of the Eighties, I'd been rhetorically (and physically) defending my queer pals. For the better part of the Nineties, I was explaining to the same demographic how adopting oppressive language and tactics only makes the whole dynamic worse for everyone. I'd thought the whole thing was a dead issue.
Then I met the rest of the United States, through the blogosphere, and often feel that I am back in Junior High.
 

I can't imagine caring what a hypothetical or textual Jesus Christ thought about homosexuality any more than I would be concerned about what he thought of quantam theory, Waiting for Godot, complex financial derivatives, libertarianism, or the Red Sox's chances in 2006.

In general terms, I suspect that RB is right that homosexuality is complex pattern of behaviors and preferences, and that male homosexuality and lesbianism are not mirror images.
 

Rich, I have remained close enough to higher ed. institutions to be aware of the kind of thing of which you speak. Some femmies tried a modern-day lynching of a prof at the university of oklahoma several years back.

A female student wrote to the student paper: "easy access to a handgun allows everyone in this country ... to quickly and easily kill as many random people as they want."

The professor wrote that her "easy access to a vagina" allowed her to have sex with random people. Nevertheless, he hoped she was "as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs."

Basically, the whole politically-correct-classroom-feminist-industrial compex tried to run huim out of town on a rail -- and actually had him brought up on a sexual harrassment charge -- for words he wrote in a letter to the editor of the student paper. School eventually came to its senses when it reread the First Amendment.

My point: Yer right, Rich. Extremists don't realize the damage they do to their own causes.
 

From Focus on the Family:

A cable network aimed at teens claims it owes its success to the presence of programs that feature gay and lesbian characters, The New York Times reported.

"The N," a Nickelodeon network for teens, has a growing audience among teens and young adults -- viewership rose 35 percent from 2004 to 2005.

One show, Degrassi: The Next Generation, features lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender characters. A new drama, South of Nowhere, is about a lesbian relationship between two young girls.

"The N" is piped into 48 million homes each evening.

"That's millions of families who are being sold an incomplete bill of goods about homosexuality," said Gary Schneeberger, director of media and constituent communications for Focus on the Family. "Programming like this is propaganda designed to make homosexuality look like a fun and mainstream lifestyle, and to make those who think it represents less than God's ideal for mankind look like narrow-minded bigots."


ER NOTE: But they *are* narrow-minded on this subject, asnd they *are* bigots by definition.

So what IS YHEIR COMPLAINT? Be a proud Bigot for Jesus! Why pretend that FOTF's fundamentalist brand of judgmentalism and condemnation is a "fun and mainstream lifestyle"?

More piffle. More dishonest spin. More wood, hay and stubble.
 

Just a quick response to the question often asked by those who believe homosexuality is genetic:

"Why would anyone choose a homosexual lifestyle, when they know they will be persecuted for being gay?"

Google Munchhausen's syndrome. (not to be confused with Munchhausen's syndrome by Proxy, in which the patient sometimes goes as far as killing their own chidren to get attention). It is a legitimate mental disorder. My ex wife suffered from it. There are some people who actually enjoy suffering, or at least, want to suffer, mainly to draw attention to themselves. I suspect this might be one reason. Other reasons, as RB suggested, include political and simply wanting to be fashionable. (I remember when cigars were the fasion trend. The trendy people all over were smoking cigars when they woudn't have dreamed of smoking cigarettes) In addition to that, remember it takes all kinds to make a world. Sometimes there is no explanation for why some people behave the way they do.

But if we step on the slippery slope of excusing deviant behavior just because if we don't, someone might be offended, then where will it end? Exactly when does the line get crossed? Does it get crossed at all? When is perversion just too unacceptable? Will it stop with beastiality? Pedophilia? A combination of all the above?

Suppose an organized movement comprised of convicted murderers decided to protest the law against murder on the basis that murder is a genetic behavior? There has been more evidence and studies that support that notion than there is to support homosexuality. How is that premise different from the homosexual issue? Why would some one choose to become a murderer when they know it will almost certainly bring a sentence of life imprisonment or even death? See?The same question applies here.

In any case, the post only sought to make a logical, common sense case that homosexuality is not naturally genetic, but is affected by environment. It was not meant to be a discussion of whether it is right or wrong, or whether God approves or disaproves.

The singular thing I think all of us can agree on, is that God forgives any sin upon genuine repentance, except refusal to accept God's gift of eternal life.
 

OK.

But you did *not* make an argument at all, only an assertion. Because until there is evidence one way or the other, which there is not, no one can argue using "logic, coomon sense" or anything else, that "homosexuality is not naturally genetic."

And I don't think *anyone* was argyuing that *any* behavior is genetic. Only that the orientation might be. I thin it would make mooe sense that pheremones are involved, although I have no idea. Because pheremones, which are natural, not environmental, DO affect behavior.

On the God part: right on.
 

Mark, you are entirely too hung up on the word "genetic". There are many factors which can predispose someone's sexual orientation, including hormonal issues and other biochemical processes. It's not a dichotomy between "genetic" and choice. Sexual orientation and sexuality is also not a dichotomy. There is a whole scale of sexual orientation as well as behavoiral expression. And behavior does not always match up to orientation. I have many gay male friends who are fathers, having tried to adapt a heterosexual lifestyle for years before accepting themselves. Many people opt for celibacy in order to keep their private lives private.
 

Worth perusing:

www.religioustolerance.
org/hom_prof.htm