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

First of all, "Peace, out, Dawgs"? I have to disqualify this statement on the grounds that it qualifies as neither erudite nor redneck.

Secondly, the scripture from Isaiah says nothing about those who are living outside of God's will. 'Outcasts (KJV)' refers to outcasts from society - there is a difference. You'll notice that there is a provision in the welcoming of these 'outcasts' that they keep the Sabbath holy - in other words, they should obey the Lord's commandments.
 

It's a long article. Those issues are addressed somewhat. Sexual orintation is the heart of the matter -- not behavior.

Besides that, come on! Are you saying that all the members of your own congregation are "in God's will." Then, they don't need grace? Pshaw.

There is none righteous. No. Not. One.
 

No, I am not saying that. I know of several hypocrites in the church I attend. Even the non-hypocrites are not always in God's will. Often, as a believer, I find myself struggling to know what I should do. I do know that I have been commanded to keep His commandments.

At the time of my posting, "Daddy" was being hailed rather vigorously, so I was unable to fully respond. Give me a second go at it:

(As an aside, I was unable to load that link - I may have an Adobe problem on this computer, so I don't know what it said - I only know the scripture that was referenced. If that disqualifies me from the topic, so be it.)

It is a dangerous thing to take scripture and bend it for your own uses. You accuse the 'Right' of this all the time. This is a case of the 'Left' doing it.

The background for this scripture is the dismantlement of Israel and Judah. Even further, at this point in the book of Isaiah, he is prophesying (sp?) on the coming Messiah and other future events. The 'outcasts' referenced are Jews. They are more or less outcasts because they have no home. Isaiah is issuing them a reminder that as long as there is a place of worship, they have a home. His reminder to keep the Sabbath holy is the simplest way to remind them to keep God's commands. As I survey the passage again, I see admonishments to "keepeth his hand from doing evil" and "taking hold of my covenant". Keep in mind that Isaiah's audience knows nothing of God's grace - they know the law. Homosexuality is obviously contrary to the law handed down to Moses.

To twist this passage into a pro-homosexual message is just wrong and possibly heretical.
 

Read the article.

I'm not pro homosexual. I am pro grace. I am anti judgmentalism. I am for an absolutely wide-open door to the church.

I am twisting nothing. The article asks questions more than it answers them. It's by a Lutheran seminary professor, for God's sake, so to speak.

There is a new schism in Christendom. You can take about any homophobic rant uttered in the name of the church and church practice that has the world homosexual in it, replace it with "Negro" and it's like pre-1954 Amercian all over again.

Behavior is one thing. Orientation is another. Your CALL, brother, is to LOVE wastefully, shamelessly and totally, in Jesus name. Not to judge. Not to close the door to grace -- but to stand and hold it wide open.

Isn't it?
 

Oh, and what part of "case study" is unclear?

You got to read the article to talk about the article ...
 

Read the article. Reaching back to Isaiah for this point is rather convoluted. I mean Isaiah had a lot to relate to Israel after the got back from Babylon and all. Lots of clean up stuff to do in the Temple, make sure that the child sacrifices were stopped, that the whores and sodomites were ran off and they didn't donate their ill-gained proceeds to the Temple. Oh yes, and there was the cursing of several Nations and the predictions of the Messiah.
Now God did take time to have Isaiah let Isreal know that things had changed while they were in exile and that he was serious about this monotheistic stuff, Dead Serious you might say.
Using the Torah and the Talmud to discuss God's intent concerning what to do with the being of his creation that occupy the far ends of the Biological bell curve of sex and gender allocation is a bit much I think. God has done the allocation. They are here they are our nieghbors, we already have our commandment about how to love them (no pun intended).
The question in the 21st century is what to do with the deadheads that refuse to believe the revelations that God has provided via secular means about his creation.
 

Re, "The question in the 21st century is what to do with the deadheads that refuse to believe the revelations that God has provided via secular means about his creation."

Yes, and the article is an attempt to deal with that, in a way that neither dismisses Scripture entirely nor "twists" it to reach a modern socio-political-cultural-scientific conclusion.

Y'all are missing the main argument, which really isn't about homosexuality per se, at all:

Isaiah's pronouncements were at odds with the Scripture of the day. As a prophet, he announced a newer revelation! The Jews probably didn't take too kindly to being challenged in their comfortable ways and traditions -- and there surely were people running around quoting "the Bible" and declaring Isaiah to be a heretic. Absolutely.

So, here we sit today, with the Bible that says what it says, in isolated verses, about homosexuality, and a church with a prevailing interpretation of those few verses that is at odds with the overarching message of the gospel! Which is what? To NOT judge. To NOT condemn. And TO LOVE. And TO BREAK BREAD and to HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH all who call upon the the Lord. ALL. All who have been drenched in God's grace. All.

And some people are delcaring, like Isaiah, that GOD IS STILL SPEAKING, perhaps through science, definitely through revelation and in individual people via epiphany.

The Canon has been "closed" for 1,700 years. Yet God is still speaking ...

Heretic? I'll accept that. In good company.
 

ER said:
"Isaiah's pronouncements were at odds with the Scripture of the day. As a prophet, he announced a newer revelation!"

Nope didn't miss that.

I said: "Now God did take time to have Isaiah let Isreal know that things had changed while they were in exile..."

Nor did I miss the "comma" bit from the UCC.

Point was, you don't need to stretch to find a bible verse, commandment, or law for what to explain a "seclular" revelation.
To do so, is to play the "apologist" which has been a tradition in christianity.
Explaining that we need to be tolerant of extra-normative sexualuilty or gender by using a Bible text is akin to having to explain the function of mitrochondria or of a Blackhole's event horizon by finding the appropriate Bible verses to do so.
If all knowledge is not "of God" then those who believe that there is a devine knowledge and a seperate earthly knowledge are already defined by the "Church" as heratics. I believe that would fall under one of Gnosises.

Revelation is not confined to church.
 

heritic-heretic-heratic aka one-who-chooses.
 

Re, "Revelation is not confined to church."

I agree. BUT, when trying to communicate with people for whom every position starts with the premise that "the" Bible is the "Word of God," you have to start with the Bible to get anywhere at all.

I think that's the only basis, in fact, for reconciliation. Not becauser the Bible is the "holy, infallible, inerrant, etc. Word od God," but because it *is" the sacred text shared by the vast majority of Christians.
 

And I think it makes perfect sense for a "new revelation" to come from "the people" now -- since the days of the prophets apparently are past.

Literacy empowers and enlightens people. *The Word* as it were is more widely dispersed than ever. The Spirit still moves, and is moving today -- despite entrenched fears and the purely human forces amassed in God's name to "protect" the way things used to be at a time when The Way of Life is needed more than ever!
 

ER said: "Not becauser the Bible is the "holy, infallible, inerrant, etc. Word od God," but because it *is" the sacred text shared by the vast majority of Christians."

Consider once again, of which Bible do you speak?
Do you really believe that "the vast majority of Christians" have ever actually read the Bible other than a few selected and interpreted by others verses at a time?
How many passages do they "skip over" because they do not know what that name or word means?
Like I infered, if it has to be in the Bible to be known, then ignorance will be our christian legacy.
 

Drain yer bitterness filter, Drlobojo!

It *is" the sacred text shared by the vast majority of Christians. Some sects have more books. Some, I guess, have fewer.

I didn't say jack about whether most, or many, of them had read it or understood it.

But to dismiss it out of hand, or to attack it, or to ridicule the notion that Christianity *has* sacred texts, is to play the part of an enemy of the Christian faith, which obviously I am not.

And I for damn sure have hope.
 

ER said : "Drain yer bitterness filter, Drlobojo"

It is called Gall ER, and I have a lot of it. I've used to stay alive in interesting times.

And he further said:
"But to dismiss it out of hand, or to attack it, or But to dismiss it out of hand, or to attack it, or to ridicule the notion that Christianity *has* sacred texts, is to play the part of an enemy of the Christian faith,..."

Now exactly where in my remarks did you find all that? Sound's defensive.
If I "dismisssed it out of hand..."
Why would I bother to say anything about it on this blog?

Say what? "...to attack it, or to ridicule the notion that Christianity *has* sacred texts, is to play the part of an enemy of the Christian faith..."
Is this in the same genre as "...to critisize the Iraqi war is unpatriotic?"
 

You are correct, Sir.

Wishing you relief, at least once in awhile, from gall.
 

I will try to provide, this place, relief from my black bile of expectations fermented by experience.