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

When I saw this story this morning I made a bet with myself that you would do a post on it.
 

Then, you won! :-)

I keep thinking of: "Only Nixon could go to China."

I'm thinking: "Only a dadgum redneck can broker peace between natural homosexuality and the right wing of the church.

I think it's my calling.
 

ER said:
"I think it's my calling."
Listen I got some pretty good and long 6"x8"s timbers in the back yard. I can whupp up a cross for you if'n you want. How tall are you? Want to pick up or shall I deliver it?
 

Oh. My. Back to my knitting. I think that's my calling.
 

TS on 4/10 in ER comments:

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.

AP on 5/9

"It shows sexual orientation may very well have a different basis between men and women ... this is not just a mirror image situation," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

The gift of prophecy is such a burden. The cost of Smith Bros cough drops from all that crying in the wilderness...
 

Just because you are predisposed to it, doesn't make it right to act on. That's just plain laziness and a cop-out. To use your word - "Piffle".
 

Aw, ER, you were doing so well, and then you go and say something like "gay men creep me out". Pshaw, why would that be? Is it because they're your "kind", i.e., male? I have a bunch of girlfriends who are lesbians. They don't creep me out a bit, nor do I feel uncomfortable, uneasy, an object of untoward sexual desire, etc. Fact is, they recognize that I am terminally heterosexual, so it's never an issue for them or me. I suspect if you had gay male friends, it would be the same scene.

And Rem, laziness and cop out? I don't think so. I can't think of anything more fundamental to the human experience then love, and yes, sex. I couldn't imagine the pain that would come from a life of denying those basic human needs and desires.
 

TStock, yes, it IS a burden, isn't it? :-)

Rem, nothing I wrote here is contrary to what you just said! I wrote of homosexuality. You're talking about behavior.

BUT, RSB, I agree that a lifetime of denying oneself a relationship with another because of social, cultural or even biblical injunctions is tragic.

Biblical acceptance of women as second-class citizens: wrong. Biblical depiction of slavery as acceptable: wrong.

Fear-based scriptural writings against what is now regarded as natural, by writers inspired by God yet ignorance of science: another tragedy.

Reopen the Canon! Or the Bible will increase in its irrelevance -- not to ME, but to people in general!

I am not embarrassed to admit that gay men creep me out, though. THAT should be seen as legitimizing my faith-based acceptance of them.

I am not comfortable around gay men, or womnen for that matter. But that has NOTHING to do with the command we're given to love our neighbors as outselves, and our call to at *least* not dare stand in the way of grace for all.

Dr. ER and I last night were talking about the queasiness men have, and most women apparently do not have, around gays. And it may very well boil down to this:

Sex to a straight man is never "invasive," for lack of a better term. It always is "invasive," for lack of a better term, for women.

The gay sex act is invasive to men -- and I can't imagine it, for myself, which is more circumtantial evidence, to me, that the act itself is NOT "just" a choice, like other "sins."

I can see myself commiting all manner of sins. I cannot imagine myself engaging in homosexual sex.

Oh, and Yankees make me uncomfortable to be around, too. And most foreigners. And extremely weathy people. And extremely poor people.

I am uncomfortable around anyone very unlike myself! But I try to love everyone with the love of Christ. It's easy to love your friends and those like you. The challenge is to love your enemies -- and those who are different.

And that is me shooting as straight about it as I can.
 

Oh, and Rem, when the church in general gives as much grief to every fat preacher out there -- and they seem to make up the majority -- then maybe I'll accept the grief they pile on homosexuals.

But just because you are predisposed to gluttony, doesn't make it right to act on!

Pi. :-)
 

I suspect you are a lot more comfortable around gay people than you think you are, simply because you don't know which people you know are gay. Over the years I have had all sorts of gay friends. I knew some were gay from the start, and others I learned about as time went on.
Some I felt uncomfortable with because they had an agenda and a chip on their shoulder, but hey I don't like straights with an agenda and a chip either.

As for those who classify gender varability as a sin. So be it, and you may be in a majority. But you have no right to impose your definition of "sin" onto those whose biological wiring is different than yours because God made it that way.
 

Well, I sure do NOT have a workin' "gaydar," that's for sure.

And Amen on your second graf.
 

Drlobojo speaks much wisdom.

How 'bout an update on Ice-T?
 

Hey ER, about that cross. The guy with the spikes has just showed up. Are you ready?

Oh yes, is Ice-T still limping on his right foot?
 

Nick, thanks. Seriously. My mind is NOT so open that my brain has fallen out! (I LOVE that.)

But this:

"A common flaw in interpreting 'gay gene' studies is the supposition that supposed differences in the brain are genetic in origin rather than the result of behavioral change."

Um, in a macro sense, isn't that evolutionary by definition?

I need to get Dr. ER, whose expertise as a scientist actually IS the brain, stimulus response and how behavior plays into it all. Maybe I can get her to step over the junk in here and weigh in. Just seein' all those brain parts will cheer her up.
 

BTW, Ice-T is still afraid of all forms of tile and keeps his right foot off it. I do a post updating his physical condition as well as his apparent bi-polar disorder from home, where pix of him are.
 

BTW, is anybody else amused, and a little bit concerned, by the reduction of "science" to "Chuck Darwin"? Whoa.

Ya know, if I WAS gonna preach from "Origin of Species," do y'all think d.dad would insist that I stick to the original Authorized Version (1859) and refer to it only by its actual name? "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"? And that I take every comma and semicolon of it literally? Even in light of subsequent research and revelation?

Hoo hoo. :-)
 

"You seem to place a LOT of faith and hope in "science".

You seem not to place much faith in "science," there fella. I suppose that means you refuse to go to doctors, take medicine, drive a motorized vehicle, fly in the AIR!!?

Forgive me, please, but I'm feeling irritable this morning for some reason: Only a fool or a moron would suggest that faith and science are incompatible.
 

Yes, I did, Nick!
 

"A common flaw in interpreting 'gay gene' studies is the supposition that supposed differences in the brain are genetic in origin rather than the result of behavioral change."
Sounds kind like the Lamarkian principles. But how does a person like my friend, a lawyer raised in really rural New Mexico, raised in a straight family, not knowing anyone who was gay,or even what being gay ment, realized at age 14 that he was turned on by certain other boys and not by girls. At first he thought it was a deamon, and his priest concurred. It took him a long time to come to terms with who he was.
So chicken or the egg?
 

And how can one explain this:

The first time I saw a picture of a nekkid girl, EVER, in a Playboy mag, when I was a wee, wee lad, my very wee wee wee responded, all on its own, before I "liked" girls, or even knew for sure what I was looking at!

TMI maybe. But the gospel truth.
 

D. Dil.. said:
"To tell you the truth, ER, I don't care what you preach or how you preach it or how you interpret whatever perversion you hold as a standard in your "church"."

1. Why are you here then?
2. Your wife is right you need to work on your negatives.
3. Not being ordanined or annointed how is it that you can "know" and have authority to state that his Church holds "perverted" standards.

Also, your four years at Bible College should have taught you that the commandment that refers to taking God's name in vain, is one prohibiting you from breaking an oath sworn to in the name of God. Doesn't apply here.

"White throne or Judgement seat?"
Ah, what a cryptic reference.

Be advise if here you pass judgement, then here you will be judged. You don't got to wait for the big pie dadio, this blog will do it for you.
Fire away.
 

You might be being generous by calling it a Bible college. More like an indoctrination camp -- and he didn;'t even fit in there, byu his own admission.

You drew first blood, d.dad, and keep drawing it. You've shown me NO reason to respect you or your "judgment." All Bible, no discernment.
 

Oh, and d.dad is here for the same reason I slum over at his place. Makes life interesting.

As long as he's not too personally offensive with his words, he's welcome no matter how repulsive his "ideas."
 

I notice that D.D. will only take comments from registered bloggers on his blog. So he is safe at home.
 

And he kind of just drive-bys here. Interesting.

And he probably thinks that changing the spelling to "Gawd" means it's somehow not "taking the Lord's name in vain."

I mean, the injunction about swearing oaths notwithstanding, most people nowadays consider any use of "God" outside prayer, meditation or serious discussion -- and for sure as an exclamation, "Gawd!" -- to be a vain expression.

Oh, and I think he's a great example of a sinner in the nands of an angry god (notice the lower case).
 

"hands" not "nands"
 

I will have to take issue with you, ER, about Dadd being "All Bible."

He recently based an entire thread at his site on the woman at the well being told by Jesus to "go and sin no more." Um, that's not in the Bible -- not even the KJV.

When I called him on it, he said: "Whatever."

I've never seen any of you "apostates" rewrite scripture to back your arguments! Talk about convenient!
 

Thus sayeth dadio:
"Typical of a liberal elitest who CANNOT debate issues put before him/her. Can't debate, so attack the opponent on something completely apart form the issue............
And BTW, drlobojo--how old are you? Ten? "

He is nothing if not consistant in his being inconsistant.
 

d.da is a riot, d.dad is!
 

Credit when credit is due. He opened his blog postings up to us non-bloggers. Thanks, daddio.
 

d.dad, what are you, the president of Izard County Jackasses for Jesus? You have single-handedly blown more bile on this blog than any other single commenter ever, in just a few days!

Feel free. But wow.

Can I get an "Amen"?
 

Apparently d.dad missed this, which is at the top of this blog, or, more likely, he's ignoring it like he did that whole, you know, "honest" mistake with the woman caugfht in sin and the woman at the well.

"Degrees reflect my interests and emphases of my studies and are meant to be matter-of-factual, not boastful, despite the mean assertions of a couple of occasionally trollish regulars here."

Regarding civility: As I said before, it was extremely rude of d.dad when he barged in here the very first time slinging mug and showing absolutely no regard for those he would encounter, including me.

Now that I know he's a jackass, I may or may not respond in kind, depending on the topic, his tone and my mood.
 

Hey, d.dad. I hear there's a couple of closet liberals livin' out on Possum Trot close to where it meets Lacrosse. Sic 'em, man! Give 'em a good ol' country butt-kickin'.
 

I'm not sure what you're talking about in some of that stuff.

But you're right: There are some political conservatives the the church; they're welcome. So are theological conservatives. The only thing that's actually frowned up on is peopel who would force their own views, on politics, OR theology (doctrine, actually, mainly) down anyone else's throat.

For the whole story on the United Church of Christ, google "United Church of Christ" AND Wikipedia. It's all right there -- the good, the bad and the ugly.
 

Now this should make everyone happy! As for the story discussed above about the woman caught in adultry....well the story was added in the 5th Century sometime to John's Gospel.
According to the footnotes in BibleGateway.com:
The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.
In other words, someone added it, 200 to 300 years after the writer of John made his manuscript.
There are whole chapters of books written about this if anyone wants to pursue it.
 

Textual criticism! Thought! Scholarship!

Sinner!
 

Oh, what the heck. Fifty!
 

Why not make it 51?
Did I mention that the John who wrote the Gospel of John was not the Apostle John? I maybe I should save that herasay for another blog.