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

Your blog is very interesting!
Please, send me the photo of your pc desk.
I'll publish on my blog!.

EMAIL: pcdesktop1@gmail.com
 

Well, I'll be. Since Blogger saves as you go now, I'll bet that rascal slipped in while I was in the middle of writin' this post!
 

I just had a "driveway moment," coming back from the hardware store, courtesy of Randy Travis. It was on the Sunday morning gospel show on the country station I listen to. Fits well with my personal creeping universalism.

"Oscar the Angel"

Oscar was an angel and he used to walk the streets
Shoutin' out some prophecy to everyone he'd meet
He was a local fixture; like a cop out on a beat
Folks said he'd been shell-shocked long ago
And more than that, no one seemed to know

Oscar was a walker, at least four miles
twice a day
The entire length of main street he'd be
shoutin' all the way
And i had no idea, where he'd heard the
things he'd say
But he was not your normal voice of doom
It was a happy song, sung slightly out of tune

Chorus:

And he'd say, "everyone will die and go to
heaven
and we will all be angels some day
What you are in this world don't count for
nothin'
'Cause we are only children, we're just lost
along the way
But we will all be angels some day"

Well I worked at the Rialto; I sold tickets
at the door
And Oscar he'd come by most ev'ryday 'bout
half past four
And he'd pay to see some movie that he'd seen
ten times before
But mostly we'd just let him in for free
And he'd watch five minutes, then he'd come
and talk to me

Repeat Chorus

Well it's going on ten years now since i left
my home town
And i went home last summer; for a week i
hung around
I looked out for Oscar; he was nowhere to be
found
Someone said they finally had to commit him
And he died, before they had time to forget
him

Now i'm not about to argue, Oscar's train
had jumped the tracks
But i'll bet my last dollar on a plain and
simple fact
Oscar never said a word about me behind my
back
And the way the I was raised to understand
Well, that bone, makes him the better man

Repeat Chorus:

Yeah, we will all be angels someday
 

Well now your post here should engender as much heat and light as your latest pro-homo post but it won't.
This has got to be the most difficult of all things for a Christian to do. This "Grace" thing. It applies to the homos and the wierd and the smelly and all those losers that Jesus hung out with, and it is just HARD, as GW says, it is just hard to get a handle on it.

The parable of the workers in the vinyard is almost universally accepted by scholars as authentic Jesus, he said it as a historical thing and as a spiritual intent. Why then is it not taught more often? Because it is too damn hard to swallow.
The same point is made in the story of the prodigal son, but is almost always missed. That story is not about the son that goes off and spends his inheritance, it is about the son who stays with dad and did what he was suppose to do. Then the ner-do-well sibling wanders back home and dad takes him back and gives him a feast and then gives away to him half of what the good son should have inherited, thus the bad boy gets 75% versus the good son's 25% and you know don't you, that the bad boy is going to get the itch again and take off once more? Don't you?
Grace ain't Justice and Mercy ain't Fair. As my wife tell her fouth graders when they say it ain't fair, "You want Fair! It happens at 10th and May Ave. every Fall for 3 weeks."
Grace and Mercy, how hard can they be? Well about as hard as it is for a homophobe to hug and welcome sincerely in front of the entire congregation a practicing known queer into his home church without any condemnation or any preset conditions. And that is just the beginning of how hard it gets.
 

If the rank-and-file in the pews of America ever actually *got* the messages of the Prince of Peace, the pews would be even emptier than they are now.

Holy moly! Google "The Prince of Peace" and wikipedia! Never heard of the movie!
 

It warms my heart to see such joy in your self-satisfaction in your keen insight into Biblical truths. But you shouldn't flatter yourselves so. These lessons aren't lost on us evil homophobic fundamentalists. We're well aware of their meanings. Hug a homo? How about care for one dying of AIDS? How about crying with one and assuring him that his inability to control his bowels doesn't lesson my affection or respect for him as a man? Is that good enough for you, wise guy? And he, God rest and have mercy on his soul, is not the only person of that "persuasion" that I've known personally. I don't go raggin' on them about their choices. But I will defend my belief if the subject comes up and insist that they have no defense for theirs, since there is none. Yet, of course they are free to do as they will, and yes, it's ultimately up to the Lord to decide whether a given individual has pissed Him off enough to bar his entry to Glory. Any more news flashes you boys would like to announce? Yeah, now I am pissed. If you insist on engaging in prideful, self-aggrandizing, sanctimonious, we-get-it-he-don't clap-trap, eventually you'll provoke that emotion. Shame on you for not having the same open-mindedness you expect from me.

As to the sermon, the good Doctor seems to engage in some of that sad attitude as well. It looks no better, seems no more authoritative on him as it does on you guys.

Oops! Dinner's on. I'll be back. Dinner's ready and I'm no longer pissed. Hmm. The source considered?
 

Why in the world would this piss you off?!?

If you're reading this blog like I'm writing the posts directly to you, stop. (Intentional jab: Knowing how you read the Bible, I do see how that might have become a habit. Zing!)

But really, I force myself to not personalize every broad swipe at evillll liberals. Surely you can do the same, man.

Wow.

Besides, don't look now but the mainstream liberal churches are the ones with sparsely filled pews, not the fire-and-brimstone ones or the big suburban lifestyle churches. That's who I was thinking of as much as anybody.
 

And another thing:

Are you bein' pot or kettle?? You have declared that every interpretation of the Bible regarding homosex as you disdainfully put it is at odds with what you insist is self-evident, when it is NOT, or we wouldn't be having an honest disagreement. Pretty damn arrogant and self-righteousness if you ask me. You might as well be wearin' a nail apron.

Vague lumber reference at the end there, just for Drlobojo.
 

Again, my comments were as much for Drio, if not more so.

But anyway, pinwheel steaks! Dee-lish! I'm a new man!

Ahem.

The problem I have with whence you come, and Dan and the good Doctor as well, is the sense that it all seems so empty, so void of meaning, that it's all so subjective. I don't abide with those who prohibit singin' and dancin', but yours offers no structure whatsoever. And it seems the only time any semblance of absolutes arises is in the standard liberal anti-war, pro-abortion, pro-homo, tax the rich rhetoric, but no courage to correct blatantly bad behavior, unless it's American or conservative or Republican or Catholic. (I'm speaking generally here, so remain calm.) You speak of being born again, dying to the self, yet, that's not what we've seen with the pro-homo position. First came the Levitical commands, then came the search for loopholes. If there was true "dying to the self", there'd have been no such search. Heck, at least with those who've committed adultery or fornication, it's been unabashed disregard for the Law, not a redefining of it. It's been a case of "If loving you is wrong, I don't wanna be right." Not now. It's "Loving you is right. Who can say otherwise?" And they've put their effort into finding and creating support for that position.

It's OK to acknowledge what is right and what is wrong. We are warned against confusing the two. Yeah, if someone insists, it's their choice and God's job to determine what to do about it. Whatever He wants or decides is fine with me. I don't see how anything in the NT gives us license to ignore, disregard, or deny anything in the OT. Context, original language, to/for whom it was written, is irrelevant. It's recorded because the lessons apply to all. (Please, everyone, do NOT bring up shellfish and stoning again. It's a lame and childish argument that has been explained already.)

Also, it the context of a discussion over Scripture and it's credibility and legitimacy, my fundamental beliefs are the starting point of my arguments, not a demand that you do things MY way (you just ought to). You've accused me of shutting God up, closing my ears to what He might be saying now. It seems to me that you have stopped listening after you heard the "be nice" parts.

I can let God be God. I don't even attempt to dictate to Him. I question Him never with regards to my state of life. And indeed it's up to Him as to who swims in His Grace and who feels His Wrath. But I don't see that I'm to simply mind my own business completely and stand by while people just walk off the edge. Is that really Christian to you? Seeing someone misled and letting them continue so? I mean even if what you would tell them differs from what I would tell them, how can you do nothing?
 

You used your nail apron! 'Cause you nailed something! This is precisely what I mean when I call such an approach to the Bible as yours as superstition:

"Context, original language, to/for whom it was written, is irrelevant. It's recorded because the lessons apply to all."

I reject that as an insult to the God who gave us the brains in our heads. You've tossed out interpretation itself.

Loo. Ney.
 

MA, are you trying convert us, fix us, or just piss on us for your personal satifaction? Boy I sure told off those intellectual snobs syndrom? What? Surely we are not worth your time and effort.
 

Maybe THAT'S where we differ. I don't think God requires us to figure it out for ourselves. I think the brains we were given were to allow us to choose between Him or ourselves. Choosing Him means understanding His Will for us as described in the Book. It's not the last Word, but what we need to be what He hopes we'll be.

You like to believe those who've said that the books of the Bible were chosen for inclusion based on human biases and motivations. This seems to be the type of judgement for which you're giving me heat. I prefer to believe those who say they were chosen after scholarly and objective discernment that they fit and belong while the rest didn't. Why couldn't these guys have benefitted by prayer and meditation and study as you have to arrive at YOUR decisions and beliefs?

You like to admonish me for playing hard and fast with the "rules" of the Bible, but apparently don't believe that with the brains God gave me, I couldn't possibly determine the appropriate time for and use of violence to attain some good or God pleasing end? Can you see where one might find your theological philosophy at least a little inconsistent?

Oh yeah. As to Dr. Robin's quote from the Tao? If he's found he knows nothing, he shouldn't waste peoples' time preaching. I prefer someone who knows something.
 

I think the point was knowledge is one thing, and wisdom is another. I prefer wisdom to knowledge, myself.
 

Knowledge is to fish as wisdom is to knowing how to fish, I mean. I prefer someone to lead me in thinking, not to tell me what they know. Or think they know.
 

MA said: "I don't think God requires us to figure it out for ourselves. I think the brains we were given were to allow us to choose between Him or ourselves. Choosing Him means understanding His Will for us as described in the Book."

You are absolutely correct. I personally don't believe in the devine inerrancy of the bible, or the koran, or the talmud, or the book of morman, or any other "book". I consider worshiping a book as idolotry. Especially a book that is subject to massive differences in interpretation and is borrowed in a large part from other cultures and historical periods. I respect it, use it, even love it, but I can not worship it.

Your may not be wrong in your opinion of the book. It is just not the way I see it at this time in my life.
 

I understand and appreciate that, Drio. In fact, it's the meat of the last few discussions. I want to re-iterate that I don't worship the Book, I acknowledge it is the source of our understanding of God, the record of His Revelation passed down from the early times (I could use some Early Times right now). Naturally I feel it is a more reliable source than do you, ER and Dan and the standard against which all other revelation should be measured or validated or compared.

Excuse me. Dinner beckons.