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

Acknowledgement: I told EL to "go read Galations" the other day and then get back to me on why the Law is so damned important for a gentile Christian. But I usually don't quote Scripture to back up my positions, since, well, I think taking Scripture at face value, without interpretation, is about like a futuristic space alien quoting the mangeld words of the long-past U.S. Constitution in veneration, with no knowledge of their original meaning or context. I repeat myself.

I think I'm going to a baseball game.
 

Maybe we were better off when all God's revelations were in either Latin or Arabic.
 

Nah, while it would maybe work for Islam and Arabic, only having the bible in Latin gives power to the people who can understand Latin to direct the lives of those who can’t; too much of religion is the blind acceptance of ‘Authority’ and I’m all for intellectual emancipation.
 

To play the devil's advocate, might I say that intellectual emancipation is well and good for those who exhibit a modicum of intellect and can handle the unbridled rigors of freedom.
But for the masses I would prescribe the opiate of relief from thinking and independent action that strict orthodoxy and a dictatorial clergy provide. Having the prime revelations themselves cloaked in the obscurity of languages not well understood is benificial to such.
 

I would also note for the record that the vast majority of the followers of Islam do not speak Arabic as their native language. Even those that do do not speak the Arabic of the Koran, although they believe they do, which leads to multifarious interpretations by different Imans of the same verses.
So in that respect "Arabic" serves the same function of "Latin" in isolating the "revelations" from those that can handle them appropriately. :)
 

Re, Drlobojo's comment of 7:03 a.m.:

Corrolation is not causation, but isn't it interesting that the heighth of popular tolerance of, or at least amusement at, freethinking, and the advent of liberal Christianity, came about when notions of freedom among the elite and the poliitcal leadership of this country also were at their apex, in the late 19th century; and the rise of fundamentalism in the 20th century, and its presence today, coincide with notions of political freedom at their nadir? The masses have foresaken the rigors of freedom for the comfort of certainty, and they want to be told what to think, and what to do. Hence the rise of the Falwells and the Dobsons.
 

Hey, Dr. L. Never mind Devil’s Advocate, it sounds rather like you’re channelling Marx!

Everyone has some intellectual capacity but, in my opinion, it is developed to its full potential in very few people. Instead of reinforcing that position with a theocracy, why not develop a genuine meritocracy instead; make curiosity and critical thought second-nature to every person and give society’s greatest rewards to those who most improve the lot of our species? Don’t let humanity stagnate. We achieve most when we are challenged.

And on the Arabic… yep, you got me; embarrassingly weak assumption put forward without critical thought. Mea culpa.
 

Would "They hate us for our freedom" count?

What I like best is when people use these phrases out of context. The only point in the bible where there is any rules or opinions about homosexuality directly is in Leviticus, right after it says its a sin to shave your beard, sew 2 different seeds together, to eat pork, that its ok to stone your kids and that women have to be sent out to the edge of town on their periods. Not to mention that the book of Leveticus is for Jews and that Christians follow the teachings of Christ, not the Torah.
 

Toad. Dude. Scroll down to the post with the head that starts "How queer! ..." Some of the comments will make yer head spin.
 

Hey ER, I followed the pointer you offered Toad. Quite some volume of hot air over there. It was only after I'd composed my comment that I realised you'd closed the topic and prevented further additions. Here's what I was going to post. I'd be curious to hear your views on the futility of the debate.

"Skimming though the 150+ comments above this one it seems to me that you’ve got some pretty fundamental disagreements and no objective way of resolving them. Everyone is sure that their own faith is the correct one. If that is correct then everyone gets to go to heaven. If that’s not correct then getting into heaven is a lottery since there’s no way of being sure which interpretation is god’s own. Either way you’ve just wasted an awful lot of time debating questions that cannot be resolved and in the end won’t change anything."
 

Howdy, Liam.

It's never a waste, ever, these discussions of foundational world views.

But, my response in a nutshell is this:

While most on "the other side" of the faith from me might disagree on even this, as far as I'm concerned, this is a family fight.

We are Christians arguing about what it means to be a Christian. Just like Americans argue over what it means to be an American. We all are Americans, by definition.

It's the same faith, as far as I'm concerned, and, who "gets to go to heaven" is just a part of it -- again, that's as far as I'm concerned.

Because what I'm concerned with is life. Now. In the present, which is eternity, with a conscious relationship with God through Christ.

You'll have to ask someone else about who "gets to go to heaven," because, frankly, that is not my biggest concern.

Oh, and as Bishop John Shelby Spong said while speaking at my church last year (paraphrasing):

"At the end of the day, I'm not sure even I believe everything I've said."

I add "blogged" to that, since wriring in this forum is a form of thinking not usually a place for be-and-end-all declarations, again, as far as I'm concerned.

Glad you asked, Liam. I like that you lurk here.