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

Well ER, that was different.

Never heard "God is my best fag" before - now does she mean God is a cigarette?

Not sure... but either way, I learn something new at your blog and that's no mistake.

Lee
 

Indeed. That about sums it up for me. I'm surprised your fundie concern trolls haven't come around to offer to pray for you and your reliance on such horrid language - obviously un-Christian - to defend the position of an openly lesbian saying things that are so . . . Biblical.
 

I keep the place sprayed.
 

ER--

The only fake Christians I saw in this post were Ms. Cho, and the doofus who posted this trash at your place.

Perhaps you need to take a closer look at the road signs. They read, "Wrong Way, Do Not Enter" You're on your way to hell, dude. Just thought I'd give you a friendly head's up.

And Geoff... would you mind, please, enlightening us all. What is biblical about...

"[God] said I could use his name in vain or whatever. He just wants me to use it."

???

Perhaps you need to look more closely at those signs too, cause there ain't NOTHING biblical about that.

I don't care who she is, what she did, or what she once taught. I don't even care who her father was. She still has to stand before a righteous God and give an account for every. idle. and. blasphemous. word.

The Holy Spirit would never direct her to speak so. Never. God is not a love-starved puppy that will accept any attention it can get, even if said attention is disdainful of Him.

She WILL have to answer to God, as will we all. She doesn't fear God? She should considering the vileness of her speech. What was it Jesus said? "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Sorry ER, but the Holy Spirit does not direct anyone to defile the temple in which He lives, nor to blaspheme His Holy name.

She defiles herself and the name of God. And there's nothing biblical about it. Nor is it anything to blithely say "a-[effing]-men" about.

Laugh if you want, but I urge you to repent while there is still time to do so. You need Jesus. Seriously. 'Cause from where I'm sitting you sure as hell don't have Him. And without Him, Hell is where you'll surely end up.
 

Nonetheless, God loves you. And He desires that you love Him in return.
 

Margaret Cho is expressing the righteous anger all of us feel at those who would declare they know without a doubt who is and who is not acceptable before God. Like Jesus in the Temple chasing out the money changers with a whip, she demands that God's gracious, overflowing love be recognized for what it is, celebrated for what it is, and not tied to the various contingencies of our own prejudices.


While I am quite sure ER is not going to hell, and I'm pretty sure I'm not either, I guess I would ask you a question, Eric - are you God? Are you Jesus? Because, on my reading of the Bible, they are the ones who make the decision about who goes to hell and who doesn't. Also, it seems to me that a little liberality in tossing around the "f"-word, while certainly shocking, would not raise the hackles of the Almighty, unless of course the Almighty really is Dana Carvey's Church Lady.

Specifically to your question about "what's so Biblical" about the passage you cite, I would counter that Jesus violated the law by working on the Sabbath, by eating with Gentiles and not ritually cleaning himself, by touching and healing lepers - indeed, he insisted that, while he embodied all the Law and Prophets, he also transcended them, a point many Christians consider important. As for the specifics of "taking God's name in vain" - that refers to the casual use of the Holy Name of God, what is known as the Tetragrammaton. It does not mean that God will separate you from the Eternal Presence if you let slip "Goddamn". If the latter is the case, then God is both childish and small-minded, and nothing in the Bible leads me to believe that.

And like ER, may I also say that God loves Margaret Cho, and you, and ER, and even me, Eric, because God created us as we are. For that reason, we love you, too. And we love Margaret Cho.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I have no doubt God loves Margaret Cho. But using His name as a cuss-word to express disgust is still blasphemy. Will God forgive such? I believe He can and does. But to say, 'He said I could use his name in vain or whatever-- He just wants me to use it,' is presumptuous. If Ms. Cho is saved, she has set a very poor example for nonbelievers. She has slapped the face of the eternal God who died a humiliating death just so she could be saved. There is nothing biblical, in terms of what is right and proper and holy, about using His name in such a way, and then revel in blasphemy with the outlandish claim that God doesn't care... "He just wants me to use it"

On top of this is the title of this post, "It's about time someone said this..." It's about time someone vilified God and scripture to make a point? And then to follow it up by with "a-effing-men" ?

I understand what the tetragrammaton is, YHWH, the name so holy men dare not pronounce it. Granted, Jesus as our savior, says we need not fear God; that as children of God we can come boldly to the throne of Grace, but He said nothing about not reverencing God. We should revere Him; hold Him in exceedingly high esteem, and treat Him and His name with the love and respect due them both for the punishment both have spared us from.
 

Since you grant all the points I stipulate, and since I agree that a certain amount of reverence and deference is accorded God's person, I fail to see where we disagree. Is Cho's statement over-the-top? Obviously so. Yet, is it blasphemous? Hardly. It is the holy rage of those who believe themselves loved by God, yet told by the powerful that God cannot love them because of who they are (Cho is a lesbian). It is the holy rage that comes from being told their very person, their very being, the way they were created by God is inherently evil and sinful. If that doesn't inspire a couple "f-u"'s, I'm not sure what does.

I will stipulate that Margaret Cho's piece was over-the-top. I will stipulate that it was offensive to some. I will stipulate there are those who would disagree with it, setting aside its over-the-topness and offensiveness.

I will not, however, stipulate it is either inherently un-Christian or even blasphemous to suggest that God's love transcends our understanding so much that our petty prejudices and preconceptions, which we erroneously put in Scripture, have no bearing on that love. I will further refuse to stipulate that those human beings who deem themselves the keepers of God's kingdom and word and who seem to claim a knowledge of who is inside and outside the bounds of God's grace are somehow immune from the rage they bring by claiming that gays and lesbians, or people of other religious faiths, or even different Christian traditions, or whatever fanciful, artificial line we choose to draw exist outside the bounds of the Grace of God.

To my mind, it is far more blasphemous to claim a knowledge of God's intention for the ultimate state of any individual or group before the Throne of God than to say "Fuck you."
 

EL, thanks for demonstrating the exact kind of bullshit Cho is railing against.

Re, "You're on your way to hell, dude."

You are not qualified to make any such judgment, and you should be ashamed for even uttering such words. You need help. And I hope you get it.
 

And, what Geoffrey said.
 

OK, this cracks me up:

"You need Jesus. Seriously. 'Cause from where I'm sitting you sure as hell don't have Him."

El, that's because you're on a high horse, and I'm down in the mud with the drunks and the skunks and the doubters and the sinners and the desperate and the ignorant and the hungry and the poor and the pitiful and Jesus.

Jesus is beneath you, man. THINK about that, you sanctimonius jerk.

Said in continued exasperation.

GO. CHO.
 

ER, please note, that I said nothing about Cho being lesbian. I was offended more by her speech than I was her S.P.. That's not a discussion I wanted to have here.

My ire/hackles rose because of your 'a-effing-men'. I was shocked that you would support her casual anti-christian frippery as though she were standing in the pulpit thumping her bible on the lectern. Then Geoff says her tirade was biblical?

The Jesus & Money Changers incident was a demonstration of righteous anger... of the 'be angry and sin not' variety. And, as I recall, Jesus didn't rail on his detractors with potty-mouth epithets. If she wants to express righteous indignation, fine... but she should have enough sense and decency (especially considering her own admitted background) to refrain from being vulgar. And you, brother, should have enough sense to not 'a-effing-men' her. Agree with her if you wish, that is your prerogative, I just wish you hadn't resorted to your own special brand of frippery.
 

Look, one of the biggest problems with conservative Christianity is when the notion of sin is tangled up in bullshit like language and so-called vulgarity ... dancing, and cards and all the damned kind of social mores and customsd and habots that are so much wood, hay and stubble that don't amount to shit, not nbow and not in the hereafter. It makes me sick. And, dude, I'm so surprised that you reacted so negatively: You, and others like you, are the very people she is railing against.

You're right. This has nothing to do with Cho's sexual orientation. It has everything to do with judgmentalism, spiritual pride, hubris and notions of God that are so weak and stupid and limited, in such a tiny box of fundamentalist's own making, that they make Grace and he grand history of the Church through the ages a damned joke.

Cho put words to the sick feeling and fury I get every time I see the likes of you, and "Pastor" Tim, and Neil and every other holier-than-thou Bible-worshiping, Communion-"fencing" I'm-right-and-you're-going-to-hell JOKE dare to put limits on God and dare to draw lines and dare to presume to speak for God and declare who and who is not a recipient of God's Grace through Christ.

GO. CHO.
 

Correction: "I'm so NOT surprised ..." I meant to say.


Cho was vile. It's part of her shtick. But anyone who dares question her, or my, or anybody else's faith and relationship with God is closer to blasphemy than ANY choice of words.

Neither, however, are really very close.
 

God is love. I really do not see the love in Cho's statements, or in some of the rejoinder posted hereafter. To me, this is sad.
 

Furthermore, Why is questioning someone else's faith a blasphemy? I don't care if anyone questions my faith. I question my own faith at times.

Perhaps Cho is upset at people questioning her personal beliefs, or maybe she is just trying to be shocking for attention, or some other reason. I neither know or care. But it seems that sort of questioning is exactly what we are doing to each other here. Are committing great blasphemies? Who is to decide?
 

Should read "are we committing", above. My fingers have been damned.
 

It's not necesarrily love in Cho's rant. It's desperate. I see it, myself, as a prayer of exasperation in the face arrogance on the part of those who would close the doors to the Church, or salvation, or whatever you want to call it. It's a primal scream. Sad? Yes. But the saddest part isn't her rant. The saddes part is that anyone who would dare play God in the name of Christ.

There IS a New Reformation under way. The last one, sadly, wound up with sects of the faith taking up arms against other sects of the faith. Consider Cho's rant a rhetorical shot across the bow to those who dare presume to patrol the coasts of our inherited faith.
 

I promise: If I fight, I fight to keep the doors of the Church OPEN. What the hell are others fighting for?
 

"But using His name as a cuss-word to express disgust is still blasphemy."

"God" isn't his name. It's his title. Duh.

And, yes, she RAWKS!

(BTW, I'm pretty sure Cho is Bi, not a lesbian.)

Why is questioning someone's salvation blasphemy, Doc? Well, I suppose that depends on one's point of view. But since I believe that only God calls the elect, that humans making human determinations about the destination of others' souls is setting one's self up as God. Now I'm not sure I'd call that "blasphemy". I would however point out that Man's original sin was trying to become like God by eating the forbidden fruit.

So then, even sinners who are so puffed up with pride that they think they can spot someone bound for hell from 20 paces can be forgiven, if they only repent of their sin of pride. Let's pray that the people Cho is ranting about someday repent.

(Of course, if they had any clue about what the Bible actually says about salvation, they might be less likely to judge in the first place. But their ignorance is no excuse.)