Putting aside the bigotry and homophobia which run though this entire piece (I'm sure we'll get that later), you did miss one part of this story. The church actually offered to pay for their entire funeral at another location, which seems more than generous.

The question it all raises for me is what the hell did the family of the dead guy think they were doing going to a fundie church in Dallas for his funeral. Unless they were trying to provoke an incident I don't understand why they'd even want to do it.

Dave

'The church actually offered to pay for their entire funeral at another location, which seems more than generous.'- Dave Nalle

That fact doesn't fit with the oppressor-victim storyline so it was purposely omitted. Predictable media spin.

Note to Doc,

Per your recent request, consider this your Official Clavos Reminder NOT to post comments on this thread...

This has been a Public Service Announcement.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

One fact omitted from the story, but nonetheless potentially relevant:

Just WHAT "homosexual activity" was depicted in the display?

An article in the Dallas Morning News says this:

"The family also disputes Mr. Simon's statement last week that "very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging" were among photos relatives submitted for a church-produced memorial slideshow. A CD of the photos the family says it gave the church does not include such images."

Which is what I suspected: Even if the images of same sex hugging and kissing had been included, to object to them WOULD be discriminatory, because it's a certainty that such images in a hetero display would have raised no objections whatsoever.

Mr. Duke failed to mention the nature of the images (or their alleged non-existence) on purpose, IMO, because that, too, would have weakened his argument.

Thanks, Clavos, but if you'll remember, the rule was not that I shouldn't post at all on a Duke thread, but that I should endeavor to change the subject.

It's a little early in the game for that yet, so I'll stand back for now.

BTW, I tried the Dallas Morning News link, but it gets stuck on an ad featuring a young lady who, judging by the expression on her face, appears to be suffering from a severely obstructed bowel.

Doc,

I'll put this as delicately as I can; perhaps your computer is obstructed. Where have you been surfing lately?

I just tried the link and got the story.

Clavos,

Thinking caps are free! Hey, put it on sometimes.

You have to understand that this is a church and not a government building. A church exists because of a philosophy or a theology. In their theology, homosexual engagement is a sin. The church is there to help people not to sin. The church does not say that homosexuals are any different and should be treated any differently but that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin (much like stealing or fornicating or adultery or any sin according to the bible). Now putting images of the sin being committed IN THE CHURCH would be counter productive. It would be a condoning of the behavior. In THEIR BELIEF it's like putting up pictures of the guy robbing a bank or cheating on his wife. In THEIR BELIEF it's the same thing Mr. Civil Liberties.

The real question would be: what was the family thinking? If they wanted the man's service at that church, why did they not simply have other slides of his, I'm sure, complete life. Did the guy fish or hang-glide or volunteer or ski? I'm sure they left out shots of him being drunk at some bar or any other acts that he may have committed that would go against the church's teaching.

It seems to me that these people were picking on this church for believing what THEY BELIEVE. That is shameful on their part.

Why would they choose to bury their loved one in a church that doesn't espouse their beliefs or the beliefs of their dearly departed? They might as well have tried to have the funeral at a Mormon place of worship or a Mosque. It's silly and bullying.

Why should Doc not post and you should... MATE.. sigh.

"Why should Doc not post and you should... MATE.. sigh."

You might want to check the reference before you rush to judgment, Zedd. In this case, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And, regarding the church's reaction:

Here, too, you don't know what you're talking about. The gist of my comment only referred to Duke's presentation of the case. I offered no direct implication about the church's action.

I know you like to disagree with everything I post, but to avoid making a fool of yourself again in the future, I suggest you read my comments a little more carefully from now on before you jump in to disagree.

That ad goes away after a few seconds, Dr. D.

Clavos

Other reports say that there were images of a homosexual nature.

I live in the area.

Besides the church doesn't HAVE TO bury anyone that they don't want to bury.

Gosh.... I just realized that you may not understand how churches operate. I am sorry for the wise-gal comment. Do you know that if you have committed fornication, for instance, in most churches that are of a fundamentalist nature, you can not serve in the church or receive communion? You have to go through a period of atonement. If you are "in sin" you are obligated to step aside and receive counseling and repent before the church. Some churches require that you go before the entire church body and ask for forgiveness. Within the faith, it is appropriate for believers to admonish one another in love. It is not looked upon negatively to remind a person of their commitment and obligation as a Christian. It is thought to be a good thing to tell someone that they are in the wrong, as for as their Christian walk. The person receives the admonishment with humility and repents. Their secular rights (?) don't play a role what-so-ever, because they became a Christian and joined the body of their own volition and may choose to disassociate any time they so choose.

Now knowing this, does it make the church's decision more understandable?

Clavos

I really don't like disagreeing with everything you post.

I was asking a sincere question.

Remember, I was in on the "Selwyn article subject change thingy" so I knew about Doc.... I was just wondering why you were posting and saying to Doc not to. It was a genuine question. Relax.

"Now knowing this, does it make the church's decision more understandable?"

Once again, I wasn't addressing the church's stance, Zedd, only Duke's.

Ah, I finally got through to the article. When I tried before, I got that little countdown thingy saying the page would load in (x) seconds, but it kept resetting. This time, the ad didn't appear at all. Shame, really, it was quite amusing.

It's something of a storm in a, as I suspected, teacup. I can see both sides here. The church is clearly not following the example of its own founder: even a cursory reading of the Gospels should demonstrate to anyone that Christ would not have turned his back on Mr Sinclair. As for the "very strong homosexual images" they fell back on as an excuse, well, for the love of Mike (pun kinda intended), it's not as if they wanted to display porn. If it was brothers hugging, or a father and son, it wouldn't have been any kind of deal.

On the other hand, Mr Sinclair had a relative who worships there, and so the family should have been aware of the church's nature. I think that Mr Sinclair was not a member himself: so, apart from the insult and hurt they should have been keenly aware that they were setting themselves up for, they don't really have a legitimate beef. Unless you're Daniel, you don't walk into the lion's den and expect kitty to sit down at your feet and start purring.

Zedd is certainly correct in her statement that churches don't have to serve anyone they don't want to. I don't understand what some of you seem to feel she misinterpreted from the article? She seems to have 'gotten' it to me.

Actually, I'd have to agree with the author, that one does indeed wonder what was going thru the family's mind(s) to try to push this through with a fairly conservative religious organization of any denomination? As for photos of kissing & hugging being acceptable if they were hetero as opposed to homo, some folks find photos of kissing & hugging of any sort to be offensive. Again, it depends on what KIND & how intense that kissing & hugging is. I should think a peck on the cheek would be OK - but a full tonsil-cleaning & groping session would not. After all, I really don't care for photos of even hetero lovers pawing each other in public; let them save that for their private photo albums. IMO no one should be foisting explicit or suggestive photos of one's affection on the public, regardless of the gender/species of the object of those affections.

Precisely, Doc.

And Selwyn has presented it, speciously and withholding some of the facts, as something much more important than that.

Exactly, Clavs - it's that ol' homosexual agenda again. They're trying to recruit our children!

I'm sure folks like Selwyn more than half-believe that somewhere in San Francisco, in a secret lair deep beneath the streets of Haight-Ashbury, a gay Ernst Stavro Blofeld-type figure is lurking, dictating via an open phone line the Sinclair family's every move and dispatching his trusty henchqueens to send all those scurrilous e-mails to the pastor. Mwuuaah-ha-ha-ha!!!

Gotcha Clavos. I apologize.

I wrote the post before I read your new post.

----------

I have to add that it is Christians however who have displayed an inaccurate view of what they are intended to be.

1. The politicization of the faith is a major deviation from the message of Jesus Christ

2. Christians also require non-Christians to live as Christians, holding them up to the same standards.

3. American Christians confuse American values like capitalism, and American patriotism to be synonymous with Christianity.

What resulted is a public which wants to "correct" the Christians and make them more in line with the message of love that they are supposed to present. What becomes problematic is that the public doesn't understand the message; how it works. The public expects platitudes and democracy when the faith requires something totally different, which Christians are failing to demonstrate; humility. This is where the challenge lies.

Yeah, it seems to me that either this was a complete miscommunication and misunderstanding (stupidity can often be traced to lack of clarity), or the case of a muckraking family. In this case, the church seems to have taken a rather even-handed approach.

Of course, this has automatically led to the homophobic mud-slinging and issue-transference that characterizes this whole debate. Selwyn takes up the straw-man tactic of putting words in the mouths of the opposition, painting the whole political left as naive, unapologetic relativists... a characterization that simply does not hold.

Let me repeat: the inexplicable funereal decisions of one family do not represent the whole gay-rights (aka human rights) advocacy community. Most of us would rather let you have your megachurches to yourselves.

"I'm sure folks like Selwyn more than half-believe ..."

Exactly, people justify their own silly arguments and positions by building up the other side as a hateful and destructive strawman. The truth is this isn't part of some pro-gay conspiracy and it's also not some horrendous and vile action on the part of some homo-hating church members.

The question becomes why is it news?

My question is, why are homosexuals supposed to be 'recruiting' people? How do you 'recruit' people to something that is inborn? That's like recruiting people to get blue eyes. Very odd.

"The question becomes why is it news?"

News, gentle readers, is what you make to be news. This twentieth comment about a change in plans of a funeral gives a clue to what you all consider news.

The comment section after the articles mirrors the readers and their interests....

Nancy,


I think the idea is that by presenting homosexuality as being inborn in ALL who profess to be homosexual, it forces those who question their heterosexuality to believe that they MUST be born homosexual. I've had gay friends who insist that there are not such people as bisexuals. That they are just closeted homosexuals who haven't found the courage to admit to themselves that they are homosexual.

However I don't think that people think that there is literally recruiting going on
.

What troubles me most is a seeming obsession with homosexuality on behalf of some churches - and bugger me (teehee), if it isn't starting to appear in the lovely United Kingdom too.
You rarely see evangelical churches protesting outside military bases for example - when they wish to live in a Christian country and, as far as I recall, RULE NUMBER ONE in the biggest red letters you can imagine is, Thou shalt not kill. Purpose of military base? Killing. Job of soldier? Killing. Do they ban military men from funerals too. I don't think we should have to listen to talk of moral relativism from an organisation which took that RULE NUMBER ONE and made of it the concept of the 'just war', that would just be silly now. Perhaps I am wrong though, and when an angry Jesus returns he will indeed make his first priority the levelling of gay bars.

Wait a second, this church is being victimized. No one else.

Let's not get carried away here....

"Job of soldier? Killing."

It is well established that the biblical reference is to murder. Society has differentiated self defense and national defense from murder for centuries as well. It's fine to try and play dumb and conflate the two, just don't expect everyone else to go along with your fantasy.

When I had nearly finished reading Duke's quite reasonable article, I wondered how many (or how few, actually) comments I would need to read before encountering the word "homophobia."

David Nalle, you exceeded all my expectations for alacrity! But thanks for sending props out to the church for its generous offer to pay for the funeral at some other venue.

And speaking of a Christian organization's effort to keeping its promise, even when the keeping requires intricate choreography with OTHER treasured values, I'm reminded of the company New Tribes, which produced End of the Spear, the true story of missionaries whose death had such an impact on the Aucun tribesman who killed them that they in turn became missionaries for Jesus.

The story of forgiveness and redemption caught the attention of actor Chad Allen, who auditioned for, and got, the lead role of missionary Nate Saint. During production, when it was brought to the attention of New Tribes that Chad Allen was a very politically outspoken homosexual, there were some decisions that needed to be made.

New Tribes took it on the chin from many Christians who were outraged to have their hero played by an outpoken homosexual, but they were men of integrity, and they continued filming with Chad as Nate.

And they explain why here . New Tribes provided Chad Allen with a script. High Point Church couldn't script the funeral service that was to be held in their sanctuary. Though the decisions made by the leaders of New Tribes and High Point Church were different because of differences in circumstances and control, their hearts were clearly in the same place.

Those links again.

End of the Spear

and

Christian Studio Explains Casting Gay Actor as Missionary

"It is well established that the biblical reference is to murder. Society has differentiated self defense and national defense from murder for centuries as well. It's fine to try and play dumb and conflate the two, just don't expect everyone else to go along with your fantasy."

I don't think I am 'playing dumb', it seems quite clear to me - many Christians (Quakers for example) are indeed pacifists because of that belief, which I think is a mighty and noble thing!

I'm no biblical scholar, a complete ignoramus in fact, so you'll have to tell me how it is 'well established' that it means judicially-defined murder rather than all taking of life, I am well aware that is what many people take it to mean.

again..i must call bullshit...

this rant revolves around two different things...

1 - someone wanting to be buried in their church, it being agreed to, then denied for reasons fo the church

2 - the big one here, some thinking that homosexuality is "sinful", where they trot out the old Leviticus quote about "abomination"

even if we toss aside the actual Christ message about forgiving sinners, and the part about how you treat the least of these...and his ministry to those society had tossed aside (which demonstratres that this "church" has completely lost their Way)...you still run afoul of the theological problems with trying to state that a single admonition in Leviticus is still to be followed...but the rest of that Book can be ignored...

or do i still need to gather the entire village to stone my grandmother for wearing cloth made of two different threads?

so many who like the "abomination" bit forget the rest of that book, or some of the other silliness in the OT...

try this link for a fine refutation, utilizing Biblical quotations, of the entire "abomination" argument...

for those who think themselves "righteous" and find it proper that a church failed to minister to one of their own, for what they perceive as a "sin"...

get the fucking stick out of yer own eye

nuff said...

Excelsior?

oh yeah..for Colin...

if you accep tthe Jewish scriptures as authentic for verification, then the 10 Commandments do translate as
"thou shalt not murder"...big differenc ethere, especially since rabbinical Law has clear definitions for murder

which always tickled me about so called "literalist" christians who hold sunday as the "sabbath" which is a Roman invention , shifting from traditional sabbath of the Jews to "sun" day, to usurp the day of rest that was observed by the Roman sun worshippinj greligion prevalent at the time of Constantine...

but i digress

Excelsior?

"You rarely see evangelical churches protesting outside military bases for example..."
August 21, 2007 @ 14:27PM -- Colin Ricketts [URL]

"It seems quite clear to me - many Christians (Quakers for example) are indeed pacifists..." August 21, 2007 @ 16:39 PM - Colin Ricketts

And while we're on the subject of changing the subject, do you think Quakers would approve of accepting homosexuals into the military? Would you approve if the Quakers were to disapprove (on the basis of their pacifism, of course)?

What if High Point Church had hosted a funeral with full military honors for a homosexual, including punch and cookies afterwards? Would that've been ok. Don't get mad (=cross) I just love "yankin" Brit chain.

Gonzo Marx - get thee to a Bible Concordance. It's not just some obscure Levitical reference. If I were to list all the NEW TESTAMENT prohibitions of homosexual activity, I'd be called a Bible thumper.

You rarely see evangelical churches protesting outside military bases for example

And Fred Phelps doesn't count.

(Before anybody brings him up...)

Thank you Gonzo Marx (a very fine conflation that!).

No worries Irene, what's a Brit and a chain, I know what a yank is. :)

It's not just some obscure Levitical reference. If I were to list all the NEW TESTAMENT prohibitions of homosexual activity, I'd be called a Bible thumper.

Paul (and others) also have quite a lot of other prohibitions which modern Christians conveniently ignore. Like the one about women not speaking in church, for instance.

In fact, if Paul saw you commenting on here he'd probably have a conniption.

Irene, pleas edo list for me anytime Yeshua ben Miriam, who holds the Greek honorrific of "the Annointed" called ANYONE an "abomination" ...or said to outcast any sinner from his ministry

not the Pauline dogma, but some quote from "Jesus"

then you can try getting down off your high horse, and we can discuss comparative theology in a reasonable fashion...

i'll be glad to go over and discuss my knowledge in scriptural matter in both the realm of content and anthropological as well as archeological accuracy...not to mention the theological

but, do feel free to attempt to "educate" me...i await your Enlightenment

however, i do operate under the premise that gnosis > dogma

Excelsior?

Ah yes the amazing Reverend Phred. I actually was going to bring him up, but changed my mind. Most Christians eschew any association with this graceless man.

But the farther east you go, the closer you end up to west.Phred Phelps might just have some insight into why the family tapped a church with conservative theology to host the funeral of their homosexual relative. Apparently Phelps has inscrutable (to the rest of us) reasoning they do.

Groucho Marx, Why should I have to show you Scripture where Yeshua called homosexuals an abomination? Why are you requiring me to do this?

There aren't any stories of Jesus interacting with a homosexual. But he DID have words for the woman caught in adultery, and they weren't, "You abominable whore." Jesus, using the brilliant "let those of you without sin be the first to throw a stone" forestalled her execution by a self-righteous mob.

What he did say was, Neither do I condemn you, go and SIN NO MORE.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. And homosexual practice is a sin, no greater, and no less a sin, than adultery, lying, overeating, and being a pompous jackass online.

I eagerly await your mea maxima culpa. *wink*

Why is it a sin?

Who does it hurt?

Well toots we aint in church, so St. P can rest in peace.

But seriously Gonzo Marx (!) St. P was a GOOD deal more respectful of women, even as important functionaries within the church, than people realize. The women he wanted to keep silence in the church (context is EVERYTHING) where ladies who kept badgering their husbands with questions in the middle of the service when they heard something they didn't understand.

Elsewhere, St. Paul gives instructions for women who were prophesying. So he allowed for women to be prophetesses--that's a pretty high position, wouldn't you say?

Now far be it for me to suggest that modern Christians follow the Scriptures to the letter, or even more importantly in full accordance with the Spirit. The Bride (a biblical analogy of the Church) needs a lot more work before she's ready for the Bridegroom (Jesus Christ) to bring him to His Father's home.

But there are a lot of Christians who are doing their best, their flawed, human, best to walk that Narrow Road (between Law--keeping the commandments and Grace--keeping them with Love.)

I put the leaders of the church in question in that category, though I'm not their ultimate judge. Jesus is.

Dr Dreadful,

What if it only hurt God? Would that be enough for it to retain its status as sin?

And don't accuse me (you haven't of course, yet, but I can feel it comin' ON from other quarters) of wanting to codify it as sin on the American lawbooks. As long as adultery and premarital sex and overeating aren't against the law, then neither should any kind of (non predatory) sexual behavior be.

Dr. D, why does a sin have to hurt someone else? Sitting at home fantasising about a friend's wife doesn't hurt anyone else, but it's clearly considered a sin in Christian churches. I think you can make the argument that some acts hurt the actor, but you don't have to.

Irene, I'm not gonzo. You're being tag-teamed! ;-)

Call me cynical, but saying it's 'disgraceful' (NIV) for a woman to speak in church is a bit more than a reaction to inappropriate nattering in the stalls.

Also, not surprising that Paul was OK with women prophets. If they claimed to be speaking the word of God, far be it from him to stop them, eh?

And, as you say, it's all about context. Like the context which led to the author of Leviticus prohibiting the 'abomination' of homosexuality. It was a response to a special situation which faced that society and no longer applies.

But does homosexuality only hurt God?

Even if you agree with me that CIVIC laws against homosexual practice are Unconstitutional and perhaps even antibiblical, is this something we should steer our kids away from?---as the book being advertised on this page suggests it is.

Just so happens I have a young son who is artistic, more articulate than his very articulate older sister, sensitive...all the positive traits that one associates (stereotypically or not) with homosexuality. But if a physical attraction to the same sex turned out to be also one of my son's attributes (after the normal gender confusion of the teenaged years had passed), what would I do?

I'd have to tell him that he was experiencing strong sexual desires that needed to be brought before God at the Throne of Grace (as ALL strong sexual desires need to be, be they desires for premarital couplings, incestual couplings, one night stand heterosexual couplings...all of those are, or can be, STRONG sexual desires).

In the end, its a matter between the Lord and him. I can't control my son's sexuality after he reaches a certain age. My role is to teach him what the Bible says, and just as important, point him to the Person--He's real and alive, not just an Idea--who is able to help him walk in those paths. And to pick him up when he falls down, as everyone does.

I think Christian men (in the West) could stand to be a lot closer to one another, a lot less "macho." So its not like I'm going to squash any manifestation of tenderness in my son towards other guys. But if there's a reason he really can't relate or interact in a romantic way toward females, I'd certainly want to explore that block, rather than automatically assigning my son to a life as a homosexual.

It's a hard life. There are few homosexuals who'd deny that.

Irene, we appear to be a comment or two behind one another(!)

Same question, really. Why would a loving relationship between two consenting adults hurt God?

The above was to...whom it may concern. Gonzo, Dr.Dreadful. I'm sorry for getting you mixed up there!

But what is going on, guys? I mean, I don't want to sound paranoid, because I really am NOT afraid of homosexuals, but I hear about prominent gays auditioning for roles as Christian missionaries, and hear about families wanting their deceased homosexual members eulogized in conservative Christian churches. What gives?

It sounds like...Fred Phelps in drag, you know what I mean?

Well, if you guys are talking over each other, I should really shut up. You're doing fine on your own, Irene.

Irene, on #46 --

The church has been an imposing unified force for a long time. But there are people who believe in the core philosophy without subscribing either to the letter of the bible or to the authority of the clergy. Homosexuals who attempt to forge their own Christian movements, and to participate in Christian culture, are these types of activists. They care about the core values of the church... belief in a protective power, universal love and sacrifice, and duty to their transcendental values. But they don't agree with certain codes (laws? dogmas?) held by the institution.

And they have this right, according to precedent. Scripture has been reinterpreted for years, whether by sects, or by the Vatican, or by individuals who wanted to find a more personal relationship with God. No matter what faith you claim, it's probably the result of a long history of reinterpretations.

And people who questioned the authority of the church have been at the heart of some of the most important movements in history. Martin Luther was an activist in his own right. He asserted his right to protest, and as a result, he created a new movement, and he sparked reforms within the Catholic church, as well.

I hope gay activists are able to do something similar... when the church begins to understand who its conception of "sin" excludes, it might have to shift its philosophies back in the direction of tolerance and humility. This would probably be a healthy development.

Dr Dreadful,

There's a book by Rob Bell, called Sex God. I haven't read it, but I've read his Velvet Elvis and it was thought provoking. Maybe you should take a look, if you want to get inside the evangelical mind, or rather AN evangelical mind, on the relationship between God and Sex.

I'm not God, and I don't mean to be disrespectful or snarky, but what if I answer your question and the Almighty's looking down and saying NO, you've got it all wrong, Irene, THIS is why it bothers me.

But I'll give it my best shot, ok?

I think it has something to do with the fact that maleness and femaleness and the relationship between the two is one of the very first things God established about being human (I'm using the book of Genesis as a basis for that statement).

And even more importantly, man and woman were made in God's image. There was something about man alone that couldn't fully reflect God's image. There wasn't something about woman alone that couldn't reflect it fully either. But man and woman together, that God closer to the image of God that man and women were created to reflect--and in reflecting, glorify, exalt, celebrate.

That's not to say that deep committed caring same sex friendships are not important to God, and pleasing. "How good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in harmony, it is like the fat rolling down Aaron's beard..."

But there is something symbolic about the act of sex, and the Bible is very explicit about making that connection. Sex between man and woman, not animals but the part of the creation that was supposed to reflect God's glory, is supposed to be Holy.

The metaphor of sex as communion with the Divine is repeated time after time in the scriptures. Israel's wandering from God is described as harlotry, adultery, spiritual whoredom. And when God forgives Israel, the imagery is of a husband taking back a wayward but beloved wife. And in the New Testament, Jesus himself reinforces the idea of God as Lover and God's People as his Betrothed.
---

The other consideration is God as Designer, God as Artist. Might it be an affront to the Artist to use the most symbolic, the most spiritually significant part of my body, in a way other than the Designer intended it to be used?

But what about the people who really genetically ARE both? There's a rather rare chromosomal condition (I can't remember the specifics) that causes a married man who has fathered children to, in midlife, start growing breasts and other secondary female characteristics. How is he/she to be true to the intentions of His Creator?

I've read some of their stories. They are very moving, and many of them very directly address the question of how they perceived God directed their decision to embrace one gender over another. They don't seem to be furious at God. But they've born MUCH pain.

As a Christian talking about gender roles, I always try to keep people like this in mind. Growing into the man, or woman, God made one to be isn't easy for ANYBODY. And there are some for whom it is a particular burden.

I don't think the Fred Phelps analogy holds. Nobody would give a crap about Phelps if he was just a fundamentalist who believed all non-evangelicals were going to hell. But he's a violent, hateful force, instigating the media with open celebrations of death and vengeance by a higher power.

Aside from almost non-existent splinter cults, there's nobody in the homosexual community who orient their protest around open violence.

OK at 4:29 MST i read all comments addressed to Irene, and I appreciate all the thought that went into them.

But it's dinner time in the Mountains, and part of my current gender identity involves getting some grub on the table!

Carry on!

I don't think the Fred Phelps analogy holds.

Neither do I. That's why I said he didn't count.

however, i do operate under the premise that gnosis > dogma

Thereby falling into the fallacy of thinking you are privy to revealed truth. The formula should actually be:

logos > gnosis > dogma

Dave

If this is an article about imposing values on Christians, shouldn't the title be "Homo-accept-us"?

Gonzo,

Its quite clear that you don't understand Christian theology.

Your comments reveal that fact. I'm sure you don't really want to understand it either. But come on, for the sake of scholarship, you shouldn't be so brazen about a topic that you obviously know very little about.

Before you let loose on me and invite the rabid Rambo Chick from the other thread to sick me.....Huuuuug?

Jesse,

You are correct when you say that people have been reinterpreting the bible for hundreds of years.

However your statement that "when the church begins to understand who its conception of "sin" excludes, it might have to shift its philosophies back in the direction of tolerance and humility. "

You misses that, its not the Church which defines the sin, its the text, the Bible.

What you are saying is the Church (universal church) should acknowledge and dismiss the sins that you think they should acknowledge or dismiss. If there is a God, he would be rather tiny if he operated that way. If his laws for us as our Creator depended on how we feel about them, then he would be irrelevant wouldn't he?

However if you think the Bible is a nice book, not in anyway attached to the will of a deity for us, with some good stuff and some bad stuff and you can pick and choose what you want to adhere to, then it's a different story and your conclusion makes sense.

Some look at the definition of sins to be like the restrictions that we place on infants. We don't allow them to walk in the middle of the street even though they may be having fun and find it adventurous but they don't have the big picture and don't have a concept of traffic or accidents. They just see an opportunity to explore and feel stifled by us adults, cry and throw a fit. To many, the restriction against sinning is just that. We don't understand the extent of the harm that we place ourselves under when we ignore the warning against engaging in sinful practices because it feels so great and so natural and so freeing, but God has the bigger picture. Even though we may kick and scream, the inevitability of the harm that is ahead supersedes our momentary angst.

Doc

Sin according to theology hurts the person who commits it. The issue of sin is not only about order and fairness in society but it is about the individual's spirit.

So if the belief is that if one is living contrary to their "intended state", they are hurting themselves because it is in their "intended state" that they find their true purpose for being and therefore their unmeasurable joy.

Zedd: You rock!

Dr. Dreadful, not wanting to borrow trouble, but when Jesse said "I don't think the Fred Phelps analogy holds," I believe he was referring to MY comment:

"...but I hear about prominent gays auditioning for roles as Christian missionaries, and hear about families wanting their deceased homosexual members eulogized in conservative Christian churches. What gives? It sounds like...Fred Phelps in drag, you know what I mean?"

And, several hours later, Jesse's comment notwithstanding I'm still seeing FRED PHELPS IN DRAG written all OVER this Texan funereal fiasco.

DD: "Thanks, Clavos, but if you'll remember, the rule was not that I shouldn't post at all on a Duke thread, but that I should endeavor to change the subject."

The rugby world cup starts in two weeks, with France first cab off the rank in Paris against Argentina, who are promising to be the surprise packet of the competition (which probably means they'll be going home by the quarter-finals).
The Wallabies face Japan in their first game.

My tip: New Zealand. They are still the best team running around at the moment, despite their loss to Australia last month in the Tri-Nations at the MCG.

Don't know much about your mob Doc, except that they gave Wales a flogging in the warm-up Tests earlier this month but fell badly against France.

I reckon The William Webb Ellis Trophy ("Bill") will be coming back to the Antipodes, but in the hands of those dreadful men in black from the land of the wrong white crowd just across the ditch.

Lets not forget that most charities in the Western world are Christian charities.

And yes there are a lot of Christians who are pacifistic. Must they be in the news to exist. Especially since its not news that they exist because they have been with us for hundreds of years.

Would love to support you in that most valiant effort, mate, but I know diddley about rugby, including not knowing until now that the Frogs play it. That must be a sight- a mob o' poofy Frogs prancing around and squirting stinkwater on themselves and their opponents; Zut alors! Bet the Poms love that!

Nonetheless, I salute your spirit, my friend...

Speaking of poofy Frogs prancing around, I wonder if they might resemble...FRED PHELPS IN DRAG?

Clav: "That must be a sight- a mob o' poofy Frogs prancing around and squirting stinkwater on themselves and their opponents; Zut alors! Bet the Poms love that!"

Actually, they are really good at it and play a very entertaing - and bone-rattling - style of rugby.

Their forwards are all really ugly looking and battered up, and more ominously, their backs are all good looking and look like they've never been tackled.

As my dad used to say, when you run onto the park and spot the opposition, the only thing more worrying than a 130kg prop forward with cauliflower ears and a nose that's been broken 50 times is a five-eighth (like a quarterback) with a nice hair do who looks like he's just stepped off a hollywood film set.

Well, that's the French. I am also told the smell of cheap aftershave, sweat, garlic and Gitanes can grind down their opponents' mental fortitude in the scrums.

Fred Phelps, the mad preacher who's not really a Christian?

BTW, does anyone think that Selwyn seems a bit, well ... I dunno if obsessed is the right word, but captivated, certainly in terms of his opposition, by these photo-montages of man-on-man love?

Isn't the church supposed to extend its love to all, without condition, according to the teachings of Jesus.

Surely that should also apply to raging teapots.

Zedd #57: Some people choose to be celibate. Their "intended state" is to procreate like everyone else. Yet the Church does not consider them sinners.

And now, over to Stan at the sports desk...

Knowing squiddly dot about the rugby form book as I do, all I am able to predict with some confidence is that England will probably make the most inept defence since "I do not recall". Therefore, I'm tipping them to lose to Namibia, Tuvalu and the Vatican before recovering (too late to qualify from their group though) to pull off an implausible victory against a team of Terminators from the year 2025 who've travelled back in time having identified Will Carling as the savior of mankind. No-one will have the heart to tell them that they've got the wrong World Cup or that the venerable Mr Carling is about as potentially harmful as a lobotomized guinea pig.

I'll go with Fiji to win the whole tournament after tempting each of their opponents with an ultra-strong batch of kava the night before the game. New Zealand will get as far as the semi-finals, whereupon they will forfeit the game in terror when their opponents, the United States, respond to their haka with a sequence of dance routines from Broadway shows.

Or, mate, the Poms could respond with a spot of morris dancing. What do you think?

STM YES, that'd be the Fred to whom I refer, and yes, the Church needs to extend its love to the Fred Phelpses of the world as much as it needs to extend love to the homosexuals, and teapots (?)

But extending love to a person doesn't necessarily mean, in fact it often PRECLUDES, inviting him up to the pulpit to preach, or giving him the right to subject the saints to any kind of dang slide show he wants.

Now, I will rephrase the FRED PHELPS IN DRAG question, in the fond hope of actually getting a straight, if you'll pardon the expression, reply.

Even as a Christian with an old-fashioned view of homosexuality, I cringe when I hear Fred Phelps going on his "God hates fags" tirades. Are there, conversely, any homosexuals out there who cringe when they hear about other homosexuals (claiming to represent YOUR interests) carrying the Hate Crimes philosophy to the extreme that it threatens the freedom of speech and religion of EVERYBODY?

And Dr. Dreadful, you're being dreadfully rude. You pressed me, TWICE, for a theological discourse at a time of day when I was busy feeding my young, but I took the time to put some thought into a response, which, rather than acknowledging, you trampled over with your silly (albeit amusing) subject changing tactic.

NOW, you have THRICE declined to answer my question about FRED PHELPS IN DRAG.

If you weren't...you know...and I were married to you, you'd be sleeping on the couch tonight, I'm THAT disgusted.

hmmph!

Irene asks: "teapots (?)"

Think about this Irene. Think about the shape of a teapot, dear (old song ... "here is my handle, here is my spout" :).

You know ... resembling a person with one hand on their hip and another pointing, perhaps, you know, a bit limp-wristedly.

Doc,


I don't want to get into a biblical nit picking thing and also get too boring but actually, perhaps according to biology and evolution our intended state is to procreate (sort of) but not Christianity. Our intended state is to please God. Actually Paul says not marrying (ergo not boinking) is a better place because it allows him to be more focused on his Life's mission. BTW he wasn't saying that everyone should not boink...

Doc, I hate to tell you but you just said that homosexuality is a glitch.... I know we don't want to go there again (I certainly don't) so I'll leave you with that. But GOTCHA! Mowed down again!! Aim and thrust! One for the Zulus! Yeah baybeee!!

I'd better get to work.

Irene,

Just for the record:

Neither STM nor the Doc are, ahem, gay, despite their clever senses of humor.

That said, I've never met either of the blokes personally; I'm speaking from having avidly followed both of their posts and comments here on BC for about a year now.

They are, however (as am I), strong defenders of individual freedom, including those of gay folks.

Zedd: I said no such thing. I was merely tossing your own argument back at you. And you're behaving like a high school football player who just sacked the QB. Where's your dignity?

Irene: Sorry for offending you. I thought Jesse had answered your Fred Phelps analogy pretty well. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, I don't think it's a particularly good one. From what I can gather, the Sinclair family didn't purposely seek out that church just to cause maximum offense, which is Phelps's approach. They chose it because a family member attends there.

Now if Fred has a stipulation in his Will demanding that his memorial service be MCed by Gene Robinson, then I might be prepared to accept the comparison.

Irene: "Even as a Christian with an old-fashioned view of homosexuality, I cringe when I hear Fred Phelps going on his 'God hates fags' tirades. Are there, conversely, any homosexuals out there who cringe when they hear about other homosexuals (claiming to represent YOUR interests) carrying the Hate Crimes philosophy to the extreme that it threatens the freedom of speech and religion of EVERYBODY?"

This is SUCH a strange analogy to me. Nobody in the gay activism community goes around saying "DEATH TO THE STRAIGHTEYS." I'm not even sure HOW you could articulate the gay-rights agenda (haha) in terms that are as violent and offensive as Fred's tirades.

The other thing here: we're talking about a purely civil disagreement, not a legal one. Nobody is threatening with legislation, or even a lawsuit. Nobody is threatening your, or High Point Church's, "right to free speech." Censorship is an alarm bell that's sounded ALL THE TIME in this country to ward off disagreement, but in this case, mutual hostility and disagreement are the beginning and end of the problem.

If you really want to get into the Marriage debate, then go for it. That's an issue where talk of freedom, free speech, and government sanction actually makes sense. But nobody can take away the rights of these two parties to be pissed at one another... nor can they take away Phelps' right to say stupid shit at Veterans' funerals. Talking of "threaten(ing) the freedom of speech and religion of EVERYBODY" is irrelevant to this case.

And, Irene, I am sorry for not responding to your post about why homosexuality might be a sin. That was ungracious of me. I did read it and was going to type a thank you, but somehow my fingers didn't make it to the keyboard.

While I don't agree with it, it was a very thoughtful response in which you actually considered your grounds for your belief, as opposed to many Christians who never get beyond "because the Bible says so".

Having read quite widely on cosmology, the Christian view of the Universe doesn't make much sense to me. I do perceive in the elegance of quantum mechanics the workings of something that may be a Creator, but he (she, it, it doesn't really matter) is very far from the Being conceived by any of the world's religions. (To be frank, I think that Hinduism gets closest.)

And - not that it should matter - Clavos is correct in his assessment of my sexual orientation. Either that, or my wife is in for a nasty shock! ;-)

Jesse, WRONG, Irene's analogy is an excellent one. In fact the homosexual lobby is infinitely more powerful than Phelp's one family. And there are plenty of people pushing legislation, it just hasn't succeeded yet. Where have ya been? I think you need to read more. And no, I don't mean the new york times.

Sorry I'm late (as usual) to this debate.

I'll start by observing that I really hate it when people cite Paul as if HE were JC. He wasn't. In fact, a helluva lot of what he wrote is diametrically the OPPOSITE of what JC preached - & practiced. From early on, it occurred to me that in fact if Paul hadn't claimed some sort of conversion, his perfect m.o. for destroying this hated nascent religion/blasphemy (to him) would be to infiltrate it, gain high credibility/authority, & then deliberately pump it full of dogma & theology exactly the OPPOSITE of what the founder & original followers intended so that the entire structure would be a sham. It seems to me he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, if that is so. And if it wasn't his intent to do so, then he accidently perpetrated the greatest harm to the original Message to the point where he couldn't have done worse if he'd intended to. Who says Satan doesn't work in mysterious & effective ways? Gulling the #1 fervid cheerleader into spouting precisely what his purported leader DIDN'T preach to the faithful as gospel? Nice job, Hellboy.

Paul has way too many problems of his own, both obviously psychologically & (via what shreds of history are left as well as inference from the various letters, letters, gospels, & traditions) literally to have much credibility for anyone with half a brain who can read & isn't inclined to swallow whole whatever is fed to them by religious authorities. It's known (not surmised) that he had some first-class run-ups against not only Peter, but James as well as the rest of the Original Our Gang, not only over power/authority in the group, but over policies & intent (as in, what would JC do?) as well. Massive ones.

Now, considering that THEY were all actually present to hear what JC himself said, and Paul was NOT - regardless of how very convincing he claimed his vision of JC to be - I'd have to say that given any claims by Paul over those who had actually been there & had post-sermon Q&A sessions w/JC as well - I'd believe anybody BUT Paul. Paul obviously had issues also with self-aggrandizement, self-congratulations, self-importance, etc. Read his letters. Quite a few are full of '...me-me-me-I-I-I....' He's an incredible narcissist, to start with. Arrogant & cocksure as well. And his policies towards women stem not from nattering biddies in the stalls, but from the traditional view of Greeks (remember he was a Greek Jew) that women are less than human. Indeed, he verges on the misogynistic to the point where several armchair psychologists/theologians have speculated rather strongly that he was himself a homosexual, albiet a closeted & self-hating one. Oddly, I've seldom met a gay man who hates women; most of them seem to be just the opposite, & like women in general, just prefer men for sexual/romantic partners. Not being a psychologist myself, I can't say how that particular foible works out, but I do assert Paul is no friend to women in general.

To build most of the Christian religion as currently practiced throughout the West on Paul's rantings & misplaced assumption of authority & understanding of JC's message is the main reason I have personally rejected the Christian church in any of its manifestations. PAUL is NOTJC, never was, never will be. And his teachings are for the most part the exact opposite of what JC actually preached & practiced, on many, many fronts. Yet the bulk of modern Christian theology is based on Paul. Not the fragmentary teachings of JC as quoted in the 4 gospels.

Enough of Paul the maniac. He doesn't deserve further attention, IMO.

I read Irene's comments w/interest. She has some good takes on conservative, traditional church explanations of what is sin, why thinking about things that hurt nobody (seemingly) are still sins, etc. I was lucky enough to have a really good philosophist/theologian for a catechism teacher, who was willing to go into the minute details of the official rationales against this that & t'other thing, & her explanations accord a lot with his, in that it isn't the sinner, it's the sin. The sinner (including the despicable Phelps) is to be pitied & loved - altho as she pointed out, not necessarily given podium space. Forgiveness is from God, not anyone else. JC never ascribes the authority to forgive to anybody but the Top Guy, regardless of what the RCs claim about Peter (which is actually a 3rd century insertion & therefore eminently suspect anyway).

After thumbing thru my own several copies/versions of the Bible, I can't find any reference to homosexuals by JC whatsoever. I'm sure there were plenty around back then, but - especially given the norms of 2000+ BP Judaic culture - they certainly weren't & wouldn't be "out" unless they were totally suicidal or prepared to move to Athens or Rome on a permanent basis. Perhaps therefore they weren't an issue to JC in addressing his Judaic followers, since he was pretty specific that he was NOT preaching to anybody BUT the Israelites. Certainly if he'd been addressing the faults & sins of Everybody, he'd have had plenty to keep him busy, depending on what culture he was focusing on: the Greeks - loose morals, the Jews - internecine squabbling & forgetting their #1 obligations to Yaweh, the Romans - well, just about everything anyone could think of, starting with power-craziness.

Since JC didn't ever directly discuss this aspect, it would be interesting to hear how Believers justify current religious policies towards gays in general. I'd have to agree with Gonzo & Gandhi: Christiantiy would be a dandy religion - if only someone would actually practice it.

Your rudeness-to-logic ratio is approaching infinity, Duncan (as opposed to Irene, who knows how to make a decent point). If the analogy makes sense, spell it out for me.

Fred Phelps : The Sinclair Family :: what? : what?

homophobic activism : gay-rights activism?
religiously-minded people : homosexuals?
conservatives : liberals?

All these analogies show is that the religious far-right is much more mean-spirited and petty than the left. If that's what you're trying to prove, then by all means, make the claim.

ok..reverse order, so i can catch up...


Zedd in #55 - thanks for the condesencion, but no thanks...try dealing wiht my argumentative position, and i migh tsuggest keeping away from what you think you know (especially about me) and stick to what you know yourself for certain...do explain what you think i am missing in my "scholarship"...to wit..i differentiate between Pauline doctrine and the Synoptic texts

but, apostate and heretic that i am..i consider Iraneus and Constantine to have ruined th eoriginal concept of the Annointed's ministry and message...i can get into that if you would like, but i don't think you are really interested

however, trying to impugn my understanding of current theological dogma, as well as it's historical origins is not only insulting, but ludicrous based on just my body of writing here on BC...you are entitled to your Opinion, of course...but no hugs for smarmy types

#53 falls into the same category of talking about things the typist has no fucking clue of and should stay away from...his right to his Opinion, of course..but just trying to bash with silly ad hominem does nothing to further the conversation...he sez..
"however, i do operate under the premise that gnosis > dogma

Thereby falling into the fallacy of thinking you are privy to revealed truth. The formula should actually be:

logos > gnosis > dogma"

my formulation stated "knowledge is greater than authoritarian pronouncements"...now i don't pretend to know what he meant by "logos"...but here's the beginning of the wiki entry for it, just to show how wide ranged the meanings are...


Logos (Greek λόγος) is an important term in philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion.

Its semantic field extends beyond "word" to notions such as "thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard", or "logic". In English, the word is the root of "log" (as in record), of "logic," and of the "-ology" suffix (e.g., geology).

Heraclitus established the term in Western philosophy as meaning the fundamental order of the cosmos. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to argument from reason. After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo adopted the term into Jewish philosophy. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, through which all things are made. The gospel further identifies the Logos as God (theos), providing scriptural support for the trinity. It is this sense, the Logos as Jesus Christ and God, that is most common in popular culture.

Psychologist Carl Jung used the term for the masculine principle of rationality.

i reject the Vox formulation, due to the uncertainty of meaning being implied as well as it not fitting th ebasics of the formula i presented, as well as the implication that i am in any way attempting to claim any "special knowledge"...merely stating what i typed above...

Irene...i didn't forget about you, will check in later and respond

Excelsior?

If you're not claiming 'special knowledge' then you should be using some term other than gnosis. I'm sure looking up the wiki entry on logos was fun, but now go look up the one on gnosis, because unless god is whispering in your ear or you have a magic book given to you by the Angel Moroni, or you're in touch with your inner Thetan, a claim of gnosis is a pretty weak reed to cling to.

As for the Wikipedia definition of logos it has the usual flaw of being too thorough to be useful. Boiled down, logos is just reason. And IMO reason trumps 'revealed mysterious bullshit' aka gnosis every time.

Most of our discussions here aren't theological in nature, so unless you're going to turn politics into a religion - which might put you in MR's camp - sticking to the secular definition of these terms is probably a good idea.

dave

@ #81 - ummm..bite me..

the direct translation of gnosis is Knowledge, just as logos is Word

the implications can indeed be otherwise, but those are the direct, secular translations...therefore your entire premise is incorrect

as for the theological versus the political...try going with the context of the thread...as well as the discussion in which i use the terms, in this case it IS in the theological, and to avoid confusion i even defined my terms

i've long since stoppted even attempting to advise you, might one suggest you try to avoid doing the same towards me?

probably too much to ask for, i know...

but i can Dream, can't i?

Excelsior?

skeptomai>gnosis>logos>dogma

Logos beats gnosis.
Gnosis beats Dogma.
Dogma beats Logos.

one... two... three... SHOOT!

I think gonzo should write a blog post on the definition of gnosis, its value in the context of human thought, and how it interfaces with Logos. After all, logos could be a form of revealed knowledge, inspired by the divine order of the universe. Or, conversely, gnosis could be a form of logos, specifically the type rooted in intuition rather than mathematics.

Why don't we have a philosophy section on BC? Come on! Then I could stop submitting articles to Culture, where nobody reads them!

The Bible:
1.) was written by human beings but, for the most part, we don't know who the individuals were, when they lived, or how they came to write.

2. is not original but a copy of a copy of a copy... The originals do not exist, as far as is known.

3. is not 'A' book but rather a collection of books put together many years after they were written by committees who decided what to include(in support of the Church's agenda) and what to leave out (anything that challenged their orthodoxy.)

4. presents a human interpretation of the nature and actions of an imagined abstract divine being. (Humans cannot possibly describe the ineffable and conceptionally indefineable, and so all descriptions of the mind or being of God--being beyond existence as we understand the term and, therefore, beyond human understanding--are only human conceptualizations, not literal facts.)

In Acts 17:23, Paul states that he is going to make the unknown God known--an arrogance that has poisoned Christianity from that time forward.

Although God is beyond mere existence and the limits of human knowledge, orthodox Christians believe he has revealed "himself" to them. Paul's theology can't reveal the nature of God--nothing can. It only convinces Christians that the things THEY think are true about God and his will are the gospel truth--a false, dangerous and damaging human rigid mindset.

Doc,

I understood what you were doing. I was purposely being silly. I couldn't resit. Hey it's Duke's thread, there is an unwritten rule....

By the way BBC is getting some good programming. Have you been watching Jeckle and Hyde? There is also a new sci-fi coming up and off course Dr. Whooo-oooo (I always sing the song when I say his name, I'm such a nerd).

Im Zulu. I cant shed my dignity. Its there even when I don't want it. Oh, what to do....?

Gonzo,

You are right. I shouldn't have said that. I am sorry.

*Hey it's Duke's thread, there is an unwritten rule....*

...you mean the conspiracy to be rudely caddish - ?

despicable

No, troll, the conspiracy (a pretty open one) to thumb our noses at Selwyn's Neanderthal views by hijacking the thread. Pretty harmless really.

Honestly, you're the most untrollish troll I've ever come across...

Zedd, haven't caught Jekyll yet, although it looks intriguing. I've been DVRing MI5 (aka Spooks), Dr Who and Coupling. Ain't got time for much else, especially since my wife (bless her) seems determined to record the Complete Works of Oprah and Dr 90210, and of course she needs time to watch them before our DVR hard drive gets filled up!

"Since JC didn't ever directly discuss this aspect, it would be interesting to hear how Believers justify current religious policies towards gays in general."

Nancy, I can see that you're not a fan of Catholicism, so I'll try to answer this question in as evangelical/Protestant a way as I can. First of all, Paul doesn't contradict Jesus. The emphasis of much of Paul's writings was on his Greek audience. The Gospel writers were mostly focused on their Jewish readers.

So the ban against homosexual activity is a matter of law that the Old and New Testaments agree upon. The fact that Jesus didn't say anything about it doesn't matter, as the Bible itself is God's voice. Jesus didn't say anything about not sleeping with wild beasts, but that doesn't mean he endorsed it.

But is there a reason for the law against homosexual behaviour? Didn't Jesus overturn the old law? Which OT laws are we allowed to ignore?

The importance of children was integral to the Jewish life. It was the basis of their identity and survival. Some people would be consecrated to G-d and live without sex, but most were squeezing out kids. Sex was the fulfillment of the obligation to go forth and multiply. Any act which limited familial reproduction was a sin: spilling the seed, adultery, bestiality, whatever.

Jesus supported that moral code in dozens of ways, from criticizing the Samarian woman to partying at Cana. He even upped the ante on adultery, saying that thinking about cheating is cheating. He condemned divorce, and stated the the Mosaic law was too leniant! Also, Paul wrote a lot about marriage, saying things that fit the OT tradition.

If I remember my catechism, the definition of sin is that which opposes God's will. The norm of marriage and children is God's will, and any use of sex or marriage in a way contrary to reproduction is a sin.

troll - i'll stop being a "cad" on a Selwyn thread when he stops using phrasology like "Episcopagan" and the like...fair enough?

Zedd - accepted, no worries

Lee - you grok in fullness

Jesse - you think far too highly of my ability to write...i've tried delivering on such topics previously...

Irene - i have not forgotten you...my reasoning for asking you to produce sai dquotes was to avoid the distractions such as the one you utilized about th eincident of the adulterous wife... it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion...

what i was attempting to find out was EXACTLY what scriptural passage you are referencing to list homosexuality as a "sin"

my understanding has always been that it came from Leviticus and/or different oblique references from Paul (Saul of Tarsus)...hence my asking if you had something that was alleged as a direct quote from "Jesus", since i can't think of any such at the moment, anywhere, in any text..

in fact, historical data of the early Church (up through the Valentinian period) shows that believers greeted each other wiht a kiss on the mouth...men and women, women and women, men and men...this custom was abolished during the Pauline period

hence my asking where you find the admonition that Jesus himself stated homosexuality was considered a "sin"...NOT the words of any "elder" or pope...but a direct quote, please

Excelsior?

takes all kinds Dreadful...even liberals and bigots

censorship is distasteful

Lee

"It only convinces Christians that the things THEY think are true about God and his will are the gospel truth--a false, dangerous and damaging human rigid mindset."

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by this statement. If you are saying that it is futile to discuss God because he is God (infinate and eternal); Since it is futile to discuss what is eternal because it has no characteristics.

However we derive that notion from a lot of Paul's writings (the bigness of God that is).

Paul talks about a realationship with God that has never existed among this group of Athenians. He was talking to a crowd of very religious people who worshiped every idol available including one that Paul said was called the unknown god. He used the existance of this idol to reveal what was revealed to him. He says:

24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

Context always helps doesn't it.


Also what is revealed in scripture is not God but us.

's not censorship, troll. How is anyone being stopped from saying anything they like here?

The norm of marriage and children is God's will, and any use of sex or marriage in a way contrary to reproduction is a sin.

Oh, very nice, Baronius. Thank you so much for informing me that the loving marriage I am a partner in, which happens to be childless, is sinful.

Shall I tell my wife, or do you want to?

As I mentioned some 70 comments ago, you, gentle readers determine what is news. This little piffle of trash about a changed funeral plan seems to have gotten a lot you scratching under your underwear. It is rather amusing...

shouting down unpopular views is not directly censorship either but it has the same stink as your disjointed hijacks

...of course I wouldn't be nearly so down on your smarmy act if you kids had chosen something to talk about other than sports

troll, since your second utterance right there indicates that you do have a sense of humor, where's it been?

We change the subject on a lot of Duke's threads because his opinions leave a bad taste in the mouth. That's our view. I say we are exercising our freedom of speech, not censorship.

And in case you hadn't noticed, we have been discussing not only sports but also British TV, and have now embarked on a quite in-depth discussion of Pauline theology.

both British TV with its obviously homosexual agenda and Pauline theology are very much on topic

The norm of marriage and children is God's will, and any use of sex or marriage in a way contrary to reproduction is a sin.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Dave

Careful, Dave. Cardinal Baronius will put you in the comfy chair if you carry on like that...

troll,

How many comments would there be on these Duke threads if Doc et al simply boycotted the thread altogether, rather than just changing the subject.

IMO, it's a far cry from censorship to change the subject; anyone who wants to stay on topic is free to do so, even with the subject subversively changed, n'est-ce-pas?

Dread, I'm sorry. That was a very, very short posting and I skipped through a lot. I should have said "possibility of children". If you don't do anything to prevent children, you're open to God's will. This is where we get into the stuff that Catholics and Protestants don't see eye-to-eye on, which I was trying to avoid. Nalle is right (although he thinks he's joking), the posibility of procreation is a pretty important thing.

Doc

MI5 is amazing!! I caught Coupling the first time around. Loved it. Thats right it's called Jekyll :o). LOVE! Its so smart and ridiculous. I keep missing Dr. Who.

Did you catch that short run series of the guy who woke up in 1973 (i think) after an accident. It was so well made. He'd been a detective in our time and found himself in the 70's working on a case which may involve his Dad. It was brill! He knew that what he was experiencing was weired and he kept thinking he would wake up. What made it so smart was that his reactions to some of the antiquated goings on of that era mirrored we the audiences reaction. The police brutality of his fellow policeman, often startled him. I forget the name of the show (off course)

Thanks, Herr Baron. I also feel bad about snarling like that. I realize you were simply trying to explain the Church's general POV, rather than specifically your own.

Shake.

Zedd, the show you're talking about was called Life on Mars. I've read about it but it must have run on BBC America before I got Dish.

They've just signed a deal to make an American version of it, which will probably bomb spectacularly, as most of these remakes tend to do (The Office being a notable exception).

"This right ends, though, where my property line begins."
You OWN the church? Can you walk on water, too?

Re # 90:

"God's will" is an interesting term, illustrative of human hubris.

Claiming to know God's will implies that we could comprehend what that would mean on a divine scale of understanding--a self-evident impossibility to all but the delusional or seriously misguided.

We, of course, can only know what those words mean to us in human terms of understanding. So, claiming something is "God's will" is only saying that it seems right to us in our mortal and limited capacities, or that we want it be an unbreakable rule for all. In other words, it is someone's very human interpretation of what they WANT to be the law from on high.

(And, no, telling us the Bible says so and the Bible is true because it says it's true is not a convincing argument.)

I would think that since God, by definition, is beyond existence and creation as we apply those terms to our world, we cannot logically define nor confine such an essence--or its will-- by any human constraints.

Lee, that makes sense, but only if you believe that God is an intergalactic moron. Most adults can talk to five-year-olds, so I imagine that God could communicate to us if he wanted to. Maybe he doesn't want to. That's a possibility. Based on my study of world religions, I'm convinced that Christianity is correct.

Everyone should just chill out, go away and have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, then come back and rejoin the discourse.

And of course, if you want a proper cup of tea, everyone knows you need a nice teapot.

Tea is the preferred brew of the civilised (which is possibly why Americans love coffee, although they don't do it that well :).

Baronius: "I'm convinced that Christianity is correct".

And we're talking the pure form of Christianity here too Baronius, right? The one that says we shouldn't make judgments, shouldn't exclude anyone, should offer our love without conditions (and by extension to the last, the lost and the least), should be tolerant of others, should behave at all times with compassion, should forgive - and should ask forgiveness of ourselves because none of us is perfect - and should treat our neighbours as we would treat ourselves. Also, all the while remebering that the sins we should be focusing on are our own, not those of others.

Which is why I don't believe many "Christians" of the evangelical right are even Christians at all. They are very fond of telling you that the instructions for living are to be found in the Bible, and if you don't do what they say you'll go to Hell, but they forget that the whole basis of Christianity is about those very simple of teachings of Christ - also to be found in the Bible. Indeed, real Christianity has always been more about love and community than about a rigid ideology.

In a way, fundamentalist "christians" are a bit like fundo muslims - they take the bits that suit their argument and twist the ideology to justify their own actions.

Mine might be a very Catholic viewpoint, but I'm convinced it's as close we get to the original idea, which is that the spiritual journey is a contract between oneself and God.

Stm, I have to chuckle when non-believers such as you pose as authorities on the faith. Did you ever hear, don't throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot? Do you know that Jesus called people children of the Devil and a den of vipers? Not only that, but to say that making judgments is wrong is a judgment.

It is you who is picking and choosing. You know nothing about Christianity. So stick to what you know, like plum pudding and tea time.

Duncan,

STM is a practicing Roman Catholic. An Irish one, at that.

You might want to wipe that egg off your face, know-it-all.

It may be 100 degrees outside, but that cup of tea is sounding pretty good all the same.

Have to be out of a jug kettle though. Don't own a teapot.

BRB...

Clavos, if he was a practicing Catholic, he would understand his church's teachings and not profess nonsense. The Catholic Church calls homosexual feelings gravely disordered and the behavior a grave sin. Anyway, if he really thinks he's a practicing Catholic, he'd better keep practicing, maybe he'll get it right one of these days.

Of course, Irish Catholics are often the worst kind. Hello Ted Kennedy?

So rather than stand up and admit you got it wrong, you take the coward's way out and resort to ad hominem attacks. Really classy, Duncan.

(It's a good thing personal attacks aren't allowed. The words 'arrogant', 'little' and 'prick' come to mind...)

Duncan probably also doesn't understand that the real Church doesn't close its doors to anyone, sinners or not. It follows the REAL teachings of Christ, which are very different to the kinds of hate mongering practised by the heathen evangelical Christian right - who, like I say, are not real Christians at all.

You simply can't hate and be a Christian at the same time, and another person's homosexuality is God's business Duncan, not ours. We'd all be better off looking at our own sins before we look at those of others.

Casting the first stone, and all that ... remember. And mate, please think before you get on here misguidedly claiming to be a real Christian and calling me an unbeliever (I guess that signifies you think you have all the answers), a member of the original Church that can trace its direct, unbroken lineage all the way back to the apostles.

I think Duncan would find his answer in the fact that many of the hospices around the world that care for the victims of AIDS are run by the Catholic Church.

They don't discriminate when it comes to the dying, nor do they care you got it.

You have your ideas totally arse-about Duncan. Perhaps it's not up to me to judge you, but I was told by a wonderful, caring priest Jesuit priest once who works (happily, and with love) on the sleazy side of life with drug addicts, prostitues and yes, victims of AIDS, that you can't hate AND be a Christian. The two are mutually exclusive.

Of course, we could easily get around this very simply by shooting all gays, leftists, liberals, those on the "wet" right, any Christians who don't confirm to the fundamentalist "christian" viewpoint, people of other religions, any immigrants who aren't white or even better, anglo-saxon, blacks, browns, oranges, yellows, latinos, etc.

Possibly once that happens, then we can set about restoring America to the values upon which it was founded: freedom for all (except for those fu.kers we don't like).

I read the article...and was reading down the comments when I got to #55...

...Gonzo,

Its quite clear that you don't understand Christian theology.

I almost fell out of my chair! I quickly started skipping over comments looking for gonzo's reply...all I can is...it took you long enough gonzo!

I'm not sure how the Jesuits let you get away gonzo?!??!

STM - what's the "wet" right?

And if you're gonna use "We" when talking about restoring American values...then get your ass over here...let's spark one up and talk about it! I'm sure we can come up with some kind of agreement on what those values should be...Let's start with the value of "sparking one up"!!!

I don't think STM has been to America since the time he announced to everyone he was wearing "thongs"...and in his mind he was referring to his flip-flops, but everyone else thought he was referring to his underwear. IMO most Ozzies make the world a better place.

I'm looking for the one true religion...I've been turning over stones in my yard...I uprooted a few trees...nothing...dirt and worms is all I can find...

Honestly, I think I've found more truth in things that were outlawed by the christian church thousands of years ago than I ever did in 11 years of catholic school. Not sure I'll ever grok it all...not sure I really want to!

Nancy - you just made me throw up in my mouth...luckily all I tasted was a little bit of bitter coffee...the thought of seeing STM or any guy for that matter in a thong is really really disturbing to me!

It brings back this memory I have of this 80 year old man in Waikiki wearing one of those sling things on the beach...sort of like a marble bag...only much more disgusting!

No offense STM

And since we're supposed to be talking abou funerals on this thread...I have a question.

I was sitting at a red light yesterday waiting to make a left turn and right before I got the green arrow a cop car pulled into the intersection to let a stream of about a 100 cars through in a funeral procession.

My question is this: Why hold up traffic for a funeral procession? Something tells me the person in that staion wagon isn't in a real hurry...but I was!

(Dreadful - *We change the subject on a lot of Duke's threads because his opinions leave a bad taste in the mouth. That's our view.*

if that's your view why not say so...present your argument and be done with it rather than spreading PATDD (passive aggressive thread disruption disorder that is...which could prove contagious and for which I'm not sure there is a pharmaceutical intervention) - ?

BC threads have lives of their own without your plotted distractions

Clavos - we'll never know how many bigots itching to vent their collective spleen in comments are discouraged by the self appointed BC Thought Soldiers...and as I read the subplots in the evolution of the anti Duke movement that was one of its early objectives despite present protestations of innocence

if you want to silence your 'opposition' then come up with an observation that leaves 'em speechless

just my humorless opinion)

Whew!

These threads can literally turn on a dime!!

Again, troll;

Changing the subject prevents NO ONE from posting their own (presumably on topic) comments.

It's pretty benign - IMO, falls in the same category as a protest march.

For evidence as to how little subject changing inhibits comments, merely re-read the previous twenty or so comments on this thread.

Changing the subject? Maybe we all have a little case of ADD?

And on that note...Nickleback is coming to town next week....

irony is a dirty job...

Re # 109:
Baronius,

Your "imagining" God could communicate with us if he wanted to is my point exactly.

As a mortal, you can have no direct knowledge or understanding of what an ineffable divine being would or could want or would or could do. So, you have only your imagination, concepts, assumptions and opinions, which do not equal rational knowledge.

"Based on my study of world religions, I'm convinced that Christianity is correct."

A Muslim might say, "Based on my study, I'm convinced that Islam is correct". Someone else says, "Based on my study, I'm convinced all religions are largely mythological".

Unsupported premises are not rational arguments.

The point for you to address is the irrationality of those who imagine that a divine being communicates its will to the finite minds of chosen insiders who are then empowered to issue marching orders to the rest of humanity.

Lol. Andy, thongs in Australia are worn on your feet. It's our name for flipflops. Lol. What Americans call a thong, we call a G-string. I'm a surfer mate. I wear fucking boardshorts (yes, I'm STM).

That's why Nancy wrote it ... because she knows how these cross-cultural things can go down the gurgler.

Lol. I'm gobsmacked you'd think I'd wear a g-string. I can't believe ANY blokes actually wear them, as they're for sheilas, but I have seen a few at the beach.

SS,

How about a short treatise on the etymology of "gobsmacked?" Its meaning is clear enough from context, but I'm curious, language being one of my interests.

troll,

If irony was your intent, I apologize for being too dense to appreciate it.

Now I know what board shorts are...but I don't care where you wear 'em mate...they can't be comfortable on your feet!!!

I am kidding okay?!?!

Andy's right; you'd trip a lot wearing 'em on your feet.

And surfing would be impossible...

Lee wrote: "Jesus supported that moral code in dozens of ways, from criticizing the Samarian woman to partying at Cana. He even upped the ante on adultery, saying that thinking about cheating is cheating."

Lee, did he criticise the Samarian woman? I don't think what he did was in the nature of a crticism, or even an admonishment.

And here's the truth about the adultery thing. I thought the way