Centerfield

No surprise here...Pat Robertson seems to believe that the apparent demise of Ariel Sharon can be traced to his efforts to "divide [God's] land."

On a more ironic note, one of the Executive Members of the Southern Baptist Convention was arrested in Oklahoma City Tuesday night for soliciting a police officer. The Rev. Lonnie Latham is the Senior Pastor at the South Tulsa Baptist Church and has frequently spoken out against same-sex marriage and has tried to convince gays that they can become straight "if they accept Jesus Christ as their savior and reject their 'sinful, destructive lifestyle."' Just in case you were wondering, the cop was male.

Posted by: AR at January 6, 2006 08:40 AM

Specifically, soliciting for oral sex. Explain that one to the congregation back in Tulsa, Rev.

Posted by: Tully at January 6, 2006 10:12 AM

What's actually kind of funny is that had the cop been female, the good Rev would most likely be allowed to throw himself prostrate at the altar, "see the light", and be reconciled...images of Jimmy Swaggart dancing in my head. But, for some reason, gay sex outside of marriage is considered a much more drastic sin to a lot of Southern Baptists than hetero sex.

Posted by: AR at January 6, 2006 10:27 AM

But, for some reason, gay sex outside of marriage is considered a much more drastic sin to a lot of Southern Baptists than hetero sex.

Based on nothng more then the "icky" factor I suspect.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at January 6, 2006 10:31 AM

But, for some reason, gay sex outside of marriage is considered a much more drastic sin to a lot of Southern Baptists than hetero sex.

Hmm, what about gay sex inside of marriage? :-)

Posted by: Tully at January 6, 2006 10:42 AM

Didn't Oklahoma pass an amendment against that, Tully?

Posted by: PatHMV at January 6, 2006 11:25 AM

Oooh, oooh... what if a man and a woman got married. Then one of them had a transexual operation, but they stayed married! Anti-transexuals would consider them to still be man and woman, but they'd obviously be having some kind of gay sex, within the bounds of a recognized, traditional marriage. Whose head would explode first? Falwell's? Robertson's?

Posted by: PatHMV at January 6, 2006 11:28 AM

I wasn't thinking of the legal angles, Pat, but the moral/sin angle. Is gay sex inside of marriage less sinful than gay sex outside of marriage? If "Yes," isn't it thus completely immoral to work to prevent gay marriage from being legal? Aren't those who fight against legalizing gay marriage actually advocating sex outside of marriage by making it impossible for gays to have sex inside of marriage?

LOVE the married transexual example! But I think the answer is "none of the above," because you didn't list Phelps as a choice.

Posted by: Tully at January 6, 2006 11:41 AM

Phelps! I knew I forgot somebody...

Half the people opposing legalized gay marriage are also opposed to gay sex, period, so they wouldn't say they are advocating for sex outside of marriage at all. The other half are people concerned for traditions but who don't really have a problem with sex outside of marriage at all. So that bunch is fine with homosexual shacking up.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 6, 2006 11:54 AM

In Christianity marriage is only ever between a man and a woman. A person who strives to make "gay marriage" a Christian sanctioned institution, is directly fighting against Christianity itself. Knowing this, some inventive sects have tried to "bless gay unions" instead of explicitly inventing gay marriage.

Gay sex is always sex outside of Christian marriage -- fornication. Sex outside of marriage is always sinful, so gay sex is always sinful -- without exception. If gay sex is always fornication, how can a Christian institution "bless" a union around an inherently sinful act?

Everyone is a sinner in Christianity, no one is perfect. Christianity calls on Christians to acknowledge their sins are bad, and seriously try to stop doing them (repentence). Church is a kind of clinic to help people put their sins behind them. Yet even a person struggling to put their sins behind them may fall down and fail.

Every Christian is tempted by different sins to different degrees. Say you have one who is especially tempted by adultery, alcoholism, drug addiction, whatever. They honestly struggle against it, but sometimes fail. Does that mean they can't tell other people that this particular act is sinful? What they do doesn't take away from the truth of what Christianity teaches. Nor does it take away from the truth that they seriously believe it is bad, even if they are struggling and sometimes failing. The most inspiring testamonies against sin, are often from people who were mired in a particular sin and managed to change their life and put it behind them.

If they don't believe what they are doing is bad, if they aren't struggling at all, then that person shouldn't be a leader. Even this person can turn around and become a good Christian, however. The opportunity for change and repentence doesn't end until death. Even a serial murderer can go to heaven if they truly repent.

Posted by: Susan at January 6, 2006 12:39 PM

Susan...with all due respect, that is--of course--your understanding of Christianity. There are many other Christians who do not hold to the same belief. Of course, you'd probably say that they are "true Christians," but I'll leave that to you to say...wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.

Pat...lol...you have come up with the absolutely perfect scenario. You did; however, forget one other head--James Dobson.

Posted by: AR at January 6, 2006 01:13 PM

The most inspiring testamonies against sin, are often from people who were mired in a particular sin and managed to change their life and put it behind them.

One quick question...why does it always seem that the "ex-gays" who make the talk show rounds to proclaim "freedom from sin" are on the payroll of an "ex-gay" ministry? Where is the average "Joe Electrician" whose source of income isn't directly related to his "testimony." Just curious...

Posted by: AR at January 6, 2006 01:18 PM

Did Christ himself ever explictly declare homosexuality a sin, or was that left to his minions? Let's not forget that not all of the bible concerns the teachings of Christ.

And while we are at it, can someone explain to me why sins such as homosexuality are singled out for special "Christian" attention, but things like eating shellfish are widely dismissed or ignored as though those particular passages of the bible must be no more than silly mistakes?

How do Christians decide which inherently sinful acts are the ones which deserve zealous approbation, and which inherently sinful acts really shouldn't be such a big deal anymore?

I'm still waiting for good or at least honest and serious answers to these questions because I think they are intellectually legitimate queries. But every time I raise them I'm viewed as some sort of anti-Christian zealot. FWIW. I truly DIG Christ and his teachings, but the old testament not so much. Why is it that so many among the group of people who pay fealty to both the new _AND_ the old testament are the most zealous and rigid about declaring what is christian and what is not christian. The teachings of the old testament are NOT the direct teachings of Christ, as far as I know. Granted, I'm far from being an expert.

Posted by: bk at January 6, 2006 02:16 PM

Susan,

I'm not a Christian, so I can't comment on the Christian view of sin and temptation. But from a commonsense perspective, your argument is pretty silly. Someone that preaches against gay sex and then goes out and actively seeks it out is a hypocrite. It's one thing, for example, for someone who is an alchoholic in recovery to preach against the evils of demon rum. It's another thing if the guy is actively going out and getting drunk. This is what's happening here; this person isn't "struggling" against sin, he is simply telling other people not to do it, while he continues to seek it out. And it's even more hypocritical for someone like this (or other Christians)to say that homosexuality "is a lifestyle choice" like many do that the person can change whenever he wants it. Obviously, that's not true unless you assume this guy decided to choose the gay life style, in which case he is even more of a hypocrite.

Another thing; it's one thing to say you shouldn't do something; it's another thing to advocate laws that actually criminalize the behavior. (And, please don't tell me that fundamentalists did not support sodomy laws.) That's nothing but imposing so-called "Christian values" on everyone else.

And then, when you couple that with this minister going out and trying to get a blow job from a male cop, that ought to be a bit much even for a Christian. If that's not hypocrisy, does the concept even exist?

Here's a suggestion for those "Christians": mind your own goddam business and stop worrying about people whose behavior is harming no one.

Posted by: Marc at January 6, 2006 02:24 PM

And then, when you couple that with this minister going out and trying to get a blow job from a male cop, that ought to be a bit much even for a Christian.

Marc,

That's really not quite fair. He may have wanted to give the cop a blow job. You shouldn't be so presumptuous.

Posted by: WHQ at January 6, 2006 02:36 PM

Brian,

The points you raise are the ones that finally led me to leave the Southern Baptist Church a number of years ago. If you truly study Christ's teachings, they are a model for anyone to live by--do good, love your fellow man, love God, etc. In fact, He very specifically gave two commandments--"Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind and body; and Love your neighbor as yourself." I think that those two charges pretty much sum up his life.

On the other hand, all of this "selective literalism" as I call it, is just absolutely mind boggling. You can wear mixed threads--something forbidden by the Old Testament--but gay sex is a sin. The OT forbid so many things--enjoying marital bliss during the wrong time of the month, eating shellfish as you mention, having debt...the list goes on and on and on. Obviously, Christians do not abide by those regulations today. Ask them if they chose their own spouse or if their parents chose them for them.

Conservative Christians also point to the teachings of Paul as the one NT strike against gays. Interestingly enough, he--along with other apostles--forbade women speaking in church, women going into church without their heads covered (Remember how women used to wear hats when they went to church? Why was that? What happened? Did someone somehow get an exemption?), women being submissive to their husbands, women not working outside the home, etc. Basically, man good, women not so much. I have to point out the obvious...Paul wasn't Christ. Who is the Savior here? Christ or Paul? Is it possible that Paul was influenced by the only culture that he knew? I.e. Ancient Judaic.

Unfortunately, many conservative Christians simply understand the Bible as it is told to them, much like Catholics did during the Inquisition. I don't think there's another book on the face of the earth that can be interpreted in so many ways as the Bible, yet conservative Christians often pronounce their version as the "true one" and all others as "false teaching." There's probably nothing on the face of the earth that irritates me more than someone who claims to speak for God in their interpretation of the Scripture. What qualifies them more than me? Why is their version superior to mine.

IMHO...it's all about control. And, yes, I am a Christian with deeply held beliefs, but I think that so many Christians--just like Muslims or Communists or Socialists, etc--are controlled by their self appointed leaders who tell them what to think and do.

Okay...let the stone throwing begin.

Posted by: AR at January 6, 2006 02:48 PM

Did Christ himself ever explictly declare homosexuality a sin?

No. Not in any of the Gospels is Jesus reported as having ever said anything at all, one way or another, about homosexuality. Nowhere. The New Testament contains only four passages that have been used as potential condemnations of homosexuality, but they're open to interpretation and HAVE been differently interpreted at various points in history as referring to other things. It's important to remember that we're talking about a collection of works by differing authors that has come down through several different languages and many centuries. It didn't appear written in English on Constantine's doorstep in Rome.

Biblically-based condemnations of homosexuality are not based on the Gospels. Period. HOWEVER...Jesus did say that marriage was between a man and a woman. So while you can't (textually) use the Gospels to argue against homosexuality per se, it's legitimate to present the Gospels as countenancing ONLY hetero marriage, and not gay marriage.

Posted by: Tully at January 6, 2006 02:51 PM

WHQ,

Sorry, you are quite correct. Perhaps he was trying to "give back" to the gay police officer community.

Posted by: Marc at January 6, 2006 02:58 PM

Abel: Paul (Saul) came from a Jewish family in Turkey (Roman province of Cilicia), studied in Jerusalem, but was a Roman citizen and certainly knew the culture of Rome very well. Can't put it all on ancient Judea!

Posted by: Tully at January 6, 2006 03:01 PM

I wonder why this woman has not resigned?

Posted by: Justin at January 6, 2006 03:09 PM

The whole discussion reminds me of a letter I read in the Star about Brokeback Mountain, which basically said "How can you say that homosexuality doesn't lead to grief when all four leading characters are devastated by the revelation that the husbands are gay?"

Of course, the movie's set in the early 60's, when people Were Not That Way (but if they were, they kept quiet about it). The tragedy is that the two men were in love with each other, but they married women in order to deny what they were. It was their denial that caused the pain to them and their wives, not the fact they were gay in the first place.

And would you guys stop picking on that preacher??? After all, he heard Jesus command us to "Love your fellow man." All that guy did was take it literally. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at January 6, 2006 03:11 PM

On another topic, I can't help thinking about those miners in West Virginia. I work in a comfortable office, go to meetings, write stuff, etc, but the most danger I am likely to face is from the coffee being too hot or being run over crossing the street. Yet my way of life is dependent on people doing unpleasant, dangerous, or just plain lousy jobs--miners, cops, firefighters, soldiers, truck drivers, etc, who make less money than me and do what they have to do to put food on their families tables. It makes one think.

Posted by: Marc at January 6, 2006 03:25 PM

Tully...I, the wayward son of a Baptist Minister, stand rebuked. You are absolutely correct. Paul's Roman Citizenship saved him from a flogging a time or two if I remember correctly or from being put to death...something like that. Don't condemn me for not remembering.

BJ...I did almost fall over the other day when I saw a Brokeback ad during GMA. The religious right has been relatively quiet about this one. My assumption is that they are somewhat afraid of giving it too much publicity and thus allowing people to see (what I have heard) is a heart wrenching story.

Posted by: AR at January 6, 2006 03:33 PM

There was an article in the NYT the other day to the effect that the religious right has changed its modus operandi on these kinds of movies (ie, Brokeback). Instead of ranting and raving, there are apparently adopting an approach in which they review the movie as a movie. While the reviews of movies like this are negative based on movie criteria (eg, plot) as opposed to the moral issue. I guess the idea is that the more subtle approach might have more impact.

Posted by: Marc at January 6, 2006 03:46 PM

Not rebuking, Abel, just "noting for the record." Just as I might note that (if memory serves) all four of the NT citations used to condemn homosexuality come from Paul, and (once again, if memory serves) are references to behaviors in Rome and Roman society during Paul's time there.

Good question, Justin, but I'm trying to avoid condmenatory pop psychology this weekend. :-)

Posted by: Tully at January 6, 2006 04:59 PM

From what I understand many of the Paulist doctrines were in reaction to the newly converted Roman pagans behaving very badly. I think I remember Paul throwing out a lot of the old Judaic rules, like mandatory circumcision, to get more converts. But the converts then continued acting like pagans, so Paul had to lay down the law. It's all a context thing, you know, and a matter of emphasis.

Posted by: WHQ at January 6, 2006 05:03 PM

Marc;
I'll wade into this:

I'm not a Christian, so I can't comment on the Christian view of sin and temptation. But from a commonsense perspective, your argument is pretty silly. Someone that preaches against gay sex and then goes out and actively seeks it out is a hypocrite.

Not to forgive the hypocricy but aren't all Christians (myself included)hypocrites since we say we should act one way but often do the opposite. Even Paul wrote that in Romans. So for me the hypocrite argument only goes so far.

this person isn't "struggling" against sin, he is simply telling other people not to do it, while he continues to seek it out.

Do we really know that he's not "struggling". this does point out that the more you publically profess you Christianity the higher the standard you will be held to.

And it's even more hypocritical for someone like this (or other Christians)to say that homosexuality "is a lifestyle choice" like many do that the person can change whenever he wants it. Obviously, that's not true unless you assume this guy decided to choose the gay life style, in which case he is even more of a hypocrite.

I don't follow (and I'm not trying to get into the genetics vs choice argument). If it was cocaine use wouldn't it be the same thing?

Another thing; it's one thing to say you shouldn't do something; it's another thing to advocate laws that actually criminalize the behavior. (And, please don't tell me that fundamentalists did not support sodomy laws.) That's nothing but imposing so-called "Christian values" on everyone else.

I basically agree with that statement but historically Christians have "imposed their views" regarding infanticide, slavery, euthanasia, racial discrimination and a variety of other social welfare issues. Where's the line where Christians should "shut up"? Posted by: c3 at January 6, 2006 05:51 PM

Donald has returned from a long hiatus to begin blogging over at Indie Castle again. His reintroduction post is a good, concise summary of his political pov.

Posted by: Kevin at January 7, 2006 02:17 PM

Tampa Bay shoots self in butt with turnovers, JAX falls down and gets trampled, Giants shrink before Panthers....

Posted by: Tully at January 8, 2006 04:08 PM

few feet away from it staring hard at the wood and feeling torn casinos Notorious tell ya friends spread the word.

Posted by: casinos at January 14, 2006 05:44 AM

I just wish I could have seen it casino Professor Brown carefully picked the recorder up and examined it His .

Posted by: casino at January 17, 2006 04:02 PM

This is great! Right on brother! online casino held his hands up and shook his head .

Posted by: online casino at January 19, 2006 11:21 PM

No no not beyond an acceptable level Have you been X-rayed recently online casinos The drill! (exasperated) The power drill I bought you for Christmas I .

Posted by: online casinos at January 22, 2006 12:58 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: