It's interesting that being "tolerant" has become the all encompassing ideal...to the point of tolerating something that is personally or nationally destructive. By all means, be tolerant of anything except that which is not to the liking of the current pop culture.

The South has changed a lot, but it still believes in *old fashion* standards of personal morality (and we know where that comes from) and *tradition*. Sometimes there's nothing like having a firm foundation of values to undergird our society, but even that is eroding all in the name of "tolerance". I hope you will like the results that all this "tolerance" brings. The unbridled natures of human beings will bring the shiftin...

It's interesting that being "tolerant" has become the all encompassing ideal...to the point of tolerating something that is personally or nationally destructive. By all means, be tolerant of anything except that which is not to the liking of the current pop culture.

The South has changed a lot, but it still believes in *old fashion* standards of personal morality (and we know where that comes from) and *tradition*. Sometimes there's nothing like having a firm foundation of values to undergird our society, but even that is eroding all in the name of "tolerance". I hope you will like the results that all this "tolerance" brings. The unbridled natures of human beings will bring the shifting sands of ultimate destruction...both personal and national.

The opposition of religious conservatives to homosexuality can be understood only in the broader context of their beliefs about sexuality in general. Many suffer serious hang-ups when it comes to human sexuality--and that fact both distorts and narrows their worldview. So, there's no doubt religious conservative have turned same-sex marriage into a hot-button political issue. But they have been less persuasive in trying to turn it into a moral issue. In fact, I would argue, they've got it backward. Morality is on the side of same-sex marriage, not against it. What's immoral about two people in love entering into a lifelong, committed, monogamous relationship? Conservatives usually end...

The opposition of religious conservatives to homosexuality can be understood only in the broader context of their beliefs about sexuality in general. Many suffer serious hang-ups when it comes to human sexuality--and that fact both distorts and narrows their worldview. So, there's no doubt religious conservative have turned same-sex marriage into a hot-button political issue. But they have been less persuasive in trying to turn it into a moral issue. In fact, I would argue, they've got it backward. Morality is on the side of same-sex marriage, not against it. What's immoral about two people in love entering into a lifelong, committed, monogamous relationship? Conservatives usually end up making the same three arguments: the Bible's against it, marriage has always been between a man and a women; and allowing gays to get hitched will irrevocably destroy the institution of marriage . . . and therefore the nation, the world, the planet the solar system, and the whole damned universe.

Really Jatfla? Why? Because you don't think I could be a Christian and make that statement? On the surface at least, one must admit that you will find plenty of ammunition against homosexuality in the Bible. Leviticus, Sodom and Gomorrah, and The Book of Kings. But a careful examination of Scripture--even those passages such as Leviticus 20:13 reveals the Bible is not condemning of homosexuality. Then of course, we have the fact that Jesus Christ never once condemned homosexuality. He railed against divorce, adultery, cold-heartedness, moneygrubbing, and hypocrisy though. But with Jesus on the sidelines, conservatives looking for confirmation in the New Testament are stuck with ...

Really Jatfla? Why? Because you don't think I could be a Christian and make that statement? On the surface at least, one must admit that you will find plenty of ammunition against homosexuality in the Bible. Leviticus, Sodom and Gomorrah, and The Book of Kings. But a careful examination of Scripture--even those passages such as Leviticus 20:13 reveals the Bible is not condemning of homosexuality. Then of course, we have the fact that Jesus Christ never once condemned homosexuality. He railed against divorce, adultery, cold-heartedness, moneygrubbing, and hypocrisy though. But with Jesus on the sidelines, conservatives looking for confirmation in the New Testament are stuck with St. Paul--who does indeed deliver the goods. So what can we say about St. Paul? He was an observant Jew and he was committed to the law. But he was also a man tormented by sexual desire and he makes no bones about it. Paul was clearly a man of his time. In his writings, he reflects all the presuppositions and patriarchal assumptions--antiwomen, antigay, pro-slavery--of a first century mind-set. Once we recognize these facts, we must conclude that not everything St. Paul says can, or should, be taken literally. Otherwise, the church could never accept women or blacks in any position of authority, much less gays.
But the beauty in Paul is the fact that a man who started out persecuting Christians and denouncing them is himself saved by God's grace. Stripped down from the prejudices of his time, Paul's meaning is the eternal one: that, in God, all things are possible.

Apparently orthodox, traditional, historical Christianity isn't for you.

"Conscious literalism" is only orthodox, traditional, and historical in the sense that it's been around since the late 19th and 20th century. In fact, this approach, (I believe, most likely your approach) is itself modern, largely the product of a particular form of nineteenth and twentieth-century Protestant theology. It is steeped with literalistic, doctrinal, moralistic, patriarchal, exclusivistic, and most importantly after-life oriented doctrine.
It is probably the type of religion you feel most comfortable with Jatfla, just as you feel more comfortable with the customs of "the South." But it mis...

Apparently orthodox, traditional, historical Christianity isn't for you.

"Conscious literalism" is only orthodox, traditional, and historical in the sense that it's been around since the late 19th and 20th century. In fact, this approach, (I believe, most likely your approach) is itself modern, largely the product of a particular form of nineteenth and twentieth-century Protestant theology. It is steeped with literalistic, doctrinal, moralistic, patriarchal, exclusivistic, and most importantly after-life oriented doctrine.
It is probably the type of religion you feel most comfortable with Jatfla, just as you feel more comfortable with the customs of "the South." But it misses the mark about a deepening relationship with God by failing to see the "more than literal" and political meanings in the Bible.