Today’s one year bible reading includes Acts 15, which covers a heated disagreement in the early church over the need for converts to be circumcised. That may not seem to relate to my title, but …

The council decided not to require circumcision. In the letter they send were these words:

Acts 15:28-29

²⁸ For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: ²⁹ that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

I read that to mean that the various rules and requirements placed on the nation of Israel by the Law of Moses were not required of gentiles who had become followers of Jesus. Only a very specifc set of items were regarded as “essential.” The rest were not.

I don’t see homosexual behavior on that list.

Of course, fornication is there. Websters defines fornication as:

consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other

I’m seeing the beginnings of a circular argument here. Homosexualiy marriage is forbidden because it’s a sin. It’s a sin because we don’t allow gays to marry. Does anyone else see a problem here?

I’m well aware that I’m “proof-texting” here, a practice that I dislike. I actually don’t think that this small snippet of scripture “proves” my point. What it does do, I think, is to illustrate the difficulties involved in trying to be legalistic in our enforcement of any sort of “holiness code” on others. I have no problem with people imposing such a code on themselves. I have a real problem when they try to force it on others.

Aaron at one two three . net has posted some thoughts on actions by two different Christian denominations, Presbyterian and Baptist, in A Tale of Two Churches

I can’t speak much to the Baptist issue about abstaining from all alcohol, given that it’s not a part of my tradition, though I do tend to agree with his comments. I do, however, take exception with his critique of the PCUSA decision to allow for the possibility of referring to the trinity using other than the traditional “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” terminology. (It was actually “Holy Ghost” when I was growing up Methodist, but we won’t get into that).

From Aaron’s post:

However, in attempting to correct one problem they created a much more serious one. Their solution is much like reverse discrimination. How is calling God “Father” a problem, but calling God “Mother” is okay. If the male terminology established God as a male, which I would argue it does not, then all the female terminology would do is establish God as a female. 500 years from now the PCUSA will be meeting to allow the usage of “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” because women are viewed as superior to men because of “Mother God.”

This seems to me to be a specious argument. While I haven’t read the report yet, I am quite certain that it doesn’t make any recommendation to replace the male-oriented language with female-oriented. Rather, it allows for the possibility of both. Aaron argues that, since male-oriented language has traditionally been understood to include men and women, that the change is wrong-headed, because it tries to classify God as female, when God is neither.

The term “Father” when applied to God is not speaking of God’s gender (nonexistent), but rather our way of relating to Him.

I agree that “Father” is an excellent metaphor for understanding our relationship with God. Just as “Mother” is an equally excellent metaphor. Both serve to describe our relationship to God. Neither is a description of God.

Oh, and one minor point on his “reverse discrimination” comparison: when any system gets out of balance, whether it be an engine, a society, or a religion, it generally cannot be corrected by eliminating the item which forced it out of balance. A period of counter force is required to move the system back into balance, at which point the counter force can be removed. If your car is going the wrong way because somebody is pulling the steering wheel to the right, you don’t fix it by removing the pull. You pull to the left until you’re back “on course.”

The Carpetbagger Report » Blog Archive » The ‘Pledge Protection Act’

If I understand this correctly, the proposal is that congress should decree that federal judges magically have no jurisdiction when it comes to matters relating to the pledge of allegiance to the flag. That just seems rediculous to me. Congress makes the laws. The courts interpret the laws in light of the constitution. This seems to be a clear case of the courts trying to usurp the role of the judicial branch. The proposed law itself seems to me to be unconstitutional.

Now, I will grant that I side with those who think the current wording of the pledge is on thin ice, but I honestly feel that I’d have the same opinion if I were on the opposite side.

It seems clear to me that the current ruling party has little respect for the constitution.

I apologize to those of you who use BlogWatcher from Internet Explorer. I’ve discovered that there’s a bug in the code I added recently for rating posts. Your ratings are in fact being accepted, but it may not appear that way some times.

What’s supposed to happen when yo click on one of the rating levels is this:

1. All of the rating buttons are greyed and disabled, so you can see that something has happened
2. The requested rating is sent to the server
3. The server responds to the request, confirming the rating and the new average rating
4. Your browser updated the display to reflect these changes, re-enabling the rating buttons
5. Your browser updates all of the internal data to reflect these changes

It’s #5 that’s broken. So when you first rate a post, it looks fine. However, if you switch views (to a different feed, for instance) and then come back, it will look like the rating was not updated.
I just wanted to let you know that I’m aware of the bug, but it may be a while before I can fix it. I’m off to take my daughter to freshman orientation at UNT today, so I don’t know how much time I’ll have to work on it. In the mean time, if it really bugs you, you can always click on the “View my BlogList” link to get a refreshed view of the content, which will include the new rating.

I’ve signed the petition below. We as Americans have no business trying to claim any sort of “moral high ground” while we maintain a prison camp that seems to me to be clearly immoral, if not outright illegal.

Rapid Response: Tell Bush: “End America’s Shame – Close Guantanamo NOW! | CrossLeft
We join the National Council of Churches and people of faith and conscience everywhere to urgently call for the United States to close its Guantanamo Bay detention facility without delay.

It has been four months since the United Nations Commission on Human Rights called upon the U.S. to close Guantanamo, to refrain from any practice amounting to torture, and either bring detainees to trial or release them. The National Council of Churches USA immediately endorsed the U.N. report, and called upon the U.S. government to accept its recommendations.

Since then, 3 detainees have committed suicide and 75 have staged hunger strikes to protest conditions in the jail. Amnesty International has described the facilities as “a legal black hole” where detainees are denied access to any court, legal counsel or family visits. “Denied their rights under international law and held in conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” Amnesty reports, “the detainees face severe psychological distress.”

Americans who love their country and its historic ideals are mortified by this continuing blot on our honor, on our steadfast defense of freedom, and on our commitment to democracy and the rule of law. We appeal again to the President and to the Secretary of State: bring this cruel and humiliating chapter to an end. Close the Guantanamo Bay facility immediately.

The changes to BlogWatcher have been completed. There are now two new feeds available on the right side of the subscription page. They are labeled “BlogWatcher Tagged Good Posts” and “BlogWatcher Tagged Posts”. The first will include the 20 most recently tagged posts where the average rating is “good” or “very good”. The second includes the 20 most recently tagged posts, no matter what the rating (in case you want to see the posts people tagged as “bad.”

If somebody tags a post that you’re viewing, the “average rating” section should update accordingly the next time the system looks for new posts.

If you run into any difficulties, please let me know.

Seeker at two or three . net has written a lengthy but very good article on the Christian response to homosexual people

While I happen to disagree with the premise that homosexuality is inherently sinful, I can strongly agree with the basic tenor of the post, which to me seems to be that focusing on the sin, and not the person, is just as bad (as sinful?) as the original sin.

My reading of the Bible leads me to the conclusion that it’s not so much specific acts that God finds offensive, but rather how those acts impact the rest of creation. However, I can easily see how others can read that same Bible, and come away with an entirely different perspective. That’s one of the reasons that I really like this post. Even though I disagree, the tone of the post is one of openness and dialog, not condemnation..

I think that’s part of what Jesus meant when he said, “… wherever two are three are gathered together …” I’s in the coming together in fellowship, often with those who disagree with us, that we come closest to the Kingdom of God.

As there seemed to be some interest in my idea for “tagging” posts in BlogWatcher, I’ve begun the process of implementing it. Right now, in every post, you should see a graphic indicating the average rating that post has received from all subscribers. If nobody’s rated it, then it defaults to neutral. You can also set your own rating.

There are five possible ratings for you to use:

1. Terrible
2. Bad
3. Neutral
4. Good
5. Very good

Right now, changing the rating you give doesn’t immediately change the displayed average rating, though I may put that functionality in. Oh, and one other thing to mention: I hired by daughter to do the graphic design work to create the rating indicator. So now she’s a professional graphic artist.
This is of fairly limited use right now, but the next step is to provide a means where you can see a list of posts which meet some criteria. Most likely, posts where the average rating is “Good” or better. So please go ahead and rate posts as you see them, so that there will be data available when the changes are in place.

The cast has been set for “The Music Man” at BLT. I’m “Salesman #1″ and in the chorus. (The five salesmen have a choral speaking bit at the beginning of the show.) I was in this same show in High School, and I was one of the salesmen then as well, though I don’t remember which number. Once I have a script I’ll know if it’s the same part or not.

I’m a bit disappointed that I didn’t get to read for some of the “meatier” parts (Marcellus, Mayor Shinn) but I really can’t fault the director for the way he cast it. Especially since my daughter was cast as Zaneeta. It’s a non-singing part, so she won’t be showiing off her vocal talents, but it’s definitely the best teen girl part in the show. We’re very proud of her. She didn’t expect to get it, but I think it was during a “whim” reading the second day of auditions when she just nailed the character that got her the role.

And, as long as we’re on the subject: don’t forget that there are still two weekends left for “Mr. Roberts.” I haven’t looked at the box office results recently, but I’m guessing that there are still good seats available. Come on down and see us if you haven’t already. Or, for that matter, even if you have.

OK. I know that President Bush’s command of the English language isn’t exactly superb, but does this make any sense?

President Discusses Marriage Protection Amendment
As this debate goes forward, every American deserves to be treated with tolerance and respect and dignity. (Applause.) On an issue of this great significance, opinions are strong and emotions run deep. And all of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another. All people deserve to have their voices heard and a constitutional amendment will ensure that they are heard.
(emphasis added)

Sorry, but a constitutional amendment does nothing of the sort. In fact, it does just the opposite. It ensures that the minority voices are silenced.

Our constitution defines our system of government. It was not intended to enforce morals. The 18th amendment was a failed attempt at institutionalizing morals. Why do we want to try it again? Regardless of how you feel on the subject of the definition of marriage, I don’t see how the constitution is the right place to address it.

Of course, I don’t try to hide the fact that I don’t see anything wrong with allowing gay marriage. In fact, I see many benefits to it. (that’s a topic for another post.) As do many others. That’s why I think we need open debate on the issue, not an attempt to beat down all opposing voices.