Clark's
o
r
   About this Site
n
e
    About Me
r


NOVELS


Autumn 1943

Lucifer's Hope...the Guv

EDDIE et alia

CAIN

The Biggest Con

POETRY


HOURGLASS and Other Poems
POTHOLES & Other Poems

SHORT STORIES


"The Stem-cell Quarterback" & Other Stories


December in May & Other Stories

SPIRITUAL


A Layman's THEOLOGY

SATIRE


DEMOCRATS & Other Suspects 2004-2008


DEMOCRAT WORLD 2008-10

All material on this Web site copyright James L. Clark 2004-11 unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.

THOUGHTS Archives

HYMNS

MUCKRAKER (blog)

Contact

Updated 26 May 2012

Just a Thought...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From A Layman's THEOLOGY: It has been said that one can prove anything by the Bible. By one's taking things out of context, this is true. However, part of the genius of the document is that it does allow for individual interpretation. Not everyone sees it the same way but disagreements among serious believers do not predispose toward endangering their relationship to God. Indeed, even in "Bible times," there was disagreement among believers. In the Bible itself, there are varying accounts of the same events but this does no violence to the validity of the document. If everything in it fitted perfectly one might have reason to wonder if some nameless monk in the fourth century simply wrote the whole thing. It was written over many centuries under the inspiration and imprimatur of the Creator by fallible people, but is the infallible word of God.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Same-sex Marriage & Religion

Regular columnist for the Lexington, Ky., Lexington Herald-Leader Merlene Davis wrote this in the 24 May issue: “I don’t see same-sex marriage as a religious issue,” the implication being that it’s merely a matter of civil rights. She exampled her marriage, not performed in a church and by a justice of the peace, and wrote this: “It didn’t have a thing to do with religion.” Obviously, it wasn’t a same-sex affair, so for her no marriage is a religious issue.

So…even though marriage hadn’t a thing to do with religion, she went through the usual litany of “sins” listed in the Bible that are as bad as homosexuality, perhaps never realizing that homosexual behavior and not the homosexual is the subject of condemnation. She indicated that all sins except blasphemy are forgivable, another way of saying that if it feels good do it because God is lenient.

Ironically, after insisting that religion had nothing to do with her marriage, let alone same-sex marriage, she spent a whole column discussing how religion does have everything to do with marriage, though she did digress sufficiently to insist that Romney isn’t fit to be president because of his insensitivity to the poor and elderly, which, of course, had nothing to do with her subject.

Not wishing to allow her extensive lesson in theology to be shallow, Davis strangely quoted instances in both the Old and New Testaments in which homosexual behavior is roundly condemned, even to the point of the death sentence being mandated for such aberrant behavior. She was careful not to mention Sodom and Gomorrah, however, since that exemplary wrath of God could hardly be spun into forgiveness.

Many religionists make much of the OT law being segued into NT grace, thereby excusing most anything if it feels good. President Obama’s denomination – United Church of Christ – officially sanctioned same-sex marriage in 2005. Jesus said he came, however, to fulfill the law and not negate it. He also brought up the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah in his condemnation of other worldly cities (Matthew 11). Homosexual behavior was anathema to him, totally unacceptable.

It remained, then, for the apostle Paul to explain that aberrant behavior was also to be condemned “under grace,” i.e., that God didn’t mean for the body, which is sacred because God made it in his image, to be defiled by using the elements designed for the procreation of the race in unseemly ways, such as in oral and anal “sex,” which actually isn’t sex at all, just unnatural use of body appendages and orifices.

Davis made much of the fact that the NAACP has come out in favor of “marriage equality,” whatever that is, though to her it meant same-sex marriage. What she didn’t mention is the fact that black folk don’t put much stock in any kind of marriage, more than 70% of black youngsters born with no documented father, i.e., parents who didn’t bother with marriage, which involves necessary but bothersome commitment. In 1960, about 75% of children were born to black “families” – mother, father. Things have changed.

This was Davis’s coup de grace: “Short of blasphemy, God doesn’t calibrate sins, even if we do.” She has no more idea of God’s “calibration” than an orangutan does, but she’s welcome to her own calibrations, which obviously indicate that since a murderer can be forgiven, his sin is no worse than the sins of gossiping/gluttony, which she mentions. Weird!

Blasphemy is defined as “irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.” Violating God’s in-his-image handiwork, the human body governed through the gift of self-determination, by abusing its only instruments for perpetuating what continues in sacredness is aptly discussed in Deuteronomy 8:19-20, in which it is made clear that God can and will destroy nations that collectively succumb to defiling his creation. This country travels a moral slippery slope. One should remember the lessons of history vis-à-vis other great rotting-from-the-inside nations such as the Soviet Union, in real time.

None of this matters to Davis, of course, since it has to do with religion, which she says has nothing to do with marriage, though she devoted an entire column to biblical influence on marriage, which makes her attempt at a disconnect futile. She seemed to be preaching to herself, rather than making a point, sort of advancing the paper’s editorial stance.

** ** ** ** **

A Servant-Hymn of Isaiah:

O God of Might (pdf).

** ** ** ** **

A Thought for the Day:

Social Infamy
[An Avenue to Oblivion]

He watched it slowly come apart,
Disintegrating day by day,
At first it gave him quite a start –
Inured him, though, in some strange way;
In youth, he felt it granite-hard,
Its Constitution set in stone,
The instrument designed to guard
His welfare but not his alone,
In forming-years, he learned in class
Its origin and countenance,
In later years it came to pass
That he would learn its maintenance;
Its premise was a simple thing,
That folks always must rule their lives,
That never should there be a king
To rule them while each poor man strives;
Republic: its defining state,
In which the people vote their mind,
Electing those who legislate
Or execute the laws that bind;
The laws, of course, would emanate
From morals formed collectively,
Integrity must dominate,
Enforcement done objectively;
And education is the stance
That, taken, always be a must…
The nation steeped in ignorance
Will always be reduced to dust;
Integrity – foundational –
With education equally –
The two must thrive, relational,
To promise durability;
Right at this point, apartness shows,
Disintegration well along,
As morals tumble to new lows
And people heed the sirens’ song;
This nullifies the learning curve
For those whose education must
Forestall the damning moral swerve
Or see their land reduced to dust;
A good example of the rot
Is seen in president’s decree
That man with man may tie the knot,
Defying Nature’s own decree,
Thus making marriage just a joke,
Perversion seen as normalcy,
The body’s uses – gross, a hoke,
God’s laws perverted sleazily;
The family intact defines
The nation’s basic entity,
When its import thus so declines
The nation heads for anarchy;
Since anarchy sees nothing wrong,
With all things seen as relative,
The heeding of the sirens’ song
Makes self alone superlative;
The nation dies as rot prevails,
Not force from outside sources grim,
The rot indwells…good sense assails
And spells its doom when morals dim;
The educated mean but nil
When they retire their intellect,
As to perversions’ slimy swill
They kneel and call it thus correct;
Political correctness rules,
A damning, false philosophy,
A thing admired by clueless fools,
Defining social infamy.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

NOTE: The latest endeavor of the keeper of this corner is a book titled POTHOLES & Other Poems, noted in the left column. The verses are presented as structured poetry and free verse but the vast preponderance incorporate rhythm and rhyme. They are not sing-song, mostly deal with serious subjects, and are designed to make a point or at least provoke thought, the antithesis of purposeful obfuscation. A poetry publisher once concluded that a poem’s assertion or point of view is not of as much interest as that of how it is expressed. In his view, substance was secondary to form, better defined by this writer as gimmickry. He asserted that sincerity is less important than authenticity, the latter apparently applying to a work no matter its form…or formlessness. The apparent conclusion: a poem is whatever anyone says it is. However, sincerity is not less important than anything and an essayist chopping up his work, no matter the use of intriguing imagery/metaphor or anything else, and calling it a poem is kidding himself. In any case, everyone is invited to take a look. The pertinent information is found at the link.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~