We need more Gene Robinsons, embracing of homosexuals

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet." Romans 1:26-27

"Your mother recognizes all you're desperate displays
And she watches as her babies drift violently away
'Til they see themselves in telescopes
Do you see yourself in me?
We're such crazy babies, little monkey
We're so fu**ed up, you and me" - Adam Duritz, Counting Crows

Upon these penned words stands what many Scripture-studying Christians have, for right or wrong, depicted homosexuality to be.

There have been many interpretations for Paul's words, however, it is fair to say that historically the majority of Christians have interpreted these words as an indictment against homosexual relationships as we know them today.

Absence of Jesus' condemnation on a subject is not a good argument, but it should be at least part of the thought-process. My thoughts are this: Jesus spent His time embracing the marginalized and condemning the religious. When we combine those things with the entire theme of Scriptures when understood rightly, Jesus as Redeemer of all people, all people in need of redemption (or Paul, "all people are the same', c.f. Adam Duritz above), it is frankly difficult to attribute the bigotry Christians have shamefully displayed towards homosexuals to anything but natural Darwinian anxiety masquerading as Scriptural instruction. Or, at the very least, condemning attitudes towards homosexuality masquerading as Scriptural attitudes.

Perhaps if Christians spent more energy learning from the homosexual community, it would be better served time. Homosexuals probably represent roughly 5% of the human population; yet is there a more powerful lobbying group in America? Yet Christians represent the majority of Americans, and we know how that lobbying is going. Instead, Evangelical Christians in Washington spend their time lobbying against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, so that the other 40 states or so can continue to allow employers to fire employees for their sexual gender (Yeah, that really can still happen). Furthermore, homosexuals are, as they should be, an integral part of the Christian community. In 2013, with all the tools we have to understand Scripture in its proper context, isn't it time to embrace our brothers and sisters instead of fearful Darwinian behavior ruling the day? While Scripture may very well have negative things to say about at least some homosexual behavior, it also does for some heterosexual behavior. Perhaps our energy is better served getting it right on our end, instead of projecting our failures on other communities.

One of the upshots I see here is voices like Gene Robinson are even more important than we know. If mainline Protestantism continues to shun the homosexual community, it will contribute to the Protestant community's continued depreciation in the Western world. And, in my opinion, this will be against the Will of the God we claim to cling to.

Nobel Laureate Hubel's death and non-Trinitarian Christianity

"Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the Triune God" John Wesley

David Hubel, Harvard Nobel Laureate and one of the greatest nueroscientists to live, died last week. Hubel made seminal contributions to the understanding of how the eye and brain talk, and how vision is processed. Hubel basically helped unravel complex networks. Nothing is more complex than the Trinity, however.

Hubel was a Universalist. Univeralists worship God with a different understanding than traditional, Nicene Creed Christians. Perhaps nothing has separated Christian thought (and Christian and Muslim thought) than what the Oneness of God means.  

If Trinitarian Theology is incorrect (and it is, largely, I fear -- but The essence I believe to be very true) there is at least one enormous problem, that I see, with this sort of theology. 

This would mean God created before He loved, better, had an object of love. If God is Love, as Christians claim, this to me is difficult to think through. If human purpose is relationship, this also is conflicting, and I believe to be, a grossly deficient understanding of God.

Only the One, Triune Creator can account for what we perceive as the purpose of mankind - loving relationship, with Creator and fellow created. 

Wieseltier v. Pinker

Leon Wieseltier had only one peer of his generation that I am aware of, and Chris Hitchens sadly died of Head and Neck cancer a few years ago.

Wieseltier, who very publically demolished Dennet's 2006 Breaking the Spell, and Rosenberg's 2011 The Atheist guide to Reality, is coming after the Harvard Psychologist, Steven Pinker. I haven't read Pinker at all, personally, and frankly have very little interest in doing so, but I have read some of his wife, er, 3rd wife, Rebecca Goldstein (36 arguments for the existence of God: A work of Fiction is one of the worst books I have ever read: Hugely derivative, dull, and, well, just awful). Pinker espouses the faith of Scientism, and Wieseltier, much like he has done with Rosenberg, is pointing out the obvious.

Here is the link to the article in it's entirety.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114548/leon-wieseltier-responds-steven-pinkers-scientism

Much like anything Hitchens has written, this is entertaining and worth the read -- particularly for those that have a street-level understanding of just how silly it is to even feign utility in the humanities, from a scientism POV... Hence, why Dawkins is brilliant in his honesty. Even Rosenberg ("humanities are nothing we have to take seriously, except as symptoms." and "the consistent atheist should be a nihilist") has turned a honest cheek. But Pinker, unlike Rosenberg (a top-notch philosopher), unfortunately, just can't seem to bring any integrity into his thought processes and worldview. And, unfortunately, those that can't think for themselves get routinely taken for the ride.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114548/leon-wieseltier-responds-steven-pinkers-scientism