All of the best times in my life began with the word, "Yes."
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Wounded Bride (from The Book of Hosea)
This was written for a service last Sunday morning taken from the Book of Hosea. As our assistant minister pointed out, the books of the prophets are little read but have a lot to recommend them. Prophets are not soothsayers in the Old Testament. They are reflectors of God's thoughts among us. Hosea was given a particularly tough assignment. I will set this to music eventually, but the piece that follows is appropriate.
The Wounded Bride (from The Book of Hosea)
At morning light
A trumpet blows
Answering the heavens
Dark and thundering skies
Are giving birth
He has torn you
That he may heal you
Strikes you down
That he may bind you
Comes to you in rain
To water Earth
Oh how he loves you
Oh how he loves you
Faithfulness and love abide
Hold to his goodness
Grace and forgiveness
This is the promise made
To the wounded bride
Dew rises from the flowers
First fruit of the tree
Like a bird
Our glory flies away
The door of hope is open wide
In a wilderness of pride
Crying to the mountains
Cover me
Oh how he loves you
Oh how he loves you
Faithfulness and love abide
Hold to his goodness
Grace and forgiveness
This is the promise made
To the wounded bride
len bullard - Nov 15 2008
The Wounded Bride (from The Book of Hosea)
At morning light
A trumpet blows
Answering the heavens
Dark and thundering skies
Are giving birth
He has torn you
That he may heal you
Strikes you down
That he may bind you
Comes to you in rain
To water Earth
Oh how he loves you
Oh how he loves you
Faithfulness and love abide
Hold to his goodness
Grace and forgiveness
This is the promise made
To the wounded bride
Dew rises from the flowers
First fruit of the tree
Like a bird
Our glory flies away
The door of hope is open wide
In a wilderness of pride
Crying to the mountains
Cover me
Oh how he loves you
Oh how he loves you
Faithfulness and love abide
Hold to his goodness
Grace and forgiveness
This is the promise made
To the wounded bride
len bullard - Nov 15 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Way I've Always Heard It Should Be
Charles Cooper at CNet objects to the founder of Word Perfect contributing $1 million in private funds to groups who fought Proposition 8 in California. His argument comes down to "You are a Utah Mormon. Butt out of California's business."
There are two points to make before going further:
1. There is a determined effort to make this a campaign against the Mormons in some quarters even if Charlie is being subtle about that.
2. There is a willful effort to ignore that minority voting, specifically blacks and hispanics, is responsible for the proposition's success. Charlie is ignoring that altogether.
One could say this is demographic gerrymandering without too many reasonable objections. However one argues it, the gay community is once again discovering that the political coalitions it tries to become part of by claiming similar cause have a nasty habit of throwing them under the bus post-election. Caveat emptor.
All of that said, my opinion, FWIW as a heterosexual, is as follows:
1. The root legal problem is granting state authority to church institutions to perform civil unions. ('by the power vested in me by the State of...').
2. The root social problem is conflating a legal union with a sacred union.
The legal way out of this is to enforce separation of church and state by Federal statute. Churches should not have the vested power to perform legal unions (civil ceremonies) and the state does not have the power over performance of sacred unions (marriage). Persons desiring both civil and sacred unions are obligated to obtain them from the authorities entitled. The State is obligated to grant civil unions to those who are breaking no other laws. The church has full discretion over those to whom sacred unions are granted as they are currently (you discover a church is not obligated to perform a heterosexual marriage today if the couple violates the tenets of the church including membership or any other criteria the church imposes).
That part of this argument IS a Federal, not a State concern. Full stop.
As to the acceptance of gay behavior, history gives all the insight you need there. You'll find repeating behaviors that span recorded history and no evidence that the behaviors change in terms of evolutionary development. Do the best you can.
One more question for Charlie. You object to the private contribution of someone outside of your state into an issue which you assert is your State's to decide. Fair enough.
Should a State or other entity such as a company have the right to enforce social issues over other states or entities as a pre-condition of entering into a contract with that state or entity?
That is done now by California and Oregon and companies such as Microsoft.
Is it the same issue and if so, why doesn't that attract your attention?
There are two points to make before going further:
1. There is a determined effort to make this a campaign against the Mormons in some quarters even if Charlie is being subtle about that.
2. There is a willful effort to ignore that minority voting, specifically blacks and hispanics, is responsible for the proposition's success. Charlie is ignoring that altogether.
One could say this is demographic gerrymandering without too many reasonable objections. However one argues it, the gay community is once again discovering that the political coalitions it tries to become part of by claiming similar cause have a nasty habit of throwing them under the bus post-election. Caveat emptor.
All of that said, my opinion, FWIW as a heterosexual, is as follows:
1. The root legal problem is granting state authority to church institutions to perform civil unions. ('by the power vested in me by the State of...').
2. The root social problem is conflating a legal union with a sacred union.
The legal way out of this is to enforce separation of church and state by Federal statute. Churches should not have the vested power to perform legal unions (civil ceremonies) and the state does not have the power over performance of sacred unions (marriage). Persons desiring both civil and sacred unions are obligated to obtain them from the authorities entitled. The State is obligated to grant civil unions to those who are breaking no other laws. The church has full discretion over those to whom sacred unions are granted as they are currently (you discover a church is not obligated to perform a heterosexual marriage today if the couple violates the tenets of the church including membership or any other criteria the church imposes).
That part of this argument IS a Federal, not a State concern. Full stop.
As to the acceptance of gay behavior, history gives all the insight you need there. You'll find repeating behaviors that span recorded history and no evidence that the behaviors change in terms of evolutionary development. Do the best you can.
One more question for Charlie. You object to the private contribution of someone outside of your state into an issue which you assert is your State's to decide. Fair enough.
Should a State or other entity such as a company have the right to enforce social issues over other states or entities as a pre-condition of entering into a contract with that state or entity?
That is done now by California and Oregon and companies such as Microsoft.
Is it the same issue and if so, why doesn't that attract your attention?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)