This is way too much to hope for, I realize… but I hope that one day I wake up to news like this: 

UPI Wire, 30 May 2006

Washington, DC: Today, in a startling reversal of its long-standing interventionist policies in the Middle East, President George W. Bush has signed an Executive Order authorizing the withdrawal of most of its foreign deployed military back to US-held territories.

Only select police forces and consultants will remain in Baghdad to assist the current government with the training of its domestic forces, for a time not to exceed one year. As for other regular units assigned to Europe and East Asia, a minimum of 75% will be immediately rotated back to the contiguous United States over the next six months, with the rest to be withdrawn pending according to schedules to be negotiated with the host nations. As for American units stationed in Latin America, most will be withdrawn to the Mexican border to assist in the contentious border patrol augmentation that has been embroiled in both houses of Congress.

"It is high time that America give up the notion of being the World’s Policeman, with the emerging European Union and the great nations of East Asia, China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, able to work together to protect the peace  in thier part of the world… America must now look to its own problems and growing challenges in this next century", said the President from his ranch at Crawford, Texas.

While there were some indications, particularly from Brussels and Berlin, and also Tokyo that existing defense arrangements will be upset in the face of rising Islamist extremism, President Bush offered that the US Navy would "continue to provide a reasonable expectation of safety for merchant trade in the area of operations for its respective fleets".

"As for the continued presence of American forces in the volatile Middle East, the loss of nearly 3,000 American lives and over ten times that number of civilian casualties has shown us… perhaps much too late… that the cost of trying to implant Democracy abroad is just too high. It may well be that we have erred in trying to interfere in the affairs of othr sovereign nations, and for the pain it has caused everyone concerned, I can only offer my deepest regret." President Bush then went on to say that he will make a special "State of the Union" address to further clarify US foreign policies in the last remaining years of his administration.

While it is still early to speculate, other points of these new policies are likely to include:

- Promotion of the Public Service Corps Act from downsized military members due to a projected decrease in the size of the standing army and Marine Corps;

- The closure of the Homeland Security and merger/downsizing of the CIA and NSA apparatus;

- Upgrading the Immigration Bureau as needed to devote greater resources to investigating potential immigrants and foreign travelers within the USA;

- Refusing entry to any citizens from blacklisted countries that are state sponsors of Islamic Extremism or Terror and deporting anyone currently in the USA from those nations… and freezing thier US-assets and attaching a lien on them;

- Withdrawing from the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty:  While this is very likely to create much tension with the prospect of a renewed nuclear arms race, various insiders have concurred that "it is impossible to not expect that other nations have developed advanced nuclear weapons and related delivery platform technologies or will develop them in the near term" (per the Ramsey Report). Secretary of State Rice even went on record as stating that "Augmenting our strategic nuclear deterrent and space-based options remain very much in our playbook at this point."

The use of such a deterrent is speculated to be primary directed at any Middle Eastern nation that is found to be connected to any future MCTE (mass civilian threat event) with September 11th or the July 7th events being noted as case examples.

- Developing our oil resources in Alaska and off the coastal shelf of US territory as needed, whilest aggressively developing and deploying E-85 Ethanol and Hydrogen Cell technology to end our dependency on petroleum as much as possible.

I suppose I can dream, no?

Senator Charles Schumer (D) of New York apparently thinks that producing more gasoline (and presumably other petrol products) before the "high demand summer driving season" sets in will help defray the higher costs we are likely to experience this year.

We will face significantly higher prices…. especially if the reports that this summer’s hurricane season may eclipse last summer’s devastating season by an order of magnitude or two is true. New Orleans is still digging out from the flooding and wreckage wrought by Katrina.

Mr. Schumer, we have a very finite supply of oil left; the prices will continue to increase, and probably markedly so. While there is concern for price gouging, there is also a need for we Americans stop being so irresponsible with our use of the precious oil energy God has given us.

Why not suggest these ideas instead:

How about we drive less and conserve fuel? Just say "no" to those nice, but perhaps unneeded trips to the Hamptons this summer?

How about grouping up common errand trips together? Knock out the banking, shopping and dry cleaning runs if they are more or less along the same route?

How about buying locally grown farm goods? New York apples are exceptionally tasty, and you don’t have to think about how they are handled in some 3,000 mile haul from accross the country, much less the gas cost of shipping them.

Or better still, spend some time gardening with heirloom seeds - growing healthy, non-genetically altered food. 

How about carpooling to work, or using public transportation if it is available? 

How about switching off your motor when waiting for that particularly long traffic light to turn green, or waiting for someone? (Idling a motor eats up quite a bit of gas). 

How about junking that oversize SUV in favour of a fuel efficient vehicle?

Let us consider that majority of Americans that own SUVs are likely not schlepping lumber down from the remote wilderness on a daily basis, and keep them as status symbols of thier ability to be conspicuous consumers. 

And as for all those oil windfall profits? I am not opposed to taxing it, and even paying more for at the pump (gasoline taxes) IF the gas taxes are used to fund development and distribution of consumer-available E-85 ethanol/flex fuel technology, solar cell automotive technology, hydrogen cell technology and mass transit capability.

Although I’ll likely get the usual canned response, I think I will drop this as an email to the Hon. Chuck Schumer today, hopefully one of his screeners who reads his public mail will take it to heart and forward it up the food chain to his attention. 

This is a bit of an unexpected post, I must admit.

I must admit that I am quite fond of video games, probably from the time that I first laid hands on some ancient controller for the game PONG (you know, the one like a paddle wheel that you turned to guide a line up and down the sides of the TV screen - in black and white - to hit a little blip back and forth with? ) Or arcade classics like Pac Man, Donkey Kong, and Centipede?

Or how about Dig Dug or Galaga? 

And for those of you born 1980 and later, perhaps your first video game love came at the hands of an Atari 2600 joystick, or perhaps a Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) or known better as a Famicom if you lived in Asia. And for those who did not care for consoles, PC-based games came to the fore with increasingly better graphics, first on Commodore 64’s and later the Amiga, and finally the IBM-based PC that has come to dominate a fair chunk of any respectable desk somewhere in most people’s homes.

I remember slavishly devoting hours to playing X-Wing vs Tie Fighter and early versions of Ultima (before it launched as an MMORPG* title).

And speaking of MMORPGs, those are veritable black holes of the gaming world, draining your very soul as well as untold hours in timesinking activities like gathering resources or waging wars with internet teamates on a perpetual basis against the same "legendary named monsters" in the same horribly aggro-mob infested dungeons, in a competition for virtual items that conferred virtual status and privilege in a virtual world?

Indeed, how many hours did I burn camping Fafnir or trying to get a "Dalmatica" to drop from a gigantic desert-dwelling turtle, or trying to beat some elite (read: well known for cheating) guild to some wierd mutation of a dog, cow, and salamander called King Behemoth? And never mind all those horrible time-consuming quests to get elite swords or armours or items, just to sit looking at a blank screen when the power goes off?

Not to mention a wife who was sore at me for burning away my nights playing Final Fantasy XI online so (un)productively for nearly two out of the three years of our marriage.

So what, one might say. As long as you have learned something from all that, you are doing well, no?

One would hope. Let me backtrack a little here:

A few weeks ago, I was at a Bible study, where the subject of gambling had come up: Was it a sinful thing to gamble?

Now in my mind, gambling brings up images of slot machines and Kenny Rogers playing poker in some dank saloon in the Old West, with a six-shooter somewhere concealed, a cheater to be rousted, and a 40-foot long mirror that must get broken in the bar brawl that simply has to be in the script somewhere.

Or, it might bring to my mind those rows of pachinko pinball machines I saw scattered throughout Japan during my various trips there.

Or perhaps two trips to Las Vegas (on military duty, I had very little time to gamble, and that was limited to $5 at a slot machine: and yes, I lost).

Recently, an old high school friend called me up to inform me of a bachelor party for another mutual friend, who is finally getting married. That involves a stayover in Atlantic City, another gambler’s haven. I’ll politely decline on that simply for my own spiritual health: that sort of thing would certain put me into situations that would not be very edifying, much less give a good testimony of Christ.

As for gambling, or games of chance… I never really had much of an attraction to playing poker or any card games for money (much less Spades or Rummy or even "Go Fish!") … I have no attention span for it, and to me, a straight flush happens when my toilet is functioning correctly.

Coming back to my zeal for gaming, particularly internet games… could these MMORPGs really be just another form of gambling?

Perhaps not in the conventional sense, although if I carry a subscription like I did in Final Fantasy XI, I’d be throwing away close to $USD 16.00 per month for a "chance" at getting some elite item, after camping it for over a 100 hours.

But is it gambling indeed? I looked up gambling on Dictionary.com (yes, hardly as reputable as Webster’s… but it will have to do in a pinch when I am not at home). It (among many definitions) this to say:

1. 1. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
   2. To play a game of chance for stakes.
2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.
3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke.

[Perhaps from obsolete gamel, to play games, from Middle English gamen, gamenen, to play, from Old English gamenian, from gamen, fun.]

Betting on uncertain outcomes? Taking risks for (perceived) advantages? Reckless and hazardous behaviour? 

Well, again, here I was paying money for a game that I often would compete and actually lot on loot dropped from these elite (virtual) monsters that my teammates and I would kill. 

Reckless and hazardous? Probably very much so… horror stories abound of Everquest (another MMO game) addicts who lost spouses and jobs and homes over thier habit that had them gaming away upwards of 60-80 hours a week. And then there are the stories of students and young people in Japan, Korea and China occassionally murdering people over the virtual items of these games. 

And it certainly didn’t help me win any Mr. Nice Guy awards: I remember being kind of nasty to my wife whenever she wanted to talk to me about something while I was playing Final Fantasy - especially if I was in the middle of a Boss Monster fight. You see, with MMORPGs, you simply cannot push a "pause" button to stop the game should something more important require your attention as you can in most single-player games. If you drop the ball in a multiplayer fight with 100 other people competing for the same monster, or you cause your 20 teammates to get wiped (killed) because you were to busy doing something else… you’d hear no end of it.

After I did something as crude as leaving my wife with our friends in Queens, New York… on Halloween of 2005, I think it was… to go camp some stupid "notorious monster". This act resulted (not surprisingly) in quite a row between the wife and I.  The conclusion of it was that I would cancel my Final Fantasy subscription, devote more time to my wife above all, and study for my own advancement on my job. And, I managed to wrangle for myself the "privilege" of playing a few single-player games I had bought but never unwrapped.

That event was sort of the apex of my gaming-stupidity: I think that if I had persisted on my gaming, I probably would have lost my wife, among potentially other things. 

I even proved that I could live for extended periods of time without the video games, although occassionally I’d binge on "Star Wars: Empire at War" on the weekends. Of course, always able to hit "pause" when needed for something else, even for something as seemingly mundane as helping to pick out baby clothing online with my wife. 

So why this post? What is a Dofus? Perhaps I am being the "doofus".

Dofus, is a nifty little game that comes packaged as a Flash game, but cleverly so: it is a MMORPG.

Aaah, the terrible grip of the MMO game. I toyed with it a little, as it has a "free-to-play" mode that allows you to get up to a certain level, and restricts you to the "newbie zone" - possibly enough to get you "hooked" into paying the very cheap $USD 7.00 per month to get the goodies.

I even payed the $20 for the three month "micro subscription" just to see what it was like. This is not a good path that I am starting on, as for the first time in several months, when in a partied fight… I caught myself beginning to snap at my wife.

Perhaps I will chalk up my $20 lost as a warning and a lesson; I do not really want a repeat of last year on my hands. 

And perhaps Paul the Apostle, according to the Holy Spirit says it best:

"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."  - 1 Corinthians 6:12 

Maybe my application of it is a tad out if its original context (Paul was addressing matters of sexual morality to that church at Corinth)  … but not being under the power of any - save for God… is a much better state of being.

*MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. Also abbreviated as "MMOG" for the wider genre of online games played against/with thousands of other players.

Preface: This post is the extended response to a post Adam (The Krebs Cycle) made on his blog concerning the (overreaction) by Christians to the DaVinci Code. 

(Adam’s original post "Hysteria") :
I don’t understand why there are people coming out of the woodwork over The Da Vinci Code. The book is fiction. If your religion and belief system is so fragile that it can be torn down by the movie adaptation of what is basically a pulp novel starring Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou then I suggest you seek and subscribe to a higher truth.

The Power of the Code…

I find this whole thing rather humourous… I’ve noticed that it is the Roman Catholic Church that seems to be the most visibly upset over this "DaVinci Code".

What it all boils down to… is power.

Which is fitting, since the RC Church is arguably one of the most powerful church/organizations in existence.

No group of elites will easily give up its power (either real or perceived).

Those who truely hold to the beliefs in Christ, that He is the Son of God, risen from the dead, and that He is both Judge and Redeemer - will have no problems with the "DaVinci Code"… for thier God is one who is Soveriegn, and is the author of all power.

True Christians will not fear any "loss of power", because by themselves, they have no power.

For them, it is Christ’s Word - God’s words - which is power, (Greek: dynamis) and it is the Christians’ power when they live to Him.

True Christians should not be concerned with much more than living thier lives to please Jesus Christ, and doing His work (Matthew 28:16-20)… as opposed to hawking political agendas, or getting caught up in big-money politics.

As for the various denominations and church and parachurch organizations (Focus On the Family, and those kinds of groups) with vested interests in the government, or in industry, or other sectors of influence in our lives…. they have MUCH to fear from this spectre, this supposed "loss of power".

Thier faith (the parachurch powers) is less in God than it is in the power of their own devices to exert thier influence in the world.

The same is true for any HUMAN organization, regardless of its actual religion or belief system: if its power (or perceived power) appears threatened, it will work to either deny, or eliminate that threat.

The Pharasaic rulership of Judea - the Sanhedrin - felt threatened enough by what Jesus preached against them in order to plot His destruction; He challenged thier legalistic attachment to the Mosaic Law, while they had hearts that were just as wicked and corrupt as the sinners they preached against.

Sure, many "christians" are bothered by this book by Dan Brown. So what? What is Jesus thinking on the matter?

He is God: He is not in the least worried by whatever ill some folks may think (or write) of Him, according to Psalm 2:1-5 :

1) Why do the heathen (the nations of the world) rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

 2) The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed (Jesus), saying,

 3) Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

 4) He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

 5) Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

Check, please!

Therefore, it is not the (true) Christian’s place to loose any sleep over this kind of thing. If God is God, He is more than capable of preserving His people from something as picayune as some guy’s book, and reproving… or even punishing… those who make light of His Word.

Dan Brown is only a recent challenger to Jesus’s claims to perfect, sinless manhood and perfect, divine Godhood; there are nearly 2000 years worth of other writings that have come before him.

Yet [a fellow blogger, name remoived] (mockingly?) said,

"Your fiction conflicts with my fiction; hands off my fiction! (snicker)"

I’m rather thinking that God will have the last laugh.  

No mere book that has been written is able to convince a man of the guilt he has for his sins, and of the judgment of Hell; much less, save his soul.

God’s word has. It did so for me, who has been no less of a sinner than anyone who has posted a comment here (on Adam’s blog), or read (that) blog.

In fact, I might be bold enough to say that I have been a sinner exceeding what many readers who read and post (there), but this might not be a profitable thing for me to boast in, except that God’s grace for salvation be revealed as something stronger still.

2 Peter 1:21 says:

20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

And now for the REAL Devil in the Details.

Back to the power thing… it could well be … that if there is a real Jesus Christ who did all the things that He supposedly did in the Bible…

… then it would also be true that His avowed enemy (and ours as well) - who is called the "Devil" and the "Serpent" and the "Destroyer", the "father of lies" - or simply Satan, (if you prefer) he just might feel threatened enough by Jesus’s claims and deeds to try refuting them and casting doubts at every turn.

Ever since the Garden of Eden, this has been Lucifer’s charm, his "lightest feather of doubt" against God’s inerrant word:

"Yea, hath God said…?" (Genesis 3:1)

Then again, most "intelligent" people will dismiss the idea of Satan as being some nasty little Pan-like, pitchfork-bearing imp, a medieval construct that the RC Church used long ago to keep the serfs happily toiling away on thier lords’ manors.

I propose this: That the among greatest evils that the Devil ever done, was to convince the "intelligentsia" of this world… that neither he nor God ever existed.

Or as another twist, that The Devil would claim that God (Yahweh, the Judeo-Christian God, and His Son, Jesus) is a satan (an accuser and an adversary), and Lucifer is a god.

The above statement could be deemed true by bending some semantics… : God is an adversary against sin and wickedness, and as a Holy and Righteous God, is able to judge us for our sins; Lucifer (specifically, the fallen angel we call Satan) is called the "god of this world", (2 Corinthians 4:4) who is a false demonic god specifically given dominion over unbelievers living on earth for a short time.

However, most folks will be quite content never to question the false god (Lucifer) who holds them captive in the cruel bondage of sin and shame. I know it took me a while to listen to God trying to wake me up and convict me of my wretchedness, my sins that had earned for me a death sentence to an eternity in a Hell of fire (Romans 6:23).

The bottom line, folks… is that one of the following cases is the true case, and the other false:

(1) God (and Jesus) are who they say they are, and (a) a terrible judgment for our sins remains, from which (b) only Jesus’s atonement - His sacrafice and resurrection from the dead can save us, IF we believe in Him…

— OR —

(2) God is a liar, and the myriads of His followers have chosen to give thier lives to Him in vain.

Thus, everyone’s fate is to be worm food, and in all likelihood, we will have left this planet utterly unsustainable for any future generations after us…. thus sealing the coffin for humanity at large.

But let God be found true, and every man a liar: if He is true, then ALL of us will someday stand before God, whether to face judgment and condemnation to an eternity in fiery hell… or the reward of eternal life (in Christ).

Wasn’t this originally about Power? You bet it is - it is all about God’s Power:

 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

The Youtube clips of the Stephen Colbert roasting (nay, rather eviscerating) the Press and President at the White House Press Corps dinner a few weeks ago have made thier rounds. Effectively, this man embarrassed them both - the President for his deceitfulness and cupidity of power, and his treachery against this (once) great nation and her people, and the stupid sheepishness of the press (sic: FOX News giving "both" sides of the story - the President’s, and the Vice President’s).

It seems that several generations ago, a quote made by a certain John Swinton, (possibly) a noted journalist of his day, made a similar remark about the press.

This Mr. Swinton was apparently known for what would be in our time and political spectrum as being something of a Marxist; he had some interesting opinions about the conditions of labourers in his time:

One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty_four hours my occupation would be gone.

"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

This is credited by a writer at http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/History/swinton.htm , with the original source being Labor’s Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.

More NSA snooping… and the upcoming appointment of General Hayden as the Director of the CIA?

Nice moves, Mr. Bush. And how much longer until Freedom has breathed her last breath over America, and when shall we complete our march down to our own destruction? 

You have less than two years left, yet even so, thier is so much more potential for rolling back our rights to the times of Monarchy and Despotism.

Hmmm. so little time, and so many people to oppress. 

Swirling silvery eddies curling and twisting…

A shimmering glint of sunlight gleams at many angles

The silver cord - it winds through the home lands,

and it gives life to the land and to the people.

When I must commute in to my office, I often wind up parking about a 10-minute walking distance from my building. Ordinarily, I will complain to myself about the inconsiderate folks who will double park thier SUVs (thus cheating me out of a parking space that was closer to my building.

But today, my 10 minute walk gave me some time to look at the Hudson River carving its way down to Manhattan; the sun catching it the right way, it was like a band of silver.

How truly beautiful God’s handiwork is - how at the right time and place, if we have our eyes open - we can see that this world is no mere "happy accident", and that this natural world is indeed a work of art. 

As a bit of a fan of Football (not that NFL-American brand, nor Aussie Rules)… I am kind of excited about the upcoming World Cup that will be in Germany this summer.

So many good teams to pick from… out of a strange sense of loyalty to where I first learned Der Spiel (the Game), I am interested in seeing the German team do well this time around. And, they get the home court advantage this time around as well.

Another favourite is Team England, but it looks like this chap has a bit of a problem: this fellow over to the right is slated to be a defender for Team England, John Terry. It seems that during a recent game against Manchester United, he twisted his ankle.

Pain is painful, but I do say he looks like he had just received a swift toe kick to the "family jewels".

Or is he looking for his contact lens that popped out?

And I am sure that some others of you could probably come up with a better caption to describe this poor bloke’s circumstances.

Ah, well. The team doctors for Chelsea say that he will be all nice and ready to play in the World Cup. 

And so, we (my wife and I) are agreed on a name for our upcoming boy:

Ryouma Joseph: 龍馬

(the Kanji are for "Ryouma" if you can see Japanese text in your browser; if not, you might see some funky "garbage" text).

It’s pronounced "Lee-OH’-ma"*… but it shortens nicely to "Leo" to all his future American classmates who might be otherwise inclined to club him down like a baby harp seal for having such an unusual name.

More details on this later… I had a nice post all ready for this, but then my OS got cranky when I switched to Japanese input, and dumped the edit page off into oblivion. 

*In Japanese, what we see phoneticized into a letter "R" is actually pronounced closer to an "L", but not exactly like an "L". It is probably closest to the soft, single "r" found in Spanish words like pero.

I’ll tell you what got me started on this train of thought: seeing that movie Alexander (the recent one with Colin Farrell).

In it, there was much talk about how the gods dealt with the hubris (excessive pride resulting in a fall) of mankind.

As a side thing which I later picked up on, there was the underlying subtext of Alexander’s homosexual/bisexual relations that were depicted as being fairly commonplace (among Greek/Macedonian elites). I am not sure to what degree homosexuality flourished in ancient Greece outside of the pederasty that is well known to have existed and was practiced by the elites, but barring Oliver Stone’s portrayal of peer-to-peer homosexual love as a normal occurrence among Greek men as a "figment of Hollywierdness", it would not be entirely inaccurate to suggest that it occurred.

In this same movie, Aristotle is depicted as making an important note to the effect that when men lay with men (just for the sex, is the implication) that it gives rise to powerful, insatiable passions and its (by implication) destructive results… BUT, when two men share love (implying a platonic relationship - no pun intended) based upon higher thoughts, it becomes a thing of beauty.

I may be brutally misrepresenting this part of the movie, but the idea I got from it was that he (Aristotle) was saying that mere sex could be trouble, but the "truer" love was more noble. Ain’t that nice?

Now what may throw me through a loop a bit is the bitter bit of rhetoric between some Christians and some folks in the LGBT community over whether or not homosexuality or even same-sex attraction (regardless of whether or not it results in sex) is morally acceptable.

What, exactly…. does God think about it?

While there seems to be some ambiguity on this subject, but we know that with God, there are no "shifting shadows". (James 1:17)

Naturally, whenever this topic comes up, the Leviticus Thumpers and the Leviticus Bashers line up on opposite sides of the theatre and prepare to draw each other’s blood; but I hope to find the middle ground, the "just balance" that is the Lord’s delight.

To begin, I will enumerate a few of my opinions on this, based on some biblical passages.

1) Same sex attraction is not inherently wrong. Re: David and Jonathan, Jesus and the Beloved Disciple, and as a stretch, Elijah and Elisha, and Paul and Barnabas. Thse all had some form of male-male attraction, but none of these can really be proven to have been gay (especially sexual) relationships. Especially where Paul is concerned; he might have bordered on being asexual… and I won’t argue that point. The most notable case is  David and Jonathan, where Jonathan "stripped off his robe" and other garments and weapons in front of David. Taken at face value, Jonathan (as a son and heir of the king) made himself vulnerable in front of David, a most curious act for the crown prince to do in front of a contender for the throne.

Not long after David had found favor with Saul (Jonathan’s father, and then king of Israel) - Saul had grown very jealous of David’s God-blessed talents, and later had sought to destroy him. Jonathan, on the other hand… on account of his love for David, perhaps sought to prove that love by making himself so vulnerable before David (who could have at that point easily killed Jonathan - nothing was said regarding David’s state of dress or undress, and if a warrior of that time and place was dressed, he usually had his weapons handy).

Also, it was common practice among ancient Semitic cultures for contenders for a kingdom’s throne to wipe out the competition’s heirs; instead, they re-affirmed the covenant they had between each other.

Whether or not that lead to a sexual relationship is not clearly indicated. I personally doubt that it did. But one thing I do think happened, is that they formed a very deep (platonic) bond, one that would be best equated to the "higher love" alluded to by Aristotle.

2) Sex outside of male-female marriage is sin. While many arguments are passed around over the David/Jonathan relationship, or in favor of an interpretation or outright mangling of Scripture to accomodate an LGBT-marriage friendly God… compared to the abundance of scripture supporting male-female monogamous marriage… there is a surprising lack of scripture in support of LGBT marriages or LGBT sexual relationships.

Unfortunately, whenever LGBT sexual activity is mentioned directly in the Bible, it is usually in reference to God expressing either judgment against it, or directly acting against it. Rather, the Bible tends to support the male-female marriage as the only God-endorsed expression of "holy" sexual love.

Some scholars have tried to paint the David/Jonathan relationship as a gay marriage (using other verses to validate Saul’s approval of it, or that "nude scene" as some expression of physical love between two commited, "monogamous" male partners).

Admittedly, for me, it is an incredible stretch to accomodate thier relationship as a gay marriage, much less a brief sexual congress between two youthful men discovering thier sexuality, or however one might justify these difficult passages. Yet, if we must accomodate it as such, then it is definitely a minority case. If we are going to use a sound hermeneutical framework for establishing what God’s definition of a marriage is, we must go with what is the overwhelming preponderance of God’s endorsement of a coupled, monogamous male-female relationship as His ideal.

3) Avoiding the appearance of evil. This one I speak to the Christian who is struggling with this issue. To sum up points 1 and 2, it is not sinful for a man to have a deep love for other men, but it is not good for a Christian man to *act* on that love in a sexual context. This was perhaps the "abomination" and "confusion" that God is thinking of in Leviticus 18: we are commanded to love each other, but to confuse that with sexual love that is most properly reserved for male husbands to female wives is not fitting for a godly people.    

This was at the center of Paul’s arguments in the often treated 1 Corinthians 6 where people and scholars alike will pick nits over the meaning of "arsenokoites" (rendered as either "men-lovers", "homosexual offenders", "effeminate", or "immoral persons" depending upon the translation). Rather than straining the linguistic gnats here, would it not be better to obey the Spirit of the Law here, and (for the Christian) give yourself to the service of Christ, and your love to the service for the brethren and sisters in Christ?

In considering Paul’s example, I count my body as dead to Christ when I am afflicted by the lust of the flesh that troubles me in the manner of my old way of life. Yes, I still have ungodly attractions (that is, a desire to commit sin against my flesh by lusting after men) but by the power of Christ within me, I am putting those lusts to death. That death by which I am dying daily to my fleshly desires in obedience to Christ IS the fulfillment of that awful death required by Leviticus 18:23. (For Christians and unbelievers alike, after the context of Christ being the fulfilment of the Law… let me make this perfectly clear: LEVITICUS 18 IS NOT ABOUT "KILLING QUEERS"!! )

For it is in Christ that I live: By His death, I also was made dead to sin, and by His resurrection, I am made alive, as it is written:

Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

(Romans 6:8-11)

Alive in Christ, I am being daily transformed by the renewing of my mind according to Christ’s word, to do God’s perfect will. (Romans 12:2)

4) This one is a bit of a doozie: God does not hate sexual sins any more than any other kinds of sin. In God’s eyes, all sin is served from the same table.

According to the Bible, there are seven particular sins God hates.

Again, this is not to dogmatically say that their is an heirarchy of sins, for any sin we commit is worthy of death according to the Law of God (thanks be to God for our saviour, and our Lord, the Son of God, Jesus Christ) but this may shed light on how God does not harp on a particular facet of sin to the minimalization of the others like we do.

Religous hypocrites make a field day of pointing out the obvious, when ignoring the less obvious sins that are really aggravating God to no end.

Make a note of which sin is "at the top of the list".

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look,
a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among brethren.

(Proverbs 6:16-19)

While God has at times directly judged (acted against in righteous anger) both people and states for specific sins, He (in the Bible) seems to have rarely struck people for just commiting sexual sins. I honestly believe that the oft-used Genesis 19 account of Sodom and Gomorrah was not an act against those cities on account of the homosexuals who dwelt there. Nor was it God’s judgment against that city’s "inhospitality", although having a gang of all of the men of a city wanting to gang-rape your house-guests can hardly be an example of hospitality.

But God did accuse those cities of being "sinners exceedingly before the Lord"… and He sent His angels to execute His judgment. Naturally, this begs the question: If God didn’t nuke those cities for being huge flaming gay ghettoes, what exactly did he nuke them for?

God nuked those cities because they had collectively gotten too proud; they were way too big for thier breeches, to the point of making themselves out to be the most important things in thier own imaginations. In so doing, they forgot to protect God’s favored people, the poor, the weak, the widows and the orphans of thier cities and towns.

Rather, they began to oppress the unfortunate.

The specific sins that may be a "casus justi" for God to punish and destroy those cities are found in Ezekiel 16:49-50 :

Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. They were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

(Does this sound like any country that we know today….? Mr. Bush? Fellow Americans? *cough, cough* )

Sodom, along with the four other "cities of the plain" (Gomorrah, Zeboiim, Admah, and Zoar) that God destroyed in Genesis 19, were regarded as among the wealthiest cities of thier era. They were situated at what was likely a good stopping point between Egypt and eastern Mesopotamia, and in Abraham’s time, were quite powerful, able to take on the four nation confederacy of King Chedorlaomer.

Some of the things that work hand-in-hand here were abundant pride, a pride that expressed itself on account of all the nice material things that Sodom had accumulated to itself. The rich get richer, while the poor get… oppressed.

I do not think that God is a respecter of persons (or nations) in terms of how He views sin, but I am inclined to think that if there is one thing that that God hates to see, even more than gross sexual immorality…. it is seeing the poor and defenseless getting crushed by the strong and the mighty rich.

Perhaps these sins are all intertwined: whether the attempted gang-rape was an expression of unbridled (presumably gay) lust, or an act of trying to force these unarmed guests (the angels) into submission, that is, to put those men "in thier place", one thing stands out:

Those (would-be rapists) were acting on lusts that were insatiable; they were so steeped in thier pride of life, thier ability to get instant satisfaction, thier desire to prove themselves better at the expense of others, that they were hardly able to control themselves.

The extremely perverted outworkings of this pride were the expressions of gang-rape and perhaps many more vile forms of sexual abuse and other sins; while there is little said about the economically oppressed people who suffered under the rule of the "Cities of the Plain", one can only imagine that it must not have been good - many human lives were likely traded around as chattels to the visiting tradesmen and merchant princes that stopped there at a common meeting place between the Eastern and Western worlds.

Sodom and its sister cities were actually an archtype as well; many more cities follow in thier example of what happens when its citizens get too proud over the generations, and God judged them.

Even God’s own chosen people were not immune to divine judgment: the Israelite city of Gibeah was destroyed by God on the occassion of a very similar offense as Sodom (Judges 19:20-finish)

In history, it repeats itself with Jerusalem (sacked and utterly destroyed at least twice), and Babylon (by Cyrus the Persian, and later by Alexander) and then Rome (AD 476 by various barbarian tribes) and finally, Constantinople in 1452 by the Ottoman Turks.

In fact, the whole of Leviticus chapter 18 (and in fact, much of the entire book of Leviticus) was a treatment NOT on gay sex, or even specific facets of sexual immorality, but rather, and admonition for Israel not to practice the same things that the Canaanites did before; God promised that the land would vomit them out just as it was doing to the Canaanites.

And, no less than 700 years later, the land did indeed vomit out the Israelites from Palestine, when they were carried away to captivity under Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

A modern case may be playing itself out with America in the 21st century: indeed, we are proud well beyond the point of meer arrogance; and we do tolerate, if not encourage, the (corporate) oppression of the weak, the poor, and the defenseless people of not only our land, but foreign lands as well. Far be it for me to suggest that America is in any way a "modern covenant nation" with God after the fashion of ancient Israel; such a vain imagination is neither biblical, nor reasonable. Rather, I am holding that the principles of God hold true for all men and women: if we violate our people and we violate, and foul the land we dwell in, that land will eventually reject us.

God is truly merciful and longsuffering towards us, but how long will He tarry with His divine Justice? Could it be that He has allowed that man in Iran -  like Cyrus the Persian of so long ago - to be raised up as His instrument to discipline us, if not destroy this America on account of our insufferable pride?

May God truly help us if this is so.