Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Blogging and Snogging | Main | Odds Better Than Even »



OK, you are about to receive one of the few posts I will ever make about religion or homosexuality and this discussion/forum is currently exactly at the point that I am willing to chime in on the two subjects combined. Understand that my viewpoint has been formed by my empirical experiences with the divine and speak for none but myself.

In my experience YHVH doesn't care about one's sexual orientation. "He" cares far more about how and why people act the way they do. In that a person who professes belief in the divine and acts within the common framework "he" set down (respect for mankind, charity, humility, forgiveness, 10 commandments, the greater good etc)is fine by "him".

YHVH exceeds limitations yet helimits himself. And most of our attempts to define "him" fall far short of the reality of "him". There are three religions of "the book" that attempt to define "his" nature and none of them paint a wholly accurate picture of "his" nature.

One belief that the KJV is that everything in existence is an extension of Ein Sof (The Holy Spirit) or the love that radiates from YHVH. And if that is true then homosexuality is an extension of divine will/love. Does every homosexual act with that in mind? No. But those that do deserve no less respect or acceptance than anyone else who chooses to act in accord with divine will.

And as many seem to have forgotten as of late is that Jesus said,"Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me." (Matthew 25:40)

If that isn't a prohibition against exclusion and disrespect then nothing is.

Funky Dung
"And as many seem to have forgotten as of late is that Jesus said,'Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.' (Matthew 25:40)"

"If that isn't a prohibition against exclusion and disrespect then nothing is."

Actually, it's a prohibition against abusing or denying someone's human dignity. Denying the right to marriage is not an offense against human dignity if there are real impediments. This applies to more than just homosexuality, by the way.



That has a mysterious authority to it. You sound as if you really know whereof you speak.

What is KJV?

Tom Strong

Well, this has been fun. It's good for me that it's over, as I'm back to having no time for blogs.

I think Steve N. is correct in that this is not a matter to be settled by debate, but by experience. Different communities will have to make their own decisions, and will have to wrestle with how to then interact with other communities which have chosen differently. I will continue to try and move my communities in what I consider to be the right direction.

Funky, you remain a graceful debate opponent, and I'll acknowledge that I cannot present you with the theological argument you need. If that ever comes, it will need to come from a forceful Catholic thinker like yourself. I still think your explanation of why homosexual desires cannot be ordered except through celibacy is unconvincing, and relies on an unnecessary complication in your framework. I also would still like to see you explain where you differ from the secular argument against gay unions you linked to here. But I respect the fact that you're still considering secular unions as a viable compromise, and I hope you'll continue to do so.

I will make one more criticism: For all your efforts at being fair, you (and your readers) do let your revulsion towards homosexuality bleed into your writing, and I do not blame sleipner or michael for responding to that tone and treating it with contempt. When pro-gay marriage boosters point out the lack of similar attention for heterosexual adultery among opponents, it is tone as much as political activism which we are talking about. That is bigotry, even if it does not make you a bigot (I would not call anyone a bigot who does not actively want to be a bigot). But I would argue that it is un-Christian, and ungraceful besides. Read the Experimental Theology essays amba pointed you to, and Weekend Fisher's post here, and consider.


I'll ahve to go read the last debate- if i have time, but i did find a great post on All Things Beautiful (i keep saying this, eh?) about Society and God's Law- "Does Society Dictate God's Law" i think this post is called.

I personally have a difficult time w/the tendencies of comparing animals to human nature. One comment at ATB talked of human nature before the fall and how, because of the occurance of the Fall- nature somehow became perverted(take that as you wish).

I've seen bulls jerk off, cows hump other cows- bulls jump head first, heifers and cows try to jump me(i hope they never fully succed- you would read me in the obits, then!!). Animals don't reside in nature or even natural habitat. They are crowded- they are over-hunted, they are managed by people. I'm beginning not to like people very much these days- we all have our perversities and weaknesses.

Go read the comments over there. i found them very fascinating, Biblically, too.

I have family members who are gay- more power to them if they are happy and private. For that matter- hetero PDOAffevtion make me uncomfortable- usually. It's personal and intimate and not my business.

I also worked w/the craziest dyke ever. my ex-husband's sister. No relationship9so far) has worked for her and she has an ex-wife and ex-kid- i guess. How f**ked up is that kid, i wonder? She even had a relationship, of sorts, w/an Aunt of hers(what's so wrong w/that- they loved eachother!!!!).

It shouldn't always be about God loving us or Christ accepting us- it should be about us trying our damndest to please the Lord, not ourselves. HE is the potter- we are the clay. Mold us, fashion us. Into the image of Christ. If that means- to the pro-gay marriage folk- that we accept their desire for~equality~ and ~humanity~ when scripture paints the opposite picture- then they are asking too much.

Do we ask that they discontinue their lifestyle? I don't think so. We just ask they not ~bend the rule~ and do as they please to gain legitimacy. (I'm gonna get creamed, aren't i- shit).

God does love us all equally- we are All God's Chosen(to quote a great psalmist&friend)(mr. gobley :0)), i agree. Does that mean we will all make it to our final desired destination? Only God knows. But, if even some gay folk can make a change and claim it a ~choice~ of desire and love- then choice it must be.

I may never be able to walk in any shoes other than my own(barn boots BTW- they are fly magnets) it's really not fair to say that, is it?

Even Christ encountered behaviour He disagreed w/. He overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. He even accused poor Peter of speaking for the devil. He knew He would be betrayed by Judas(but, still chose Him for the Twelve). Just because He loves us all doesn't mean He isn't hurt or disappointed by us. Or betrayed.

I'm tellin' yuh- All Things Beautiful. Christ floating perpendicular on the cross- i blue sky. Maybe it will give insight to why i say these things.


Tom, did you say something about the tolerant behaviour toward affairs/out of wedlock lust/love, etc? I thought i read it, but in re-reading- i can't seem to spot it.

I ask you, do you think dicking around is accepted/acceptable behaviour? Is it claimed to be sinless and acceptable in God's eyes? To be Blessed?

Also, sorry about the typos. Lots and lotsa them.

KJV is King James Version, amba- a Bible printed (sometime long ago and assumed to be very accurate in translation- i don't know anything about it other than that and don't know if it's a Catholic or Protestant Bible(or even if i should capitalize Bible)). There is a comment on ATB that explains way more about this Bible.


The King James is a Protestant Bible, although at the time the Church of England had a more Catholic feel than today. Its translation isn't the best (ignoring its archaic language). However, in ages past many a fundamentalist held that God inspired the translation, making it perfect. This is somewhat important if you're going to base your faith solely on the Bible. It also relies on manuscripts that aren't as good as some we now possess, but there aren't that many textual variants in the New Testament.


There's a fascinating book about the politics surrounding the making of the King James translation, called God's Secretaries.

Funky Dung
"However, in ages past many a fundamentalist held that God inspired the translation, making it perfect."

Many still trust it over all other English translations. They might not think it's perfect anymore (I don't really know), but they do accuse translators/editors behind other editions of distorting the Word of God.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004