Saturday, February 16, 2008

Reproof of Homosexuality

In Ephesians 5, it is written "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." The word "expose" literally means "reprove" them...reminding us that it is the duty of believers not only to walk in ways of holiness and righteousness ourselves, but to "reprove with conviction" those who are offenders of the law and authority of God.

In reading this, I was reminded of the inconsistency being lived out in America these days in regard to homosexual behavior and the likes. On the one hand, many in America have not only not spoken out and condemned such thinking and behavior, but have unthinkingly bought into the lies and co-participated in the evil (of those who participate in or promote such immorality) by either actively approving or passively accepting their ways (or at least speaking of it as something should be perceived and/or embraced as acceptable). And yet on the other hand, the truth itself is both exposed and revealed when revulsion and objection is shown in response to clips and pictures of public expressions of such behavior and practices at such events as the gay parades in San Francisco where the shameful, unbecoming and filthy practices are brought to light...leaving many (and some of the same...) observers disgusted and with distaste for the things which are taking place, much of which is done today in secret, but these providing a glimpse into the darkness of their world of sin and evil.

I stand apart and am not ashamed to take a stand and publicly condemn all such thinking, attitudes, practice and behavior as contrary to the holy and authoritative law of God, as opposed to nature, as that which is improper, immoral, impure, unbecoming and unfit for anyone to take part in to any degree. Those who do so and speak thus so should be ashamed beyond measure and deserve the disgrace that belongs to them (whether or not it comes to them) and that they bring upon themselves. The only right response from them is to stop, to start anew, and to proceed on the path which consists of repentance and then toward purity.

It's time for God's people to speak out, for think of all those who will be drawn asunder because we have not spoken out, think of all the poor souls who need to be confronted and whose sin needs to hear words of conviction that they might turn and be saved, and think of all the extent of responsibility that lies with us in participating in all goodness, righteoueness and truth as we serve to shed light and truth in the name of God here in this world.

I have no doubt such a post will draw great criticism and response; so be it. I submit it as a clarion call for truth and for repentance, in the spirit and as a bearer of light, truth, and of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who himself is the light, Savior, sanctifier, and ruler of the world.

20 comments:

  1. Aren't you not supposed to be passing judgment upon others? Isn't that God's job?

    What if your son or daughter were a homosexual? Would you then be so quick to condemn them as disgraceful?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Burri,

    I posed questions, not judgment.

    But since you think I am doing so, I'll do it anyway.

    I think the message presented here is full of bigotry and hate. You would think with a message like "Love thy neighbor", Christians would be a beacon for tolerance instead of us wicked Atheists.

    Address the issue instead of making some off-hand comment that doesn't apply.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dank,

    Regarding your question, Christians are supposed to judge the behavior of people (including their own.) This is especially true of those who profess the Christian faith. The Bible tells us to judge those who are inside the church (1 Cor. 5:12), and "not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one." (1 Corinthians 5:11).

    The problem that you have, as Steve has already alluded to, is that you have no standard by which to judge anyone (even though you still do). You would, I hope, pass judgment upon Hitler's behavior, even though you really can't explain what he did wrong in your worldview.

    Regarding "tolerance", it seems as those like yourself are tolerant of everything except for righteousness. You are no more "tolerant" than we are, you just want your own standard.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “but have unthinkingly bought into the lies and co-participated in the evil (of those who participate in or promote such immorality) by either actively approving or passively accepting their ways (or at least speaking of it as something should be perceived and/or embraced as acceptable)” (swordbearer)

    I would ask quite simply – what should we do when we know gay people? What is more poignant God’s justice or God’s love? I read this and I almost think you are asking fellow Christian people to not even associate with gay people?

    Let’s use a scenario from John 8 for a second – what if someone brought a homosexual before you and was threatening to kill him/her (this is laws of God according to some) – what would you do?

    “I stand apart and am not ashamed to take a stand and publicly condemn all such thinking, attitudes, practice and behavior as contrary to the holy and authoritative law of God” (swordbearer)

    Condemn away – but let it be noted that you will be treated as you treat others. Now if your condemnation slips over into some type of practice of your views – how would that look? If someone hears your condemnation and ‘gay bashes’ someone – are you responsible for what you have said? There is problem with taking this hard line of a stance – it’s seems neither merciful and is inherently divisive – what is so godly about that? I see a Jesus who hangs around with people called ‘sinners’ and teachings that are about love for all people – at what point do we start condemning someone according to Jesus?

    “and think of all the extent of responsibility that lies with us in participating in all goodness, righteousness and truth as we serve to shed light and truth in the name of God here in this world” (swordbearer)

    There are a lot of concepts in there worth looking into – namely goodness and righteousness/justice. What is so good about your concept here – it’s an outright condemnation of people? Now if God is merciful – which is the most foundational concept of this faith – why does condemnation even enter our lips? And if God is love – which starts with acceptance – how can we not accept certain people?

    To me, it’s all very strange on some level – it’s like we should not even respect gay people yet the teachings within the gospel do not hint at treating someone like this whatsoever. What is so wrong with gay people that they cannot be accepted? They are not here to defend their perspective and I think we need to love them also (and speak up on their behalf) – and by love I mean how you love your friends and accept them irregardless of who they are or what they have done…I mean…isn’t this what God has done for us also?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm happy to see this thread continuing.

    Dank,

    If you indeed were just asking questions, I apologize. The questions, as written, are laden with judgment, however. And I see that it just took three words to unmask it.

    Societyvs,

    Not once did Swordbearer condemn the person. However, he did attack thinking, attitudes, practice, and behavior.

    RE: John 8

    John 3:18 states, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only son."

    John 8:10-12: "Jesus straightened up and asked her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?'

    'No one, sir (Lord),' she said.

    'Neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. 'Go now and LEAVE YOUR LIFE OF SIN.' (emphasis mine)

    Sounds to me like Jesus was condemning a way of thinking, attitude, practice, and behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The problem that you have, as Steve has already alluded to, is that you have no standard by which to judge anyone (even though you still do). You would, I hope, pass judgment upon Hitler's behavior, even though you really can't explain what he did wrong in your worldview.

    People can do whatever they wish as long as it doesn't harm anyone or infringe upon someone else's rights. Kind of explains what Hitler did wrong doesn't it?

    Can you explain what moral code God was following in Numbers 31 (certainly wasn't his own!)? Do you think slavery is OK (your God sure does!)?

    Regarding "tolerance", it seems as those like yourself are tolerant of everything except for righteousness.

    No, what I am intolerant of is the assumption that it is your God-given right to spit venomous hate in the direction of people that don't share the same lifestyle as you. It certainly doesn't fit with "Love thy neighbor".

    Dank,

    If you indeed were just asking questions, I apologize. The questions, as written, are laden with judgment, however. And I see that it just took three words to unmask it.


    They were just questions, just wanted to see the response.

    You are correct, I made my own judgment after reading the blog entry. But I was under the assumption that judgment (for Christians) was left up to God. You'll have to forgive me, it gets confusing when so many Christians have their own ideas about their religion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dank,

    Nice try, but no one is buying it. You pretend to have an “open” mind, and pass judgment on orthodox Christianity under the guise of “tolerance”. However, it is clear that you are not “tolerant”. Your moral superiority complex is quite obvious, and your “tolerance” is a farce. You create some vague moral standard that is completely at odds with God’s, and then label anyone who disagrees with you as “intolerant”. You have decided, on a whim, that homosexuality should be acceptable in society, and because you have spoken, it must be gospel. However, even your own standard of morality is quite arbitrarily applied. For example…

    "People can do whatever they wish as long as it doesn't harm anyone or infringe upon someone else's rights. Kind of explains what Hitler did wrong doesn't it?"

    Sounds rather arbitrary to me. Did you invent this standard on your own? What about the fact that homosexuality causes health problems that force me to pay higher health insurance rates? Does that not infringe upon my rights? How about the big government movement to increase taxes and federal funding for AIDS research (AIDS is a homosexual disease, despite attempts to twist it into something else)? Why should I be forced to pay for someone else’s lifestyle? How about it Dank? What particular rights are you willing to defend, or is this a farce also?

    The bigger problem, which your side has yet to address, is why one accidental sack of biocarbons should be concerned with the rights of another sack of biocarbons? Where did these rights come from anyway? Our alleged ancestors, the apes, practice murder, rape, theft, and gang violence, etc. Are they immoral for doing so? Do they have rights? If not, then on what basis will you invent these things for humans?

    Of course, if you are correct, the perhaps, I, as a result of evolution, simply have the “intolerance” gene. Why not? Would you have a better explanation?

    Yes, judgment is left up to God, and He has already assigned those who practice homosexuality to Hell (1 Cor. 6:9-10). If we truly love them, how can we not warn them of such a terrible judgment?

    Your personal objections to God’s law are just that, and nothing more. What do you think of the following statement?

    “Without absolutes revealed from without by God Himself, we are left rudderless in a sea of conflicting ideas about manners, justice and right and wrong, issuing from a multitude of self-opinionated thinkers.” - John Owen

    In the end Dank, you may profess to b an atheist, but you have shown that you are unable to live consistent with your worldview. For starters you seem to believe in right and wrong (despite having the wrong standard), yet you cannot account for these in atheism. You have simply proven the truth of Romans 2:14-15, though you would deny belief in this truth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Sin and shame are inseparable companions."

    "A greater plague cannot befall a man in this life, than to sin and not to blush!"

    Thomas Brooks

    ReplyDelete
  9. First, a few corrections are in order.

    1.) There is no constitutional right to marriage. Marriage is supposed to be aa issue left to the states. The Constitution has nothing to say on the matter, and the states do have a Constitutional right to honor a religion (which it always used to do.)

    2.) Where is this common ancestor? The more we look for him, the more apparent it is that it never existed.

    In any case, you have all but admitted that there is no such thing as a moral standard. So why would you try to impose one for "intolerance"? Any moral argument that you come up with is, by your own admission, your own opinion. Therefore, there is no reason why any other person should consider any of them significant.

    You have told us that "There is nothing inherently wrong with murder". I hope you really don't believe that, but at least you are starting to be somewhat consistent. You add, "I find the act despicable." Again, why should any other person care about that?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Referring to the first point you made. Indeed, a gross oversight on my part. I misspoke. In any case, I don't see the harm in homosexuals marrying so I'm cool with it.

    Any moral argument that you come up with is, by your own admission, your own opinion. Therefore, there is no reason why any other person should consider any of them significant.

    Absolutely, we all form our own opinions based on what we observe. I observe that murder is bad, someone else may make another observation. I know that sounds awful, and it is. I cannot imagine wanting to take someone else's life, but others can and do so. They don't have to agree with me, but they do have to face the punishment that comes with their actions. This is the reality of the world we live in.

    You have told us that "There is nothing inherently wrong with murder". I hope you really don't believe that, but at least you are starting to be somewhat consistent. You add, "I find the act despicable." Again, why should any other person care about that?

    I think murder is wrong regardless of what another person thinks, including a God. You're only against murder if God is as well. That seems pretty arbitrary too, as God could deem murder OK, and you would find it OK too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, if someone commits murder and doesn't face any punishment, are they acting morally, immorally, or is it open for personal opinion?

    In the end, you have no basis for forming any sort of moral opinion that should be taken seriously by another person. That included your pet peeve "intolerance".

    "I think murder is wrong regardless of what another person thinks, including a God. You're only against murder if God is as well. That seems pretty arbitrary too, as God could deem murder OK, and you would find it OK too."

    That sounds a little intolerant to me ;)

    However, you are correct. If God says that murder is OK, then it is OK. Surely you wouldn't object. In fact, you have already stated your agreement with John Owen on this point. In addition, you wrote...

    "There is nothing inherently wrong with murder"

    I'll applaud you on thinking consistently as an atheist on this point. However, I hold that you are unable to live in a way consistent with what you say you believe. In spite of what you have claimed to believe, you make moral judgments all the time, and have an expectation that those judgments should be shared by others. The fact that you consider murder to be repulsive is not an accident. Deep down inside, you know that there is a right and a wrong. It is a knowledge that goes well beyond individual rights or societal good. This is only one area where you have a knowledge of God. You may supress it, but you do have it.

    The reason why murder is wrong is because God has said so. He created man in His image, and man's life is valuable. This is another truth that you are instictively aware of, but cannot explain through your prison of naturalism. You can also include things like free will, love, hate, logic, etc. If your worldview is correct, than the items I have just mentioned have no value whatsoever. They are simply electric currents moving inside your skull, and that's all that they are. I would pray that you would consider these things as the God who gives us all treasures of knowledge and wisdom.

    The reason that it isn'

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great Points Puritan...

    And might I add that to take a position on homosexuality is to make a moral judgment as well, one for which there is right and wrong, and for which we are all accountable, or otherwise what difference does it make if we take one position while others take a different position, and how could they suggest there's a problem of our forcing "our beliefs" on others. As Puritan has pointed out, the atheist worldview has no basis for forming any sort of moral opinion that should be taken seriously by another person.

    But all this (in keeping with my original post) is still secondary to the fact that homosexual attitudes and practices are dishonorable and disgraceful and those who participate in or approve of such (to whatever degree) should be ashamed and brought under the scrutiny of reproof.

    While some may argue points like "Whether or not I agree with homosexuality is irrelevant...", I disagree. Homosexuality is unnatural and unrighteous, not to leave out the fact that it is an advanced degree of impurity, abomination and godlessness which is affirmed not only by God Himself in his sacred and authoritative Word but by the testimony of the overwhelming majority of people who have lived. The fact that some either refuse to or cannot see this points either to their conscience being so hardened and warped that they have lost sensitivity and the ability to make a right judgment, to their love and growing accustomed to but not being satisfied by sin continuing and increasing to the point of this extreme, to their having failed to learn to make right judgements, and/or to their having grown up with or taken upon themselves the mind and spirit of this age which not only fails to provide a basis for morality and judgment but opposes those who act in keeping with the truth while groundlessly justifying their own choices, positions and actions in approving not only the unrighteousness but the universal right to unrighteousness in others.

    The wrongful, dishonorable and deplorable nature and practices of homosexuality (and the likes) are evidenced in the occurences and extent of individuals from one gender attempting to deny their own gender and pretend the other (and the natural responses of others when this occurs); in the abnormal emphasis placed on the issue of sexuality among it's practicers, in occurances where individuals participate in activities "unnatural" to one's own body or the body of another, in the degrading use of one's own body, in the onset or high transmission of disease among the particular people group, in the distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual relationship and their contributions to society, the family, children, etc., not to mention the consequences of darkness, destruction and even death associated with it. In addition to these, it can be shown that arguments for homosexuality are often hard/impossible to defend against also allowing polygamy, beastiality or anything else imaginable by man.

    It's time that people begin looking beyond simply the individualism and it's related principles in our day to the greater and more comprehensive truth. I'm glad to see some of today's youth being challenged in these areas, which in this case has occurred even as the sinful practices and sentiments have been challenged.

    ReplyDelete
  13. “Not once did Swordbearer condemn the person. However, he did attack thinking, attitudes, practice, and behavior.” (Steve)

    Then I have asked simply – what do you do with that kind of thinking? How does holding these views look in reality? Are we talking Fred Phelps type stuff here? Or are we talking just ignoring gay people as friends? I think to hold this position is to also act upon it.

    “Sounds to me like Jesus was condemning a way of thinking, attitude, practice, and behavior.” (Steve)

    Actually, Jesus never condemned anyone ‘'Neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared’. The problem I raise that Jesus forgave an adulterer – caught in the act nonetheless – and still forgave her. By law, he had all the right to let the rocks fly and condemn her (by condemn we would mean a ‘here and now’ price to pay):

    Lev 20:10 – “If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

    He did not go the route of condemnation and neither should we. Even if there is a law describing how we have the right to do so:

    Lev 20:13 – “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”

    I think you’re focusing on the ‘go and sin no more’ part but I see the focus on the mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Puritan Lad,

    You hit the mark when stating (in response to Dank's statements...

    "In any case, your answer is that morality is a personal opinion. In such cases, there is no such thing as immorality."

    This is probably the reason Dank fails to admit to his own sins as wrong, for while he knows them to be wrong, he seeks to redefine the standard of morality for himself such that nothing he decides to be acceptable is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Societyvs,

    I just noticed your reference to "our faith".

    Perhaps to some degree I've misunderstood you and the position you are arguing from. Perhaps rather than being a believer who simply has misunderstood God unconditional grace as meaning unconditional acceptance (& therefore you suggest we should at the same time accept everyone and simultaneously not refer to anyone's practices as sin ... and therefore you falsely look upon the practice of believing brothers as judgmental) ...perhaps instead I have mistaken you for an unbeliever who argues "judgmentalism" in the sense that is typically cast upon believers by those who set to throw off all aspects of the faith.

    If so, I apologize, and our discussion can move toward the difference between God's unconditional grace and what you suggest as God's unconditional acceptance... two thing which are significantly different, and beliefs which significantly affect our practice.

    ReplyDelete
  16. the dank stated: "... And why can't I call Hitler immoral? I find him immoral, so of course I call him immoral. That doesn't make what I say the truth to anyone else, it is the truth to me and others that agree with me. It certainly wasn't true to Hitler, or his followers."


    WOW! Not just Relative perspective, but Relative Truth and Relative Standards. How could society ever deal with such individuals?

    This shows why the thinking of those who oppose absolutes is not only baseless and inconsistent, but dangerous as well. All the more reason for truthbearers to confront such thinking before its results become manifest more greatly!

    (Interesting how when one seeks to cover and justify their own sin, the path they take opens the door to justifying other or all sin.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. societvs,

    We can argue all day whether you have judged me and others (when you say things " "Pointing out someone’s flaws without offering to help them in any single way is not love – it’s just meaningless judgment", etc.) or whether I have judged you, and this could go in circles forever, ... but the issue here is whether believers have a responsibility to call voice opposition to sin, in this case homosexuality, ... rather than sit idly by by while the world seeks to approve, justify, and pursuade others of its supposed acceptability.

    For the purpose of discussion, I'm not interested in debated distinctions in "homosexuality" vs. whatever other definitions you seek to define or assign. (This subject is commonly understood not only in areas of scholarship but in the blogosphere as well.)

    It will be hard on one level the issue with you until you come to a conviction and position as to whether homosexuality is a sin or not. (At one place you refer to it perhaps as a "fault", then you go on to suggest "Homosexuality – is that even a sin?" You're lack of conviction would naturally confuse the argument and discussion, and perhaps until you get that issue under control, that debate may better be handled elsewhere, so as not to belabor and compound discussion here.

    In regard to the issue of the difference between God's unconditional grace and your suggestion of God's unconditional acceptance, note that your argument already begins to shift the discussion to God's unconditional love. God's unconditional love and grace go together but have nothing to do with unconditional acceptance.

    While you state "...Perhaps – it is a mistake I am willing to live with.", let me encourage you to reconsider, as our understanding and relation to sin is nothing to take lightly... even as the cross reveals.

    You state "it is clear as day that Jesus loves sinners..." but that is different than to suggest he therefore fails to address their sin, or that his people have a responsibility to "expose" the "fruitless deeds of darkness."

    You go on to confuse the issue of whether God's love and grace is sufficient to deal with peoples sins ... with the issue of whether that necessitates his acceptance of their sins.

    ReplyDelete
  18. (RESTATED without as many typos and some clarification)

    societvs,

    We can argue all day whether you have judged me and others (when you say things like " "Pointing out someone’s flaws without offering to help them in any single way IS NOT LOVE - IT'S JUST MEANINGLESS JUDGEMENT, (CAPS, my emphasis, etc.) or whether I have judged you, and this could go in circles forever, ... but the issue here is whether believers have a responsibility to voice opposition to sin, in this case homosexuality, ... rather than sit idly by by while the world seeks to approve, justify, and pursuade others of its supposed acceptability.

    For the purpose of discussion, I'm not interested in debating "homosexuality" vs. whatever other definitions or distinctions you wish to assign or define. (This subject - homosexuality - is commonly understood not only in areas of scholarship but in the blogosphere as well.)

    It will be hard on one level to debate the issue at hand with you until you first come to a conviction and position as to whether homosexuality is a sin or not. (At one place you refer to it perhaps as a "fault", then you go on to ask "Homosexuality – is that even a sin?" You're lack of conviction would naturally confuse the argument and discussion, and perhaps until you get that issue settled in your own mind and take a position on it, perhaps that issue of debate may better be handled elsewhere, so as not to belabor and compound discussion here.

    In regard to the issue of the difference between God's unconditional grace and your suggestion of God's unconditional acceptance, note that your argument already begins to shift the discussion to God's unconditional love. God's unconditional love and grace go together but have nothing to do with unconditional acceptance.

    You state: "...Perhaps – it is a mistake I am willing to live with." My response: let me encourage you to reconsider, as our understanding and relation to sin is nothing to take lightly... even as the cross reveals.

    You state "it is clear as day that Jesus loves sinners..." but that is different than to suggest he therefore fails to address their sin, or that his people have a responsibility to "expose" the "fruitless deeds of darkness."

    You go on to confuse the issue of (a) whether God's love and grace is sufficient to deal with people's sins ... with (b) whether that necessitates his acceptance of their sins.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Christ did not come to ACCEPT sin or CONDONE sin. He came to pay the cost of sin....

    IF all that was needed was for HIm to simply say "OK guys, I guess I'll just accept you, I love you" then why the need for His death on the cross?

    Nowhere in scripture do you find Christ accepting sin. If fact, Christ revealed to many just HOW much they fall from the mark. For axample, it's not enough to not have sex with another woman....Christ stated that simply looking at another woman with lust was "adulterous". He revealed just how sinful we are. No, Christ was very clear on sin....after all, that was the reason he came.

    Even as a Christian, we are not called to ever rest in our desire and serach to get rid of sin in our lives. We don't get a free pass once we are given Christ's righteousness. The sanctification process continually calls for growth and a desire to become more like Christ. So even in the relationship with Christ, we are called to renounce sinful thougts and behavior.

    I know other have said this, but your grand philosophical talk of accepting sin really is just that.

    Do you *really* accept murderers?

    Do you *really* accept rapists?

    Do you really *accept* child molesters?

    And on what grounds? You seem to think that a desire validates the practice. After all, we should allow homosexuality on these grounds, right? That is is simply their orientation? But at what point do you say this argument doesn't wash? Those from NAMBLA and other child molesters could claim this desire isn't sinful. (you could say that it must be consensual....but at what age? )

    Hey, a rapist is simply fulfilling his desire for rage and power...guess he should just get a free pass, after all, should we love and accept him?

    ultimately there *are* behaviors and thoughts that are considered unacceptable.

    And at a more personal level, do you really accept liars? Would you be willing to accept someone as a friend who consistently lies to you? A girfriend who refuses to not cheat and sleeps with everyone who is willing? (notice I am not asking if you would love that person, or even forgive that person, but would you continue in that relationship and accept that behavior as ok?) How about someone who continually steals from you? And demands that you accept that as ok?

    BTW, the heterosexual practices are fair game as well. As a single Christian woman, I am called to a life of abstinence. Those married who have posted here are called to a life of of commitment, no adultery.

    I do not pretend to understand the struggle of living with a desire for the same gender. I do understand sexual temptation, however, and this temptation in and of itself does NOT validate sexual promiscuity. My heterosexual temptations do not validate or make acceptable a life of heterosexual sin (or sinful thoughts).

    And our refusing to accept homsexuality as anything other than sin does not negate our responsiblility as Christians to love and minister to them, just as we are caleld to love and minister to those in prison, those locked in the grip of drug abuse, or those who struggle with anger, or those who struggle with heterozexual lust....and so on but this love does not mean that we say to those who murder "well, gee, go out and kill some more, it doesn't matter, Christ ACCEPTS you", not do we accept anger, lying, cheating, or lust.

    ReplyDelete