Townhall.com | Matt Barber | August 2, 2007
Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (Mark 10: 6-8, NKJV)
Virginia resident Lisa Miller – now a born-again Christian – and her beautiful five-year-old daughter Isabella find themselves immersed in a nightmarish custody battle. But this battle is unlike most others. The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger. She’s lesbian Janet Jenkins, a woman with whom Lisa had at one time been homosexually involved.
By her own account, emotional problems brought on by a series of events — including abandonment by her father, abuse by her mentally ill mother and a decade long struggle with alcoholism now overcome — eventually led Lisa Miller into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, Lisa began a homosexual relationship with Jenkins after coming out of a legitimate marriage that ended in divorce.
In 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual “civil unions,” Miller and Jenkins made a weekend trek from Virginia to Vermont to enter into such a “union.” They then headed back to Virginia where they lived together.
In 2001, Lisa was artificially inseminated after the two decided to raise a child in an unnatural, deliberately fatherless home environment as self-deluded “wife” and “wife” — mother and “mother.”
In August of 2002, Miller and little Isabella, now just a few months old, moved to Vermont with Jenkins. However, things were unstable, and according to Lisa Miller, Jenkins was physically and emotionally abusive. “It was a troubled relationship from the beginning,” Lisa told World Magazine in a recent interview. “The relationship did not improve, as Jenkins — working as a nightshift security guard — grew increasingly bitter and controlling,” reported World.
About a year later, when Isabella was less than a year and a half old, Lisa ended her lesbian relationship, took her daughter back home to Virginia and filed for dissolution of her homosexual “civil union” back in Vermont.
And that’s when the nightmare really began.
Although Jenkins had no parental connection to Isabella (she was neither an adoptive parent, nor biologically related) she filed papers in Vermont in 2003 to try to take Isabella from her mother. Even though the child was conceived, born and living in Virginia, the Vermont court nonetheless held that it had jurisdiction. The legal battle has continued since that time, and incredibly, the court recently ruled that Jenkins possessed parental rights over Lisa’s daughter. It granted Jenkins regular and very liberal visitation. Isabella is now required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger (Jenkins) who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her “momma.”
Rena M. Lindevaldsen, who is an attorney with Liberty Counsel and is representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, explains, “After Lisa ended her relationship with Janet, when Isabella was only 17 months old, Lisa became a born-again Christian. For the past three years, she has attempted to raise her child according to Biblical principles. According to recent filings by Janet, however, Janet believes that Lisa’s religious beliefs render Lisa incapable of properly parenting Isabella. As the fit, biological parent of Isabella, it is Lisa, not Janet, who has the fundamental right to decide how to raise her child and with whom she visits. Shockingly, when the Vermont courts declared Janet, a woman who is still actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle, to be Isabella’s parent and set a liberal schedule for visitation between Janet and five-year-old Isabella, the court did not even address Lisa’s fundamental parental rights.”
. . . more
note 148:
Brent, I will just address the points you make about terms. “Conservative”, “Liberal”, “Neo-Pagan”, and other terms are useful words that have real meaning and content. People are not merely their philosophy, true, but their philosophy is an important aspect of their life.
When discussing ideas, these terms are relevant and practical. For example, your thoughts about the place of the bible, “common sense”, etc. all reveal a certain philosophy. We can even put a name to this philosophy…;)
Michael writes: “The world gives far too much importance to the gratification of sexual desire. The root cause of the disordered approach to human sexuality is worshiping the created thing rather than the creator–pride, selfishness, self-absorbtion and the gratification of the senses are the result.”
To the extent that too much importance is given to the gratification of sexual desire, that probably is due to the fact that we are hard-wired for it, even including large doses of hormones, basically self-manufactured drugs, that increase sexual desire.
I mean, if our brains and hormones were such that we all had a monumental interest in riding skateboards, would you talk about how the “world” gives too much importance to skateboard riding?
One thing I’ve never understood is, if too much importance is placed on the gratification of sexual desire, why does the Orthodox church permit remarriage? Why not just say “sorry, you’ve had your sexual experience, and now it’s time for the celibate life.” They don’t say that because most people would not be able to live like that. Another solution would be to permit marriage, but only to someone whom you did not find at all attractive. In that way sex would be a kind of unpleasant chore engaged in only for the purpose of procreation, and sexual gratification would minimal. Again, most people couldn’t live like that.
What you have to offer homosexuals is a life of prayer and celibacy, even as you and the vast majority of your co-religionists do not exercise that option yourselves. Why not? Doesn’t prayer and celibacy work for heterosexuals too?
One is reminded of the passage in the gospels concerning the scribes and pharisees: “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” Orthodox Christians insist that homosexuals bear the very thing that they themselves cannot bear. My guess is that this fact is not lost on gays and lesbians when Orthodox folks show up telling them how they ought to live. Were I a gay man I would simply reply “if it’s such a great thing, you and a significant percentage of your buddies go do it and then I’ll consider it.”
Im sure you can Chris :0) i wonder if its something i have been called before,a nd its usually i am a weak person who allows things to happen, and doesnt fight for anything, however you would be surprised.
I generally defend those who have been scapegoated by the world, and in my views we all contribute to the “cauldron of the end” by that i mean we all equally do are part to both destroy the world and create this world almost at the same time, so it is my expression that we are all to blame for everything and anything, but we all still try to keep this world afloat, so in escence we all should pat ourselves on the backs for a job well done, and also forgive ourselves for what we have done to destroy things.
See the pattern we are always taking and giving, and this is a created pattern by something obviously, so no matter what religion to worship we can all be in accordance on that matter.
I am defending Homosexuals and taking away from those who don’t, and those who are defending heterosexuals are taking away from those who don’t, so in all of this madness we come out the same.
In this view i say we are all wasting our time with this, since nobody will come to any understanding churches will always fight new things, and the younger generations will always push for new things.
Patterns are so much fun wouldn’t anyone agree i mean it shows that their is some great mechanism involved here, for those who want their proof of a higher existence.
you know jim holman makes a good point there,
Why should some be sex free and others not?
that to me seems very biased, but oh wait i guess alot of people tend to be biased, so what am i saying LOL duh.
It is as funny as when alot of heterosexuals may say that lesbians are okay, but gay men are not (mainly because alot of guys have fantasies of more than one women giving them sexual gratification).
If homosexuals are so looked down upon, then why aren’t men who sleep with multiple partners without commitment, and men who sleep with women and get them pregnant and then ditch, oh well mainly because deep down inside most men are hardwired to “plant the seed and leave”.
This is why i strengthen my stance on the term “Scapegoat” for all of those who do not know what that term means look it up.
The whole maritual thing is falling apart, and everyone is looking for the easiest target to blame, and low and behold its the homosexuals they get just as much blame as the jewish community (another scapegoat from history).
And as far as science goes according to phil earlier has been given credit that their are some differences in Gay males and Gay women, so as to argue that maybe genetically gay men are only 1/3rd male instead of 50/50 because we all know men are half women xy chromosone.
But all of this will never matter, because to most Eyes its still a choice to be gay, so all of those homosexuals prefer the masochistic lifestyle of ridicule and lack of rights. Do most of you know that in most states someone can be fired for being homosexual, whether they show it or not, and they could be doing a wonderful job at their job, but that is a none-protected thing.
So you can see a homosexual has no support from Work, most families, religion, and many other things, so yet you still say they choose this route my god why would anyone chose this?
Jim,
The Church’s direction is not to remarry, but allows for remarriage as an accomodation to human weakness. Since I am a widower, I can speak to the fact that there is much wisdom in not remarrying. It takes some adjusting (still relatively new to me), but seems to be well worth the effort.
The Church’s approach is indicative of her non-legalism. In my case, my priest was quite gentle in leading me to the realization of what and why the Church teaches in helping me adjust. A legalistic mandate would not have been helpful to either of us. I knew the teaching well but in my sorrow and pain was looking for surcease in human form and was not predisposed to obedience. However, as I continue in my life, especially praying for my departed wife, a greater understanding and love has began to dawn on me. There is a grace that comes in remaining faithful to my marriage that cannot be known until experienced. She is, after all, still alive in Christ. (See Death in a two-storey universe)
Again, it comes down to who we are as human beings, fallen, but with a much higher calling a much brighter image than we normally express. We have an opportunity to reaquire our full humanity becuase of the Incarnation.
Our falleness is key to understanding the Church’s approach to our sensual capacity (physical and emotional). They are given to us so that we can rejoice with our whole being (a physical/spiritual whole) in God and His creation. Apart from God, the sensual becomes an end it itself. That is sinful.
Those who promote sexual license are ignoring the spiritual reality revealed in Chrisitanity.
Phil, why risk the welfare of even one child for the sake of your sex thrills?
As a “children’s rights” advocate, I challenge and fully oppose your efforts to obtain benefits and privileges in society because of your disfunctional sexual proclivities and to have society pay for them with the lives of children.
Whom do you think you are?
Society has a right to put children, it future first. The sexual proclivities of what you call “gay people” (note to Anne Heche you are violating the party line) is their problem.
Every society in the history of the world has supported and rewarded those who devote themselves to the life-long task of raising the next generation. History and all formal research show that children do best with both a mother and a father.
You can allow gays to adopt and fully support children’s rights. Every same-sex couple deprives a child of a mother or a father OR the guidance of an adult female and an adult male in an appropriate group or foster home. Get a pet.
This is the burden, Phil. In all of my conversations with gays, I have always found that there is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that gays are not willing to sacrifce— the wellbeing of children, the national defense of this country– for the sake of their sexual pleasure. This, I think, is the true disorder of homosexuality—the absolute elevation of a sexual buzz above everything else in the world.
note 153:
by that i mean we all equally do are part to both destroy the world and create this world almost at the same time,
Again, interesting philosophy – probably has a name 🙂
However, that is not Christianity. Christianly speaking, we are not all “equal”, in the sense that we do not all “equally” contribute to the “destruction of the world”. Christ told us that we will be judged – separated out. Just look out your window. Some folks are more destructive to themselves and others, some less so. Some appear to not be destructive at all. We generally term these people “Saints” and paint pretty pictures of them to hang in our Churches…;)
Note 153, Brent at least you have clarified your worldview
Well, Brent, essentially nothing really matters to you, actions have no consequences and no one will be held accountable for anything.
Why bother to discuss anything then?
Why do you bother to discuss things with other people since you have no principles?
Phil, why risk the welfare of even one child for the sake of your sex thrills?
Missourian, are you acknowledging, then, that homosexuals might exist? Let’s hear it.
(And the answer to the question is, I really don’t think that having same-sex parents who have sexual relations has significantly more of an impact on the children being raised than having mixed-sex parents who have sexual relations. Orthodox Christians (and many other Christians) are obsessed with sex. Note how many times sex and sex acts have been brought up by the Orthodox on this board. Jacobse even asked me directly if I have sexual relations with men, without explaining why he wants to know. It appears to consume the thoughts of conservatives.)
Christopher, the name of the the philosophy described by “by that i mean we all equally do are part to both destroy the world and create this world almost at the same time,” is nilhism particularly the Nietzchean variety.
Note 159. Phil writes:
I am beginning to wonder if you are homosexual, that’s why I ask. The “sexual relations with men” explanation was just to clear the air about what the term means, and also to show no rhetorical trick was involved (which could be easily construed by such a direct question).
So, are you?
Note #158-Missourian. Brent must be in love with nothingness. It can be powerfully seductive to those who have no foundation in love or meaning or perhaps he has been reading to much Robert Heinlein. Brent’s post sounds like something right out of “Stranger in a Stange Land” from the 1960’s Heinlein’s peon to “free love” and polymorphous perversity as the way to save the world. So much for Brent’s younger generation being so new and creative.
Note 154. Brent writes:
People don’t “choose” same sex desire. They choose what they do with it. Sexual desire is largely innate and naturally (according to nature) directed towards the opposite sex. That’s what the biology reveals, what the moral code of the world’s civilizations (even non Christian) overwhelmingly affirm, etc. etc., — everything we have been talking about here. When sexual attraction occurs toward the same sex, we look for reasons.
What are some of those reasons? If you really are interested in knowing, check out this website and read through the articles: NARTH.
Note 162. Too harsh Michael. Brent is young and just starting to figure things out. Need to cut him a little more slack. Yes, a lot of his answers are boilerplate activist responses, and yes, he has bought into the homosexual as victim self-identity narrative, but there is some genuineness in his responses.
Missourian,
I do have principles, however i see the whole world as it is, and i can tell you stabbing at the gay society will not correct this world by far. You can go ahead and humor yourself, but their will come day if you are still alive that you will find that your fight to “Save traditional Marriage” was for nothing.
Lets say for instance that all gay people just disspeared into nothingness, what do you think will change?
Im sorry if i see the big picture here, and its not gay people that are destroying this world its all of us.
We consume to much (Food, Earth elements, etc.)
We lust for things (Sex, Religious Comfort, food, money, etc.)
We all Hate (Gays, Muslims, Retarded people, Etc.)
We all are self loathing, and selfishly hating people for no reasons
We can all sit around and point the blame at gay people for things, and not take responsibility.
The gay population continues to increase, so obviously your battles are being lost, so maybe its time to try a different better aproach.
I stand for trying better options and thinking outside the Box (in this case outside the book).
The gay people that Do Convert do it purely out of fear, not because they are truly fixed, hence why most those men that are hooking up with other men in the parks are middle aged married men what can you argue to that???
Don’t criticize me and say i have no morales i have plenty i just want everyone is this world to have a chance and everyone to be in accordance, and yes this naturally nieve, but eh never said i was perfect.
Their are bad things that people do that i would never condone, but i dont play sides i am not biased i think everyone should be accountable for themselfs, and not place the blame on a minority group of people sort of like the gay society.
Most gay people commit alot of sexual acts, because they have low self esteem and their morales are low, because they have people telling them they are going to burn in hell, and that they are destroying the world, and treat them like a disease, so gee i wonder why one would have such a low self esteem that they have little to no morales.
Shame on people for not taking responsibility for their own mistakes and tossing it off on minorities, because it is it so easy to do.
We all have done and are doing things wrong, so quit with the virginal goodie two shoes act, and take responsibility for you own personal failures and lack of commitment, because it is mans nature to cheat and leave the women that is truly hardwired, so don’t fault gay men strictly on it being they are the only ones with sex on the brain, because its men in general.
yes michael it may appear so because of my youth, but like i stated you are all intelligent people, however your guys/girls views come from a different generation, and i am accounting for all perspectives, and collectively i am trying to make it clear that poking at this whole gay issue is not going to fix things, but just make it worse.
Everyone must seek other areas as well in order to find the real solutions to problems not focus all on one subject.
Sorry Michael i have not seen that movie, so i cannot relate to it, and no i do not have a gender crisis, but if even if i did that would be my demons to fight not yours.
Your not getting frustrated are you?
I can see how this whole thing is frustrating, because no true right or wrong way to handle, which is yet why i say we all need to look at the whole picture here, and marriage will be the least of our worries when the world gets blown up.
I am worried about the middle east that scares me not two men getting married all this fighting for morales will mean nothing when we are incinerated by a nuclear War.
So yeah i am sorry if i am Nieve and Young, but at least i am paying attention to the loaded pistols here.
Note 165, Brent, “seeing the whole world as it is” Older people have seen more of it than younger people.
Brent, there exists a great deal of literature on the topic of society’s approach to homosexual conduct. You make no reference to any of it.
I have made reference to it.
If you talk to an anthropologist, you will learn that the first thing that an anthropologist studies about a society, nation or tribe is the family structure. How does the society define family, what are the rights and duties of family members and related issues.
Societies have always defined themselves through and by the rules that they make for family life. There are reasons for rules, Brent, it isn’t just a conspiracy by one faction to make life miserable for others.
It is typical of young people to see the rule advocated by older people as simply instances of “killing joy.” I did when I was young. As I got older, lived more and observed more, I began to see the reasons for rules. When you are 7 years old you sure don’t like your mother or father taking you to get your immunization shots or your dentist appoinment.
Prior to 1960, America had a unified and coherent and agreed upon set of moral rules concerning marriage and family. Not everybody lived up to them but nearly everybody agreed with them. First, people were expected to marry and to have children. It was the norm. It was recognized that raising children was a “joyful duty.” We have to produce the next generation because the older generations are dying off. If we stop reproducing society dies. We also have to train and socialize children to be honest, productive citizens.
Let us review the trends of the last 60 years.
First, marriage was trivialized by easy divorce and we were told by the Left
“Don’t worry it won’t hurt children.” It did.
Second, sex outside of marriage was normalized and we were told by the Left
“Don’t worry it won’t hurt children. It did
Third, co-habilitation with marriage was normalized and we were told by the
Left “Dont worry it won’t hurt children.” It did.
Well, we now have 60 years of social experimentation and the results are coming in for review. Stanley Kurtz has reviewed those results. Theodore Dalrymple has reviewed the results in the U.K.? They are not good.
The approach the society takes to homosexual conduct is part and parcel of the approach it takes to sex and marriage and the family. These are important topics which have a huge impact on all of us in a very immediate sense.
Why don’t you go and do some serious reading on these topics and come back after that.
Gee. I don’t recall either cheating on my wife, or leaving her and the kids for that matter.
Might have happened in a trance-like state?
Men can and do fail. The Orthodox Church takes a realistic view of that failure. A monk, when asked what they do at a monastery, replied, “We fall down and get up.”
Just because men and women fail doesn’t mean you throw in the towel and accept that fact. The world can be better. We can be better.
You list out a lot of failings like over eating, etc. It isn’t as if the Church says, “Go for it!” in regards to gluttony or heterosexual extra-marital relationships. All of those things are condemned. In fact, the Orthodox Church is the only place that really keeps a balanced view of the situation.
The Protestant Fundies really do get totally fixated on sexual sins, and miss out on all the other ways in which people cut themselves off from God. The Orthodox Church takes a holistic view of sin and the nature of man’s separation from God.
That holistic view includes condemning a lot of things that you said should be condemned in your various posts. The purpose of the Gospel is to overcome and redeem man by transforming the fallen nature of man into the glorified world of the future.
Homosexual lusts are part of the fallen nature of man. They are contrary to God’s design and are rebellious, just as men who run around ‘planting the seed and leaving’ are rebelling against God’s plan.
I do not believer that the number of homosexual men is increasing. The number is no greater now than in the past. However, I do believe that the number of women experimenting with lesbian relationships is in deed increasing, as it is not only socially acceptable in certain circumstances but also highly encouraged. Just check out the commercials for ‘Girls Gone Wild’ videos and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
In the end, of course, the Church as a whole is not poking just at this gay issue. It may be that which is bothering you, but the Church is busy with a whole range of issues that encompass a lot more than just this.
Fr. Hans, & Brent Re #162: I was just remembering myself at 20 when Heinlein’s book was all the rage and how attractive it all seemed and how seductive the abyss of nothingness seemed to me. How old fashioned and hide-bound my elders seemed especially when it came to sexual mores.
By the grace of God, I did not dive into that abyss but I came very close. So if I offended, please forgive, but also know that that path is only self-destructive, despite the lure. It will always be heavy on my heart that I participated in the hedonism of the time and longed for every greater participation. I, unfortunately, helped pave the way for Brent’s confusion.
I am sad, Brent that you seem more willing to duplicate my folly than to avoid it.
What I see in many of these posts is a lack of any sense of the nuance and range of ideas and behaviors in humanity. One is apparently either way on one side of the fence or the other; they are either totally self-sacrificing or they embrace nihilism and “the abyss”. Is this really your experience of what people think and do in day-to-day life?
Folks, people can have contrary ideas (“worldviews”, as you call them) and not engage in utter depravity every second of every day and have some respect for self-restraint and self-sacrifice. Pat Tillman who served his country bravely and died was evidently an atheist. There are gay men and women who attempt to live monogamously and who don’t seek out anonymous sex. Yet it seems there is no room in your heads to allow for the existence of such people. Why is that? Perhaps it’s a necessary way of validating your own beliefs to believe that those who think and believe differently are “utterly corrupt”? It ain’t so. Reality doesn’t seem to hold much weight here, does it?
I recall as a “fundie Catholic” what the “outsiders” looked like: let me tell you, it was quite something to float above everyone else with their petty thoughts and banal souls – trapped in their darkness. What I came to realize that these ideas I had of them had little or no basis in reality. I didn’t even know them – yet I somehow had this extraordinary ability to determine that they were “in the dark”. This was my own projection and presumption. I see a little of that here at times.
Michael, very sorry for your loss, and best wishes in your current life. Had I known of your personal situation I certainly wouldn’t have used the example of remarriage. Certainly in any discussion group consideration for other participants has to take precedence over the discussion. Apologies if I caused any additional hurt.
In your post you used an interesting phrase: “accommodation to human weakness.” I certainly have known some very strange homosexuals, but I have known many more who are really “just folks.” Just people trying to get by. People who are not trying to push any particular agenda, and who are often not even politically active. They are not cruising or hanging out in bath houses.
For these people, who at some point in life simply want to experience love in all its aspects, there must be some way to “accommodate human weakness.” Politics, rhetoric, and research studies aside, I simply have a hard time condemning someone for doing that which every fiber of his or her being says is right and good. I know one gay couple who have been together for over 20 years. At this point I have a hard time seeing how it would be better were they to split up and live alone.
James says:
What I see in many of these posts is a lack of any sense of the nuance and range of ideas and behaviors in humanity. One is apparently either way on one side of the fence or the other; they are either totally self-sacrificing or they embrace nihilism and “the abyss”. Is this really your experience of what people think and do in day-to-day life?
See my post on the other thread – you seem to want to ride the fence and deconstruct that which should not be. We are discussing principles, Dogma, and how it relates to life. First things are first, and you can’t through away principles when you are neck deep in praxis – because principles are what tell you what to do next.
Besides, some things should not be allowed – like “gay marriage”, abortion, and the like – no “nuance” about it…
Note 145–
I was responding to your assertion that there are no clear scientific studies that a “gay orientation” exists. If, as you claim to acknowledge, being gay is caused by a birth defect, then, indeed a “gay orientation” might exist. Yes?
No offense, Missourian, but you’re applying a few concepts from 7th-grade science to a question that is a little too complicated for the scope of most 7th-grade biology books. To wit:
Look, if your assertion here (your “solid case” that homosexuality cannot have a genetic cause) is true, then it would also be true that there are no genetic conditions that result in infertility, because, as you say, “Nature does not select for sterility.”
However, there are actually a number of genetic conditions that result in an organism’s infertility. So, clearly, sometimes Nature _does_ select for sterility.
Sure, but if you’re saying things that you believe are untrue in order to get a response from someone else, then you’re not really engaging in a discussion, you’re just trolling.
Missourian, your tone for this entire post was a bit of a rant. If our discussion is upsetting you to the point where you’re making personal attacks, I’m happy to stop.
Phil wrote:
The gene doesn’t survive it dies out with the first generation. Nature did not select for the gene to survive, because it was not passed on.
Note 173, No logical inconsistency in my reference to “birth defects”
Birth Defects and Genes
A birth defect is any condition in which the organism fails to develop fully and properly. Many things can cause birth defects. Damage to the child in the womb through exposure to toxins, radiation, trauma, or deficient maternal diets for example. A child’s genes may be perfect but the expression of those genes may have been interrupted or disrupted somewhere between conception and birth.
It is possible that someone could be born with a birth defect which would render them physically infertile, however, that does not mean that there exists a “gene for infertility.” It means that same aspect of the organization suffered damage pre-conception or post-conception or during gestation. The genes of a physically infertile person will not be naturally passed on. Darwinians refer to this as the process of a gene being “extinquished” in the population. Even if combinations of genes cause physical infertility those combinations of genes will also be extinquished after they occur once.
So there is no logical problem with stating the homosexual conduct might be the result of a) a birth defect b) psychological disorder or c) moral disorder. In fact, the research the I quoted on sheep points towards the birth defect
theory. Sheep farmers who monitor the gestation period of sheep can prevent the creation of a ram which will not mount ewes. Gay activists have actually asked that this research be stopped. Quite amusing, I would say.
For the purposes of medical/genetic studies what makes a person gay? Physical structure? Conduct? Emotion?
Medical/genetic studies can not be properly constructed unless there exists a solid definition of who is gay. Anne Heche and Angelina Jolie do present a real problem.
What does it mean to classify a person as “gay.” Are Anne Heche and Angelina Jolie gay? They have had sex with both men and women. We have just described conduct not a physical condition. Should “gay” be restricted to people who only have had sex with members of their own sex? Maybe, but, again we have only described conduct. A male vrigin could be convicted of a crime and then have sex with men in prison only because there are no females around. Plenty of male prisoners have homosexual sex while incarcerated. Again, conduct doesn’t seem to be something that we can base a medical/genetic study on.
What about physical structure? Do all gay men possess some physical attribute that a physician could examine and point to and say “yup, there is the gay body part?” Obviously not. So we can’t use physical structure or make-up to define a person as gay. If such a structure exists, we haven’t found it and therefore we cannot classify people as “gay” or “straight” based on the possesion of this alleged physical structure.
What is left? Emotion, preference, “orientation?” How do we know that this “emotion”, “orientation” or “preference” exists? Self-reporting? At what point in time? Sexologists report that many teenagers experiment with some form of homosexual conduct, even if just same-sex kissing, yet they don’t pursue homosexual relationships and engage only in hetereosexual activity as they grow up.?
Again, it is questionable whether it makes any sense to refer to a gene which does something other than direct the creation of a body part. Parental genes can be damaged, developing foetal body parts can be damaged and these can result in a birth defects, but, it doesn’t produce a gene that will be passed on and cause the same birth defect. The child’s gene is fine.
If a gene did exist which absolutely created a “orientation” it would have to be recessive or a majority of the population would be “gay”. If it is a recessive gene it would only be expressed when both mother and father passed on the recessive gene. If a person had two gay recessive genes the probability that they would conceive and pass on their recessive genes is very small. This remains true even if you posit rape of a double-recessive gay woman.
Insults aside, you haven’t touched my argument.
Notew 170, James K, ideas have consequences,grave consequences
What I repeatedly miss in your posts is any recognition of the gravity and importance of what we are debating. You float above it all as if it were simply an academic debate. What we are debating is the very survival of a great civilization- Western civilization.
Every anthropologist starts his study of a culture by looking at family structure. As citizens of a democratic country there is no more important debate than thata which decides what kind of family structure the country will recognize and support and reward. It is crucially important. Have you given any thought at all to the writings of Peter Hitchens and Theodore Dalrymple. They have meticulously documented the rise of negative consequences in Britain as the traditional family was dismantled piece by piece. I don’t think so. The rise of crime, illegitimacy, drug usage, alcohol abuse, chronic unemployment and other social factors has been meteoric in the U.K. since WWII. Prior to WWII Britain was known as the one of the most peaceful, law-abiding and well-educated places in the world. That is no longer true.
I am fully aware of the range of behaviors in humanity. What you are not aware of is that as a citizen of a democracy we are called upon to govern ourselves and to do that we must establish rules through our legislature.
Many times you state that some issue should be decided on a “case-by-case” basis. But this is no solution at all. Our legal system does resolve things on a case-by-case basis BUT it needs to have rules in place to resolve the case, otherwise, a judge is simply an arbitrary and capricious dictator.
Frankly, JamesK, I don’t understand how you can’t understand how law and society works and must work. I don’t understand how you can have such a cavalier attitude about the most important issues we will ever have to decide.
I don’t know if there is a legitimate theological definition of “fundamentalist” but I do know that when that term is used by atheists it generally means someone who has principles who is annoying an atheist who would like to be free of the constraints of those principles.
Note 175–
I didn’t say that you were logically inconsistent when you call being gay a “birth defect.” If you want to call it a birth defect, fine. But you cannot both claim that it’s a birth defect and that there’s no such thing as a gay person.
That’s a very good question. It’s one reason that handedness makes an interesting comparison, because it’s _not_ a cut-and-dried case of a physical structure. And gay people are physically capable of mating with members of the opposite sex, just as straight people are physically capable of having same-sex sexual interactions. Similarly, left handed people are capable of using their right hands; it’s just a pretty ridiculous society that insists that they do so their whole lives.
The people involved in hair-whorl studies and finger-length studies were people who self-reported as gay. But they didn’t know, for example, at the time of the study that their hair whorled counterclockwise. It’s a stretch to say that they threw off the sample by somehow lying or otherwise misreporting.
As you imply, there’s more to it than a single characteristic. I’m of the opinion that the person best qualified to determine whether someone is gay is that person.
And yet, knowing nothing about his personal life, I can say with confidence that Clay Aiken is probably gay. What combination of traits make this fact guessable? It’s hard to say, but it’s a likely bet that if your sister were dating Clay Aiken, she’s due for a cold dose of reality.
Note 174–
Hi JBL. I’m having trouble understanding your post.
Are you saying that _all_ genes which cause an organism to have a condition making it infertile die out in one generation?
Note 161-
Yes.
Whether a rhetorical trick or not, however, I have trouble believing that you’ll be able to resist bringing it into debate. I don’t think there’s been a single instance where we’ve discussed children that you haven’t mentioned the fact that I don’t have kids, for example.
Note 177, Phil, you have just thoroughly defeated any shred of scientific argument for your position
If a medical/genetic researcher wanted to design a research protocol for the investigation of homosexual conduct, he would first have to identify “gay people” and “straight people.” This is necessary in order to establish that what he is studying is truly “gayness.”
However, if he cannot find something physical or biological to distinguish between “gay people” and “straight people” then he has nothing but conduct or self-reporting. If he relies on “self-reporting” then he has NO ASSURANCE that he is truly studying a group of people all of whom are biologically/physically “gay.” John may define gayness in one way and self-report that he is gay. George may define gayness in another way and still self-report that he is gay. Given that the medical/genetic researcher has no good way to know whether John and George actually share some genetic/biological (as opposed to psychological or cultural) characteristic which is capable of being studied scientifically. Compare a medical/genetic researcher who is interested in diabetes;that researcher can objectively separate people as having been diagnosed with diabetes or as being diabetes free. There exists an objective and consistent way to identify membership in each group: diabetic and diabetes-free.
The fact that no one has found biological/physical markers which occur in all people who self-describe as “gay” is meaningful. Even if you site studies which allege that “lesbians” have a higher probability of possessing some physical characteristic, you haven’t established that you have a clearly defined biologically determined group called “lesbians.” It is just a bunch of self-reporters which is virtually scientifically meaningless given the range of human behaviors involved in homosexual conduct.
You also deeply misunderstand “handedness.” Handedness is hard-wired into permanent neural connections. Pianists are always working to equalize dexterity between their two hands but they all admit they never achieve it, it is just a theoretical goal. Handedness is not a good proxy for “sexual orientation.” Sexual orientation is a political term, not a scientific term as my discussions demonstrate.
You have demonstrated so much scientific ignorance and willingness to waltz past reason and fact that I am classifying you as a troll. Bye
Note 179. Actually, I mentioned kids twice, both times when it appeared your conclusions stemmed from a lack of experience with parenting.
So, are you homosexual, or do you just believe in the homosexual cause?
Note 180: Missourian, researcher Dr Brian Mustanski’s “team looked at all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes of 456 individuals from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.
They found several identical stretches of DNA that were shared among gay siblings on chromosomes other than the female X.
About 60% of these brothers shared identical DNA on three chromosomes – chromosome 7, 8 and 10.
‘Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual,’ he said, but added that other factors were also important.
“Sexual orientation is a complex trait. There is no one ‘gay’ gene.
“Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation.”
Honestly, I’m not too certain what relevance this has anyhow. Activity may be a choice, but orientation is not, whether its cause is genetic or environmental. We can only refer to the predisposition.
Let me try again although most seem to simply ignore it:
Predispostion to sin is in each of our bodies because of the fall and because we are a physical/spiritual whole.
When St. Paul wrote that we struggle against the flesh he was being quite literal.
Every besetting sin has its roots in our bodies as well as our soul and how we experience life.
Genetic determinism can only be meaningful for materialists, dualists or deists. It has no function in traditional Christianity.
So Michael that means that when a male is attracted to another male that has been brough on by something in their soul? You say struggle against the flesh and traditionally that means men struggling against having lots and lots of sex with women and not reproducing?
Men liking men or women liking women would be just a traditional starving for for flesh, so if they were to say get married then that would be a master promissory that they make to the other person, so that they are commited to each other and no one else, which is in hope to stave lots of promiscious sex am i correct?
I keep seeing the whole argument about sex in general without marriage is bad, but yet people dont want to let gay people get married, so therefore it is souly because they cannot reproduce traditionally, so overall this stems from the fact that they cannot reproduce.
I am sorry but i see some real weakness in trying to understand everyone here i mean i see how its not the usual traditional marriage, but then when people then do a 180 and go to the fact of them sleeping around is bad, so what is it:
gay people getting married is a sin?
gay people sleeping with the same sex is a sin?
The gay people adopting is a sin?
The gay people themselves are sins?
This whole thing is just flimsy, whether or not you have morales or not is irrelevant.
My upbringing is where my morales come from:
“i was given life, so therefore i shall not take life from another”
“i was given something, so therfore i shall take from others”
” i was blessed with kindness and Fairness, so therefore i shall extend that to others”
” i was forgiven for my mistakes, so therefore i shall forgive others”
I apply the fact that i am living and was given this opportunity of live as how i shall live it, however i am not trying to have my cake and eat to like many others are.
It seems like what alot of you on here want is to take everything away from gay people, but what shall this accomplish (think about it deeply).
Everyones goal on here is to make sure that gay people are truly an abombination of god, but with that accomplish what will it solve, does all of you really think that will fix marriage i hope not, because everyone will be sadly dissapointed.
Plenty of people have spoke as if i lack grounding and morales, but this only because i am not black & White (give or take) (live or Die).
I guess it is sinful for me to want a neutral solution to this where everybody wins.
No matter how hard gay people can try to be good in religions eyes they are still outcasted, and all there pain and suffering and attempts fall short of everyone, so to me i think the fact that they are trying we should give some credit you know, as would any person give to someone who tries.
Black & White here people we do not live in a black & White world, so you can keep budging the Black & White look, but it will only cause you pain and suffering, and create a world where nobody wins, but everyone suffers until their last breath (hey this could be a prime example of what Hell must be like).
Fight until the end, because it is human nature
We could always be like the muslims and just kill people who commit gay acts, does that sound like a good idea?
I still fail to see ample proof of how gay people are ruining society, can anyone challenge me to this, and prove me wrong?
Note 182.
Dear JamesK
[note, i see M.B. has written to 182, but James, i’ll share my letter to you just as i wrote it. Michael if you disagree please engage me.]
May I speak to ‘refer to the predisposition.’ What if in the end “everything is genes.” It is God who determines (however) that he visits the iniquities of the fathers unto progeny, seen most starkly in our sinful and various predispositions each man inherits from Adam. We know something (James, we’re sure as sure can be about this) — man has inherited corruption. If there is a quite close and mysterious dynamic that goes on between body, soul and spirit – well, perhaps everything’s ‘in the genes.’ But I want to set that speculation aside; as it leads to wondering about which leads to what? What comes first, the acting of the sin or the ‘genes made me do it’ — leave that aside for the revealed truth, in the word of God, about what “predisposition” we have, in fact, and what prescription, in fact, has been made concerning it. Every natural desire is ‘unrighteous’ until it is ordered right, and we cannot “order our affections” right/righteously until a dealing has occurred between us and the Triune God. I am praying you will not tell me “you’re not sure about it.” I am praying God will help you labour for rest you haven’t obtained, allow me to infer that you haven’t.
I go out on a limb with you to quote ‘revealed truth.’ But here it is for you in your Latin:
I go out on a limb because earlier with me you took exception to the Apostle’s teaching about slavery to sin/freedom from it. This morning you indicate you’re not sure about relevance to various studies showing things which is fine. The Narth link from Fr. Hans showed correlation between childhood experience with adult same-sex…… and they were careful about jumping to conclusions when evidence is correlative. But what about your assurance concerning what the revealed word of God and the hope extended? I understand a natural revulsion concerning Bondages. I understand craving for Freedom, and Rest. But JamesK, if you are unsure about everything else, you must be sure about how to successfully obtain Freedom (from your own natural desires), and Rest (in allowing God to order every affection aright.) How will you get it? Translate the Latin, will you do it? passions/desires/affections/lusts?
If I have no right to speak so personally, forgive me, I’m a fool.
gay people getting married is a sin?
Gay people can not get married. Marriage is ordained by God. It was instituted by God the Father and is not negotiable. Even in the past when whole societies were steeped in pederasty (ancient Greece) or highly accepting of same-sex relationships (pre-Christian Rome), no one had any idea of ‘gay marriage.’ The whole idea is sill on it’s face. God has ordained marriage as between men and women, the Church has upheld this throughout 2,000 years even as the Israelites did before them and even as all pagan cultures of Europe as well.
gay people sleeping with the same sex is a sin?
Yes. There are lots of sins, this is one of them. Homosexual relationships are contrary to the design of God. Male and female were designed as physical complements. Will use of the sexual organs for homosexual sex is wrong.
Simply wrong. No gray here, no question here, no need for studies or dives into genetics. Just wrong.
The gay people adopting is a sin? People practicing a homosexual lifestyle should not adopt, nor should people who practice Wicca, S&M, drug use, alcoholism, or a wide variety of other problems.
The gay people themselves are sins? Of course not. No one is a sin. Sins are acts which cut one off from God. A person is not an act. A person can choose behavior.
This whole thing is just flimsy, whether or not you have morales or not is irrelevant. No, your willful misunderstanding of everything said to you is annoying, but the Theological ground is quite solid.
You are free to reject the Christian Church, and free to reject Christian morality. However, you can’t adopt it part of the way. Those of us who have committed our lives to the Church are under its authority, and are committed to telling the world how to attain the Kingdom that is to come.
If we were silent in regards to homosexual behavior, then that would be a travesity. Instead, we attempt to reach them and bring them out of their darkness.
By the way Brent – get a grip on who you are debating. Same point to Jim H. The Orthodox Church has tens or thousands of members (monks and nuns) who are celibate.
The celibate lifestyle in Orthodoxy, unlike the counterfeit Fundie faith, is not denigrated. I’m counseling with a young girl in our parish now who is considering being a nun. I am not discouraging this, neither are her parents. If this is her call, then it is her call.
Sex is not the most important thing in life. This elevation of it to supreme status (I have attraction, I must act!!!) is simply denigrating to the human spirit.
Note 185, Brent, challenge accepted, now read and think a bit
Brent, you will need to invest some small amount of effort to think about the society wide picture and the long term. Here goes.
Making policy for a society as a whole over the long run. First, we have to establish what the debate is about. This debate over homosexual conduct. The debate can be approached on at least two levels: spiritual and public policy.
Secondly, looking at life through a soda straw will not produce good policy.
By “looking at life through a soda straw” I mean looking a anecdotes about individual same-sex couples. Libertarians make this fundamental mistake.
The proper analysis is to look at society-wide behavior patterns, not individual anecdotes. We have to make rule for all people at all times, not react to an anecdote here or an anecdote there. Just because you do not observe an immediate negative impact of a same-sex marriage within 5 minutes after the same-sex marriage is created, does not mean that same-sex marriage does not harm society.
Spiritually or human being to human being As a Christian I can only say that a person should seek Christ. I am not a qualified spiritual guide or counselor but I can personally witness to Christ. I would refer someone to a mature and qualified spiritual counselor.
Public Policy-Secular A strong case against the legimtization of same-sex attraction can be made on purely secular grounds.
Here goes:
1) Society need to reproduce itself if it is to survive.
2) People need to have babies
3) Civilization has to be passed down to the next generation which
means that the babies have to be raised.
4) Someone in society has to take on the difficult task of raising
the next generation to be productive citizens
5) It is hard to be a parent and stick with the job for 18 to 25 years
6) It is easier to be a non-parent and have the freedom to please
oneself first
7) No one disputes that children do best in homes with both a steady and permanent mother and father.
8) Children raised without fathers (in particular) as a group, have very significantly higher rates of crime, substance abuse, educational drop-out rates and unemployment. See the Black Family.
7) Human beings are capable of gratifying themselves sexually in many different ways. See Kraft-Ebbing a pair of psychologists who put together an encyclopedia of the ways in which human beings have gratified themselves sexually over the centuries. Not a really appetizing book but somebody had to research it. Homosexual sex is just another form of
sexual gratification that people engage in.
strong>CONCLUSION: Society has the right to choose a particular form of sexual expression–true, life-long marriage and FAVOR THAT because it benefits society.
We have evidence of what happens when society FAILS to honor marriage.
Please reflect on the following trend.
First, we trivialized marriage by making divorce easy therefore undercutting the stability of the home for children (among other things). This policy favored the freedom of the adult over the welfare of the child.
Second, we trivialized marriage by condoning co-habitatoin, therefore undercutting the stability of the home for children. This policy favored the freedom of the dult over the welfare of the child.
Third, we normalized frequent, serial sexual relationships.
Fourth, we are in the process of normalizing same-sex couples. This will deprive a large number of children of the influence of a mother or the influence of a father.
Boys who grow up without fathers have a much harder time achieving basic success in life, in fact, fatherless boys are, the single largest group of criminals in the United States and worldwide. Nearly all serious criminals were fatherless boys.
We can de-criminalize adult gay sex WITHOUT normalizing it, legitimizing it, teaching it in our schools, giving it tax breaks or other legal or financial benefits.
Question, why should I even have to explain why the abuse of the human body inherent in homosexucal conduct shouldn’t be considered improper, disreputable and undesirable?
This was a quick answer to your challenge. I can give you references to literature to read, if you show that you are sincerely interested in learning something rather than just restating the routine party line on gays.
Well CFLConservative,
If all of it is a sin then won’t they burn in hell?
If this true then why are you so worried about it?
Wouldn’t God intervene if it was destroying gods creation?
You still cannot truly prove the point you are using a 100% theology, whereas younger people are hybrids, where we accept everything and go from there.
If gay people are going to burn in hell for their sins then why are we evening arguing in this blog or any blogs about them getting married if they are on their one way track to hell then let them be, because they have to answer in the end don’ they?
I think people are scared that maybe God did not create the black & White world as most of you want to live in. Remember if god created everything then god also created homosexuality, freewill is a stupid idea, how could something have free will if it was created in likeness of something else.
We all sin everyday, so gay people are just in the same boat:
A gay women wakes up in the morning and kisses her Wife, and says i love you: +1 Sin
She has adopted an abandoned kid: +1 sin, but -1 sin for her act of kindness.
She goes to her job as a social worker trying to help abandoned kids get a home: -1 sin, +1 sin if she helps another lesbian adopt.
She then goes home to make dinner for her adopted kid, and maybe before bed engages in a sexual act for her female partner: +1 Sin
So to cap it she commited two sins today,
How many sins does a heterosexual person commit in a day or a drug addict, or an alcoholic, or an evil warlord?
You say they are sinning, but you are making it sound like you are sinless.
I am sorry, but your argument is still flimsy.
And you cannot say i am not christian, because i am not saying no to gay people all of the time, maybe i am tired of hating and taking away from others, and have decided to be in the likeness of god and be a forgiving soul, rather then a soul who harbors on whats wrong rather then whats right.
You cannot make any proof of gay peoples sins effecting anyone else, well maybe you and others, because you are so black & White and lack proper horizons to the universe god created.
Please make a good Scenario or incident that has a negative impact of gay people being together, besides theory, and the fact that it is a sin, because once again we all sin daily.
:0)
Nancy L: I do not mind your questions.
I understand the concept of original sin, although I must be honest, if God is God, wouldn’t it have been more just and fair to devise a system whereby every man is born in original innocence as was Adam? He’s God after all, and can do anything. What purpose is there in, as you say, “visiting the iniquities of the fathers” onto the tenth generation? Do we send grandchildren to prison for crimes their grandparents commit? In any rate, whether original sin is partially or wholly made manifest in genetics, I wouldn’t presume to guess, but it sounds like a reasonable idea.
I also understand the Christian path of how we are set free from various inclinations. Supposedly, only God has the power to do so. Now, I have no doubt that there have been many, many gay persons who have prayed many years to be “set free” from their inclinations. If God is fair and God is just and desires people not to sin, what purpose what there be in not removing that inclination? So, one prays “Lord, please remove this deep-seated desire for which I did not ask for, over which I have little control and which I do not want”. His response in apparently a vast majority of cases? “No.” But why? Why is freedom prayed for … and declined?
I don’t think I’ve witnessed any cases of these remarkable transformations. On occasions, I see some change in people who have strived and desired to change themselves, but I have not seen anything that I would call “miraculous”. I have seen personal change in my own life, but let me tell you, it took a number of years and no small amount of effort. I won’t discount the possibility of divine assistance, of course, but it seems more a result of personal will and desire. I suppose this will sound arrogant, for which I apologize, but I’m simply trying to present my observations.
“I’m simply trying to present my observations.”
As a gift? 🙂
What prevents you from moving from spectator, though………..to something else?
Upstream you write:
Which is it? Personally, I don’t think carnal attractions are to be equated with love (a mistake often made), but it does seem that few can do without the closeness, exclusivity and bonding that can only be found in a romantic pairing. This is just my observation, however.
ever-observing…
Not minding my questions, and me desiring your closure with your Maker, I’ll ask you concerning your observation above, how are you using the term carnal? You seem to equate it with “closeness, exclusivity and bonding” — what’s “carnal” opposed to, in your use?
To Nancy L.
I can say from personal experience that you may have a belief or any idea about something, but it is subject to change, just like everything else in this world.
Years down the road men maybe able to Concieve
Women may be what men are now
its hard to say, because our world is constantly changing
God has obviously created this world to be a constant changing thing, and their maybe a reason to it, and that goes beyond all of us.
This is yet why i argue about the whole Black & White mindset that alot of people in this world have.
Maybe this is gods way of population control. How people are in this world, and what will happen when resources run out?
Their is to much procreation, because their are too many unwanted babies.
God is the creater of everything and including this and nobody can argue that, so rather than fight god’s way of working i will help to slowly accept it, because its gods will not mine.
Note 192, Brent, how do you know what is God’s way?
Do you agree that lungs are structured in such a way as to process
the absorption of oxygen? Would you try to ingest food by
pushing it down your windpipe? I think not
Do you agree that your stomach is structed in such a way as to
process nutrients in food? Would you try to breath with
your stomach?
Do you agree that your teeth are structured in such a way
as to allow you to break down food before swallowing it?
Do you agree that the genitalia of men and women are complimentary
and that together they create children
If the human body is created by God, then why would you think that God would approve of homosexual conduct as it does not conform to the obvious function of the human body?
Note 185, Brent, How acknowledging my response to your challenge
Brent, you issued a challenge in Note 185 I responded in Note 187, how about a response?
Brent, re your post #188. You have a drastically distorted understanding of Christianity. It appears to be a secular caricature of fundamental protestantism.
You need to understand basic Christian ideas such as the Fall, the Incarnation, Redemption, sin, virtue, spiritual warfare, just to name a few. Fr. Hans would be please to provide you with a basic reading list if you are interested. Any of Clark Carlton’s books are good.
Hell is a spiritual state caused by a rejection of God’s love. For a detailed explanation that seems pretty good of the Orthodox understanding of Hell read River of Fire
I am worried about other people’s salvation because that is a trait of a Christian. St. Paul was willing to forfeit his own salvation if that meant that the Jews would be saved. Christians also recognize our own sinfulness and therefore desire, as does Jesus, that all should be saved. As His servants we are duty bound to speak out in love about the traps of sin, always being aware that we too are caught in those traps.
God did intervene; He became man and went to the Cross so that the way into His Kingdom might be open. You have the choice to enter or not. Love grants freedom, it is never forced. God is not a spiritual rapist or a sadistic tyrant.
Stop the “younger people are different” it is just not true. People are people. If human nature changed with every generation there would be nothing built or sustained of any value. Do you want that?
You say, “free will is a stupid idea”. That is admitting that you do not want freedom for yourself or anyone: you desire tyranny. Without freedom, there is no love. Without love there is no meaning to life. You are expressing nihilist ideas: since there is no transcendent meaning, each person supplies his own meaning through the exercise of his own will on others. It is the Nietzchean Will to Power. It is the trans-valuation of all values. It is the philosophy followed to one degree or another by the greatest mass murders in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. I know that way. It only leads to destruction. Please don’t go that way!
The Orthodox Church speaks with a voice of experience: genuine, verifiable, repeatable spiritual experience that spans 2000 years and more. It is that path of holiness. Our theology is the fruit of that experience: the encounter with the Living God. The Orthodox Church offers to anyone who is willing the opportunity to stand in the presence of Him who created us, to be united with His Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Life in the Church is an ontological experience that takes you into the very depths of your being and beyond, guided and guarded by the Gospel, if you allow it to. That anyone would trade such a gift for mere carnal pleasure is amazing, yet we are all tempted to do so.
Beautifully expressed, Michael, I am copying that one and saving it
JamesK in #189 you say:
“I understand the concept of original sin,…” The rest of your post demonstrates that you do not. You have a secularized version of the modern western idea of what the culture thinks original sin might be.
I cannot be critical of your lack of understanding since it has taken me 20 years in the Church to finally have a little bit of light dawn in my own mind and heart. I just want to take the opportunity to politely point out that you haven’t the foggiest. I will make one comment. Your idea of original sin has more than a touch of spirit/matter dualism. ‘taint so Magee.
I can only approximate an answer to the rest of your questions: The way of Christ is the way of the Cross. The Russians call it podvig, i.e., struggle. Since we are a body/spirit unity the struggle is both physical and spiritual. Part of our struggle is to be thankful, in fact to rejoice in anything we experience that is less than what Jesus Himself experienced in the Garden and on the Cross. We can do this because, despite what we perceive, He is bearing most of the weight.
Metropolitan Phiaret of Moscow, reposed 1867 prayed it this way:
In the Garden, Jesus prayed that the cup would pass from Him, but submitted His will to His Father’s and went to the Cross. In a sense, Met. Philaret is making the same prayer.
Jesus never once promised happiness to us in this world, only struggle, oppression, persecution and hatred. Life and Victory are in His Kingdom which we can experience here and now by His grace and submission to His love.
JamesK writes:
I understand the concept of original sin, although I must be honest, if God is God, wouldn’t it have been more just and fair to devise a system whereby every man is born in original innocence as was Adam?
Good for contemplation: What clues are there? It’s a given, God is wise. Why did he make Adam our Federal Head. Why was he allowed to choose in the stead of a race? (This is why I reject the idea that Adam was the equivalent of a two-year old, if you’ve ever heard that. Sounds like an “up-from-the-apes” thynge rather than “fall-from-Paradise.”) Whatever level of maturity Adam/Eve were – age built-in the moment they were spoken into existence, each were adequate to the task of obedience, and the pleasure of fellowship with God himself. Here are two questions. a) Do you think that if you were in Adam’s place, you would have done better? I think it reveals that, apparently, we would each one – even given every possible advantage, even walking with God himself in fellowship in the cool of the evening, not withstood the most Subtle One, jealous being, that God would get glory from Adam and Eve marveling, etc, over Paradise. Adam saying, “Eve you are bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” Jealous that here is a picture saying something awesome about the Triune God, and the devil refusing to worship the picture. Why was that?
b). The New Adam, Jesus Christ. The central figure in the whole picture, and the Artist continues to draw. What should be the first on our minds as concerns ‘fairness doctrine?’ That the innocent son of God come to provide an Eternal Home, dies an ignominious death at the hands of People unwilling to live in his Home, on his terms, and refusing him as Bread of Life. Is that hideous crime fair? Whatever our answer it nevertheless pleased the Father to bruise the Son. Why?
Note 192.
Hi Brent, I grant you that beliefs are subject to change, I’ve changed my mind on things. However, I would like you to consider that much of God’s world and his Word have and will remain constant. For example, God’s moral law will never change. Some of the ancient civil laws and the Old Testament ceremonial laws have changed, and the changes are made explicit in the New Testament writings. However, Jesus reaffirmed every Old Testament moral law. If we put our heads together we might make quite a list of things that have not changed, could we not? Here is one of the most important things I would want to share with you, it is the Christian confession that Jesus Christ is the same Yesterday, Today, and Forever. I am aware of how fast things whirl by and change, since the Industrial Revolution, yes — but particularly with the advent of the Information and Technological Age. But I want to assure you some things are never going to change.
Brent: Years down the road men maybe able to Concieve.
No, I don’t think so. Not that Frankenstein Science would not manipulate it. Here is what St Peter tells us is going to come of this present world:
Psalm 29:10 The Lord sat enthroned at the Flood, And the Lord sits as King forever.
I do not know how much perversion God will tolerate on the globe before this fire comes and he fashions a new heavens and new earth, but I do trust the words of Psalm 29:10.
I will say, Brent, I do not think you are way off-base to think about the possibilities of Frankenstein Science.
Brent: Women may be what men are now its hard to say, because our world is constantly changing
Indeed, our world is changing. About Frankenstein Science? Do you know what a Chimera Embryo is? Look at this piece —
Chimera Embryos Have Right to Life, say Bishops
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/26/nchimera126.xml
p.s. i don’t think they have right to life.
Brent: God has obviously created this world to be a constant changing thing, and their maybe a reason to it, and that goes beyond all of us.
Brent, to the degree that reasons for things are truly beyond us, I am content and O.K. with that. What I am concerned with is the vast amount of information I do know about and am not ignorant of, because God has given us his word, the Scriptures. Faithful “Church Fathers” have spoken and taught the scriptures to us and preserved God’s Word, the text and the teaching — for every baptized Christian.
Brent M: This is yet why i argue about the whole Black & White mindset that alot of people in this world have.
Brent, concerning Black & White mindset, I appreciate this very much. In fact when I read the first post (of today) you wrote, let me tell you what first came to my mind as I took it in wholecloth.
x Your Note reveals many insights into Truth as though you are looking into Christendom through a window and seeing Fairly Clearly. And you reveal that you are wrestling with what you see, for example boundaries of Black and White seems to be in existence after all — making things look Quite Bright to you, and yet you do not run off in the other direction. Thhink also of the primary colors of the color wheel Red-Blue-Yellow- — they have no mixture in them any more than Black or White. I do not deny grey exists, although I do deny that any True Moral Dilemma ever exists, simply because when “a grey” presents itself, a challenge of some kind, we have recourse via prayer, and God answers. We also are tutored by Christ to seek Counsel and the Proverbs say, “there is safety in a multitude of counsel.” No one ever need be stumped concerning an unusual predicament. But what is grey? It contains Black and White. Up and down? One or the other. Heaven and Hell? One or the other. Righteousness and Unrighteousness? One or the other, whenever a Christian refers to God’s clearly revealed Law-Word. Homosexuality is to be resisted and denied. It is to be pushed out of the mind along with any other fiery dart like that presented to your mind by the Enemy of our soul. They say that a habit takes root after eight occurrences of practice. Homosexuality must be preached against, so that young people are tipped off to the Enemy. They need support to resist thoughts like this Immediately! The devil is described as wiley, and as soon as he has successfully baited and lured and caught you — what does he say next: you’re guilty and sets up a divide between you and your Maker. If you have any family members with children, encourage them not to enroll this September in a public school, because they will more than likely say Nothing about a moral imperative to resist. Brent, this is truly abusive to encourage a child to welcome homosexual thoughts and establish a habit.
Have you ever acquainted yourself with God’s Law-Word, in other words his Moral Law, as it’s given in the Old and New Testaments? Is anyone in your family a Baptized Christian?
Brent M: Maybe this is gods way of population control. How people are in this world, and what will happen when resources run out? Their is to much procreation, because their are too many unwanted babies.
No, not in my understanding. Rush Limbaugh proved this to me (on the radio of course 🙂 — in the early 90s. If I recall he said everyone in the world could fit in the state of Texas with room left over. I know he’s known for humor, but in this case he gave evidence: we do not have too many people in the world. There are other problems, all related to religion, as to why Africa (rich in resources), for examples, is underdeveloped. Why is Calcutta the poorest city on earth? You must look at her idolatry. This doesn’t mean that if I’m short of funds God is punishing me directly. But it is not irrational to talk about Large Reasons for why some nations thrive and others do not. Overall, God is patient, and even extremely patient.
What is success? To enjoy the favor of the King. One of the last things Jesus said, was that the Church was to baptize nations and teach them everything he had commanded. He also said, “My yoke is easy, my burden is light.” “Take my yoke upon you and learn of me.” There is a yoke of laws, commands, etc. But they are not burdensome. This is seen when you think of the children of Israel who were God’s special people for a special purpose — in bondage in Egypt. God led them out — Deliverance!! Freedom from bondage! And what did he tell his people to do in order to maintain this Freedom? If you do whatsoever I command you, you will be happy and prosper. You will be blessed. Rain will come down. Bounty. People. Prosperity. But these blessings were conditional. Were they grievous? No. There were over 20 capital offenses (sins worthy of death by stoning.) If they followed through, in obedience — they were promised Freedom and Blessing. Yoke: easy. Burden: light.
note: only the capital offense for murder (premeditated murder) carried a life-for-life mandate, stoning. Stoning was the ultimate punishment of the 20+ crimes, but not mandatory, for other crimes against the family, homosexuality included, iow, plea bargaining was an option, such as banishment. To earn the death sentence the offense had to be in-your-face, flagrant, unrepentent, maybe even ‘teaching’ it, or preaching it, God forbid. Brent, does that sound like Shariah Law? As I think you said: just going around killing people. Also, the idea was never to go into homes to regulate every detail or snoop. In fact, in a theocratic republic the effect of following God’s Law is that homosexuality is driven underground. What about murdering children in her first home, the womb? Driven to a pitiful dirty deep dark alley and learn to hide it good. The reason I have to say that is because, as everyone knows, we are not going to eradicate prostitution, homosexuality, or child killing. But it can be driven underground and made shameful. This is the most merciful way I can put it to you. Are people with aids denied medical care? Of course not. Are people forgiven when repentence occurs. Yes!
But just as with the corporal punishment used with my own children, when it is begun early and consistent in a community, whether family or people group, it is simply efficicent, beneficial, protective to everyone and — it then becomes needed r a r e l y.
Because the weak of society are protected, it is also a mighty evangelistic tool. Following God’s way leads to blessing.
Brent M: God is the Creator of everything and including this and nobody can argue that, so rather than fight god’s way of working i will help to slowly accept it, because its gods will not mine.
I think you’re saying God created homosexuality? I like it very much that you are opposed to fighting God’s way of working. That you are willing to slowly accept it as long as it is God’s will. What is your understanding of the Gospel, Good News of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? What is the Gospel? In your own words?
Missourian on #187
Some of the things you say make a valid point, but it does not point to same sex couples
Self sexual Gratification is done by all groups people, not just Homosexuals, and you cannot argue that they do it more, because their is no proof (at least valid proof).
#8 about single parent families only holds truth if the single parent is lousy parent, so that statement is not legitimate unless stated “Single family home in, which the parent ceases to be around for parental guidance”. I grew up in a single parent home, and my mother worked two jobs and still had time to be a parent, so how dare someone make an assumption that i will be more opt. to commit a crime. I am working on my second Degree, and i have a job, so i throw that stupid remark about single parent families yet another scapegoat.
Same sex marriage has not occured yet, so you are theorizing about what will happen well actually ASSuming.
Marriage has been falling apart for a while now, so dont blame it on same sex relations, because then your theorizing that the gay population growing in huge numbers, and is going to eventually take over the world, because the marriage rate continues to drop.
Everyone is to blame for the decline in marriage including myself, and you know why i would not get married, because alot of women are con-artist and if you make a decent dollar they take it from you. The marriage laws have alot to do with why Marriage is declining. Men are afraid to marry, and loss half or more of their possesion if the woman decides to take off (which they do that more than you think).
Thats great that you accept christ, but the question is what would christ to if he was here right now?
Would he burn all the Homosexuals with his Powers, or do you think he would take them in and try to mend their broken hearts, and help them seek resolution.
If you really seek christ you would be more opt. to experiment in finding a way to help the homosexual community solve things in a more constructive way instead of saying “those homos getting married is a sin” nothing but a bunch of bitching and no means of trying to help fellow man/woman, so at least i am trying to help.
Throughout your blogs i noticed you use the word me or what i would do, well Missourian it is not about what you would do now is it. What if everyone in this world was like you (it would be utter choas and the end of the world as we know it, and nobody would feel fine).
Alot of people on here tend to talk about themselves alot, and not about anyone else this world, so how very selfish of people “its all about what they want and nevermind what anyone else may want”
Was jesus Selfish? I thought he sacrificed himself to help us, and granted we havent been quite as appreciative as we should be, but god did create a flawwed species did god not do so?
Overall their is no ample proof of the exact problem to why Marriage is declining, except that our society has became so fast paced (creator of A.D.D), and that the laws have made marriage to costly and to dangerous. Marriage to most is a legal status, nothing to do with the church anymore.
This world is changing whether people like it or not, and missourian your argument to marriage is sooo very old and archiac, that i have to dismiss its validity being that it is 2007 and not 1407, and 2007 is much different people are more open and free to be what they were intended to be, and the world has became a true melting pot, not a bunch of clicks (like in highschool).
Obviously god is aware of this change and has something to do with it, or god just doesnt care about this world anymore, which in that case well we are all doomed then.
I am defending all aspects of marriage, because it is on its last limb, and it needs some new rules (minus peopel marrying pets, because we cannot understand pets, so therefore it is not concensual).
Live in the dark ages all you want missourian, and eventually you will end up just like fred phelps and his Evil hatred/resentment towards the world.
I watched a documentary the other night just to see the other side about a small town gay bar.
Do you know what happens to gay people in small towns?
They are generally beatened and stangled and murdered, because they are gay
Do you think that is just cause, and do you think god wants it to end like this.
What if i were to say that old people cannot support their own weight anymore, so therefore they are hurting our society and not helping it prosper by using up the hospitals, and what not. Does it make it fair for me to prostest and speak of them as sinful people
Old people who live off of the system
Gay people who have relations with same sex
People who murder
People who Rape
People who lie/cheat/steal
Obivously out of those 5 the last three are the worst ones.
Look at the guy who just died that was behind the scheme at ENRON, now he was a bad person he stole from millions of peoples retirement funds, so they had not much to fall on.
Face it folks their are the real bad ones out their and then the ones who suttly commit sins, but still have the sincerety to do good, and are still trying to please God almighty.
Im sorry but i have to give credit to alot of gay people for at least trying to do good, yet you just want to talk down to them.
Shame on those who kick people when they are down.
Jesus wouldn’t have done that
So missourian live by your code all you want, but remember in the end god will do the judging not you or any other human on this earth, so let the judge decide the fates mankind, and humans can keep trying support one another through it all.
Sorry if this sounds philosphical, and mushy, but some of us still have some ounce of compassion in the world for people, and all their attempts that may fall short of god, but at least they are trying.
Love Thy God, and all of his Creatures :0)