Jeniffer Roback Morse email newsletter | Jennifer Roback Morse | September 24, 2007
Last week I was able to deliver the following statement before the San Diego City Council. The Council was considering whether to add the City of San Diego’s name to a Friend of the Court brief supporting a case in favor of same sex marriage, currently pending before the California Supreme Court.
Next week, I will be going to Canada to do a briefing for their Members of Parliament about why cohabitation is not the same as marriage. I mention that to indicate that my primary job is to straighten out the straight people. And believe me, it is a full-time job. I am here today to explain why I believe instituting same sex marriage will make that job immeasurably more difficult. The needs of same sex couples and opposite sex couples would both be better served by having distinct institutional arrangements, rather than by trying to have one institution serve the needs of both groups.
Opposite sex couples have children, without any specific intervention by the state. Same sex couples can not have children without specific legal institutions in place to do two things: first, the rights of at least one of the genetic parents must be terminated. Second, at least one member of the same sex couple must have parental rights specifically assigned to them.
The advocates of same sex marriage hope that “marriage” will allow them to skip these steps. They hope, for instance, that any child born to either member of a lesbian couple will be presumed to be the child of both. But that requires that somehow, the male contributor to the conception of the child must be safely out of the way. That step still has to be taken, no matter what kind of union the members of the lesbian couple have with each other. Renaming their relationship should not be enough to invalidate the father’s rights to his child.
In practice, there are two possible things that can happen with the opposite sex parent. Either that parent will be considered legally superfluous. Or, the child can have three parents, the two same sex parents, plus the cooperating opposite sex parent.
Neither of these options are particularly good for children. We know that children thrive when they are raised by two married parents. We know that children suffer specific kinds of losses from the absence of their mother or from the absence of their father. And we know that children in step-families have a specific set of emotional and behavioral risks. We can only imagine how those problems would be compounded in the event of three, rather than two, legal parents juggling the children from one home to another, disputing about custody schedules and fighting over child support.
These are some of the negative outcomes we can expect from trying to make marriage into a gender-neutral institution that applies identically to same sex and opposite sex couples.
1. Triple parenting will emerge, as it has already done in both Canada and Pennsylvania.
2. The state will have to determine, not just record, parentage of same sex couples. If same sex marriage is really treated as the equivalent of opposite sex marriage, that authority will be extended to cover opposite sex couples as well.
3. There will no longer be “natural parents,” only “legal parents.” In Spain, the birth certificates were changed from “mother” and “father” to “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B.” In Canada, the birth certificates were changed from “natural mother” and “natural father” to “legal parent A” and “legal parent B.”
4. Same sex marriage will further the process of marginalizing men from the family. If children don’t really need one parent of each gender, the natural conclusion will be that fathers, not mothers, are disposable.
Legally recognizing same sex marriage will destabilize the legal determination of parentage. In cases in both Canada, which has legal same sex marriage, and Pennsylvania, which does not, courts have recognized three adults as legal parents. In the Pennsylvania case, Jacob v. Schulz-Jacob, the two members of the estranged lesbian couple as well as the biological father, all dispute one another’s rights and responsibilities. The children have all the trauma of divorce, multiplied. They have visitation with three adults, none of whom live together, none of whom are cooperating with each other. It is a psychologist’s nightmare.
We have all seen children of divorced parents shuttling from one household to another. If same sex marriage comes to California, we will be seeing children going among three or even more parents. I urge you to vote against this resolution. Picture a little girl, going from her mom’s house to her mom’s former partner’s house, to her dad’s, to her dad’s former partner’s. Those little children, with their backpacks and their sleeping bags, will be on your head, if the resolution supporting same sex marriage passes.
I speak on behalf of the many supporters of traditional marriage who are arrayed in this room. We come from all the major faith traditions, and no religion at all. But we are united in two core beliefs.
1. We believe that men and women are different in socially significant ways. We believe that mothers and fathers are not perfectly interchangeable. The advocates of same sex marriage must insist that gender is irrelevant to parenting.
2. We believe that something is owed to the child. We believe that every child is entitled to be born into a family of the mother and father who brought them into being through an act of love. Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents.
Like many others here today, I am devoted to helping opposite sex couples see the importance of life-long married love. Our efforts would be greatly hampered by a judgement of the state saying adults are entitled to cut off a child’s relationship with one of his parents at birth, and that the child should be indifferent as to whether he has both parents or not.
That is why we have come here today: to speak on behalf of those children yet to be born, to affirm our commitment to the principle that every child deserves a mother and a father.
Note #196. Phil writes:
If the absence of children is a “result” however, then it applies not only to homosexual sex, but all manner of non-heterosexual sexual activity such as masturbation, bestiality, etc. In other words, by restricting your example to homosexual sex, you posit a natural equivalence between celibacy (generally understood as a postive virtue) and homosexual sexual activity using the arbitrary standard that neither produce children.
Of course the absence of children is not a “result”, at least not a result that allows the arbitrary pairing between the positive abstention of sexual activity with the natural sterility of homosexual relations. It strikes me that you are grasping for another false distinction once your argument that homosexual couples are infertile (they are not infertile, rather homosexual activity is sterile) was proven false.
Celibacy is the absence of sexual relations. It is not a sexual “activity.” If celibacy is an “activity”, then so is going to the store. You could just as easily say “going to the store is not a result that produces children” and you would be correct. But so what? It’s a meaningless distinction.
You try too hard with the semantic games.
Phil “tries too hard with semantic games” because he has nothing else. I am concerned Father, that you may be functioning a bit like the Orthodox participation in the NCC and the WCC–giving substance to insubstantial and anti-Christian thought by your politiness.
Note #197. Jim writes:
Well, you could, and some do. But that does not make it so. Rest assured though that the discussion will continue not because the critique of homosexual “marriage” is arbitrary, but that it involves questions of momentous cultural importance. They don’t accept the assertion that it can be reduced to a matter of private opinion, which your term “arbitrary” seems to imply.
Note 201–
I think the miscommunication we sometimes have is that you’re reading everything I post as an holistic defense of homosexual marriage, when I’m genuinely interested in discussing one small thing. I suppose to you, it seems that I can’t see the forest for the trees, whereas I’m baffled that you’re willing to ignore the fact that there are even trees there at all.
That’s a strange way to put it–“proven false.” We both agreed on the relevant facts from the beginning: homosexual couples are not capable of producing natural children, and genuinely infertile couples are also not capable of producing natural children. Instead of agreeing with this truism, you took umbrage with the term “infertile.” At first, you refused to provide a term that you would apply to homosexual couples, but now you have: sterile. Great!
Then why bother arguing against something that is true? Why not just agree–“Yep, it’s true, but so what?”
Here’s the context of my original about gay sex vs. celibacy:
Missourian, in post 165, wrote:
That’s a pretty straightforward statement. Gay sex is STERILE, and it’s part of a “culture of death.” In case you were wondering what that meant, she explains: it contributes to a decline in birth rates.
Jacobse, you personally provide a rebuttal to Missourian when you write:
Exactly! Gay sex produces the same number of children as going to the store. It produces the same number of children as celibacy, or as rubbing pumpkin pie filling into your scalp.
As you point out, Jacobse, all activities that do not produce children can be compared. It’s just as meaningless for me to single out celibacy as it was for you to single out going to the store as it was for Missourian to single out gay sex.
She says “In the end, that is what is wrong with gay sex.” Gay men are guilty of not having productive, fertile sex with women to whom they are married.
Michael writes: “Jim, words have specific meanings except when applied to you. You don’t want to be identified as a secularist, do not wallow obstinately in secular dogma.”
Just because someone doubts that various accounts in the New Testament are historical doesn’t mean that one is a secularist. There are all sorts of different options.
Expecting that “historical” beliefs will be supported by compelling historical evidence doesn’t mean that I’m a secularist.
Christopher Hitchens describes an interesting incident that occurred when he was debating Mark Roberts, a Christian apologist (praised by Missourian some months ago):
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707u/christopher-hitchens
Unlike Roberts, I do not carve out separate religious and historical domains. I believe that affirmations of historical beliefs must be supported by compelling historical evidence. I believe that mathematical beliefs should be supported by mathematical evidence. I believe the geographical beliefs should be supported by geographical evidence. I believe that medical beliefs should be supported by medical evidence. And so on.
For conservative Orthodox believers, this seems to be a radical idea. Historical beliefs should be supported by compelling historical evidence. Is this hard to understand? Apparently so.
Michael: “What you experienced as as “fundamentalist” was not Christianity but an heretical soup that does incredible damage. Unfortunately, you continue to perpetuate the damage and are still living in those heresies.”
I haven’t been a fundamentalist for over 25 years. I don’t expect religious texts to be “inerrant.” I do, however, believe that I should refrain from historical affirmations when the evidence does not warrant that.
Michael: “There is no common intellectual ground between Christians and materialists because we have radically opposite foundations of thought. No amount of effort, good-will or any other human effort will ever bridge the gap.”
To the extent that Christians don’t feel that historical evidence is necessary for them to hold “historical” beliefs, they are wrong. Just plain, flat-out wrong. So yeah, if you want to have a conceptually defective foundation of thought, that’s a problem. And I’m a “materialist” in all sorts of ways. I don’t believe in astrology. I don’t believe in alchemy. I don’t believe in phrenology or palm-reading. I don’t believe in crystal ball fortune-telling. So you see the depth of my depravity is both deep and wide.
Michael: “You and your comrades in arms have made attack after attack on us and our faith using the same tired arguments that are without content or real thought much less reason, just venom.”
What venom? You want venom, talk to your comrade in arms Christopher. Troll. Dimwit. Jackass. And multiple instances thereof. Without content? Look at the Schiavo discussion. The poster “Amazed” and I were the only one providing content, quoting chapter and verse at great length from legal records, medical records, autopsy report, depositions under oath, etc., etc. What did the home team have? Bald-faced, totally unsupported lies from the Schindler attorney. Real thought? Any attempt at real thought is denounced as materialism. And if you think you’ve been “attacked” here, just wait until the new American Orthodox Institute takes its show on the road. If you want to take your message public, better grow a thicker skin, because ninety percent of the people you run into won’t be half as nice as me.
Michael: “Here’s the bottom line: Christ or nothing. Take your pick, but quit trying to shove nothingness down my throat thinly disquised as reason and berating me if I don’t buy it.”
I’m not berating you. I just think you’re wrong. Well-meaning, but wrong. Is that an attack?
Michael writes: “If we want public policy to reflect the teachings of the Church, we have to live the teachings of the Church”
Actually, if everyone lived the teachings of the Church, there would probably be no need for laws, right? If everyone was honorable, what need would there be for laws regarding theft and murder? You seem to be arguing that more Christians living out their faith would equal not less but more laws. This is counterintuitive.
You write: “The philosophy you advocate and the policy based upon them are destructive, inhuman, abusive and without merit.”
I believe it was Christopher who implied that our troops are just so much expendable carbon compounds to be used to fight for a morally and logistically questionable cause and who seemed a bit confused over the value of one of his fingernails (which he said he would not sacrifice to save 50 lives). Great lengths were also taken here to make the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Japanese not only necessary but palatable. Personally, I don’t like policies that are “destructive, inhuman and abusive”. Where have you gathered that I do? Do you think that such policies have never existed within the Church? Would you like me to list them?
“I will not acceed to your devangelising for nothingness.”
You know, I actually have mentioned (several times, actually) that I have supported pregnancy centers that offer women alternatives to abortion. I have stated that I do not accept the concept of terminating the lives of the infirm, the terminally ill or the handicapped (several times). I have also stated (quite clearly and explicitly) that I am neither a materialist nor a nihilist. Why do you read into my posts things that are simply not there?
#197
Oh please. These discussions become so abstract that they become unmoored from the facts on the ground. The fraction of homosexual men who want to emulate the traditional family is close to zero.
You should read the book Radical Son by David Horowitz, who was and is very pro-gay rights. He describes how, as a journalist covering the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco in the early 80s, he was astonished by the attitudes of the men being ravaged by the disease. He would give talks to gay rights groups and urge them to close down the bathhouses, where hundreds of men would have anonymous sex with each other 7 nights a week. The response was so hostile that at one point the audience was threatening to kill him. These men were, in general, highly educated, successful, and well read. Yet they denied that their behavior was the root of the problem; it was Reagan’s fault for some reason.
Among men, at least, homosexuality is the result of either emotional trauma, or extreme narcisism. This should be fairly clear to anyone who has retained some common sense. It doesn’t mean that we should be mean to these men, or deny them a livelyhood, or treat them as criminals. But to say that the behavior is the basis for a marriage is ridiculous.
Fr. Hans writes: “Rest assured though that the discussion will continue not because the critique of homosexual “marriage” is arbitrary, but that it involves questions of momentous cultural importance. They don’t accept the assertion that it can be reduced to a matter of private opinion, which your term “arbitrary” seems to imply.”
In the larger society the critique of homosexuality is increasingly being perceived as arbitrary. A few days ago I referred to a study by the Barna Group. Lest anyone think that this is materialist propaganda, the Barna groups is a Christian organization whose mission is “to partner with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States.” The study has been published in their book unChristian: What a New Generation Thinks About Christianity … and Why It Matters. You can read a summary of the results here:
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&
BarnaUpdateID=280
What the study shows is that young Americans — both Christians and non-Christians — have an increasingly negative view of Christianity. Among young people there is an increasing “migration” away from Christianity. “Simply put, each new generation has a larger share of people who are not Christians (that is, atheists, agnostics, people associated with another faith, or those who have essentially no faith orientation).”
The authors make an observation that is increasingly made in this venue by Michael, Christopher, and others: “Common ground is becoming more difficult to find between Christians and those outside the faith.”
As non-Christians have an increasingly negative view of Christianity, this has an important effect on young Christians: “Older generations more easily dismiss the criticism of those who are outsiders,” Kinnaman said. “But we discovered that young leaders and young Christians are more aware of and concerned about the views of outsiders, because they are more likely to interact closely with such people. Their life is more deeply affected by the negative image of Christianity. For them, what Christianity looks like from an outsider’s perspective has greater relevance, because outsiders are more likely to be schoolmates, colleagues, and friends.”
I would urge you to take a look at this study, especially when launching an organization that “engages the cultural issues of the day within the Orthodox Christian moral tradition.” That engagement may be difficult to achieve.
note 206:
You go from topic to topic – but let me address this:
You know, I actually have mentioned (several times, actually) that I have supported pregnancy centers that offer women alternatives to abortion.
Great!!
I have stated that I do not accept the concept of terminating the lives of the infirm, the terminally ill or the handicapped (several times).
Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not say you supported the death of Terry S? You thought she had already in a profound sense, “already died”? I could be wrong here but I thought that is your position.
I have also stated (quite clearly and explicitly) that I am neither a materialist nor a nihilist.
This is where you have a disconnect between what you think, and the grounding of your philosophy. You will remember upstream where I pointed out you tend to suck in diverse and conflicting philosophies, at times arguing like a radical individualist, other times like a materialist, sometimes like a will-to-power modernist. Remember where you answered “what is man” – there you sounded (sort of) like a Christian. Then just yesterday, you reduce all of Christianity to “speculation” (very LOL! by the way ). The problem is that you don’t have a consistent grounding, because your just beginning to examine it or have yet to penetrate it. You “say” all sorts of things, but then you contradict it. Today, you say you are not a materialist or a nihilist, but just as you have in the past, tomorrow you will argue from unexamined materialistic and nihilist assumptions. You are apparently completely unaware that you do this.
Why do you read into my posts things that are simply not there?
Because they are there, big as day. You simply are not aware of the presuppositions of your own thinking…
Christopher asks: “Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not say you supported the death of Terry S? You thought she had already in a profound sense, “already died”? I could be wrong here but I thought that is your position.”
My position was based on my limited understanding of the medical aspects of PVS. There is no ethical mandate (in Orthodoxy or Catholicism) to keep people on life support indefinitely, and I consider a feeding tube to be a form of artificial life support.
I do not find PVS analagous to mental illness or other forms of brain damage, cases which make terminating a person’s life morally unsound, although I am willing to revise my opinion of the medical aspects of PVS should evidence necessitate I do so. Note the term “virtually dead”. If you believe she was not “virtually dead”, on what basis do you make that judgment? Do you make it based on medical evidence or a personal feeling? If the former, whose medical opinions did you consider in making that decision? I am reluctant to start this conversation again, but perhaps you understand my opinion better.
“tomorrow you will argue from unexamined materialistic and nihilist assumptions”
Here’s what I argue: there are many things that are simply not knowable. This doesn’t negate the possibility of the existence of the transcendence. In fact, it leaves the door open for it. It rejects the notion that there cannot be a God, but it also says that one cannot know much about Him or what He wants so long as the only means of acquiring knowledge about Him is through the conduit of other fallible humans. I’ve read Scripture, and while I think it’s “inspired”, I don’t believe it’s infallible. There are too many numerical and logical contradictions and absurdities for it to be literal dictation by an omniscient and omnipotent Being. I’m just being honest, here. I’ve read and heard too many claims from people who purport to speak for Him. They’re often liars, and they’re frequently very wicked.
Note 209,206, Christopher
I had my JamesK moment some time ago. Periodically I silently vow not to respond to his posts. Here are my two beefs:
First, his comments regarding American constitutional law made clear that he had never done any serious reading on the topic, YET, he implicitly claimed the privilege of continuing to debate the topic. Jurisprudence is a scholarly topic. American Constitutional theory is a combination of historical analysis, political science and jurisprudence. JamesK didn’t even attempt to address any of these topics, YET, he continued to comment and attempt to engage in debate. In the end, I gave him a reading list and asked him to come back when he had some some reading. Didn’t happen.
Second, JamesK continues to insist that any religious belief is something which is adopted without evidence. I have written several posts about the evidence which I consider to be admissible on the issue of the existence of God. I even shared some rather personal events in my life and the lives of my friends and discussed how these events constituted evidence of the existence of God. What JamesK doesn’t acknowledge is that there does not exist any form of “evidence” which he considers to be either admissible or persuasive as to the existence of God. Nothing will ever meet his threshold of acceptability. JamesK believes that believers like myself are inflexible, completely ignoring the fact that I once was a avowed atheist. Talk about flexibility, my mind was open enough to consider the alternative to atheism.
I could document that I have extensive life experience, extensive experience in providing legal counsel to individuals in trouble, extensive library on the topic, multiple academic degrees from respected institutions, but, my personal testimony is nonsense to JamesK. What is that story about the rich man suffering in Hades who wants to send a message to his living brothers, the response is that “they have Moses and the prophets and if they do not listen to them, they will listen to no one.” I readily admit that I am the worst of all sinners and I DO NOT claim to occupy a spiritual realm higher than anyone else, I just am convinced that God exists. I consider myself to occupy one of the lowest spiritual realms since my personal spiritual development and general knowledge is….um…..rudimentary at best.
JamesK is a nice guy, but, he doesn’t do the homework necessary to truly represent any cogent point of view on the issues. That is why I am going to discipline myself not to respond to his posts anymore.
While I think Dean is sincere, I think his presence keeps the discussion focused on the basics. We are constantly arguing Politics/Economics 101 with Dean. I thinj that this tends to keep the discussions at a lower level than they could be.
The arbiter of the site is Fr. Hans and I do not claim authority to critique his policies, they are what Fr. Hans wants them to be and I accept that.
Note 210:
So you do make a materialistic judgement as to rather Terry was alive. It’s the same old “brain in a body” anthropology.
Missourian has a point JamesK – you lack a certain humbleness needed to really talk about deep things with other people. You don’t really seem to listen at times, but worse you don’t really understand the premises you bring to the table, so you end up sounding strangely naive as in “I have also stated (quite clearly and explicitly) that I am neither a materialist nor a nihilist.”, as if your stating it somehow negates all the materialism and nihilism you continually bring to the table.
For example: do you have any idea about the source of, and the history of this assertion you make in your last post:
The authors make an observation that is increasingly made in this venue by Michael, Christopher, and others: “Common ground is becoming more difficult to find between Christians and those outside the faith.”
Jim has a point here. As our society becomes more and more “post human” in the way C.S. Lewis describes in “the Abolition of Man”, as I noted above, the language of humans to their non-human neighbors becomes more and more strained.
Not that I take the views of “young people” all that seriously – God willing, they grow up into old people and realize how naive, ignorant, and arrogant they were 😉
p.s. Now Jim, if you would just limit yourself to the occasional insight, say 1 post a month, you would not be a Troll and a jackass – but alas, I don’t think you will bother with the honorable thing…
Note 211:
All good points. I openly question his policies for two reasons
1) IMO this site could be much better with a smattering of discipline and accountability. It’s a free for all right now, so it ends up being no better than whoever the lowest common denominator is.
2) I think it’s misnamed.
BUT, you do realize this blog is a honey pot don’t you? Fr. Jacobse has said as much, though indirectly if memory serves. It will stay exactly as it is because it is serving the purpose it is designed to (to collect flies)…
Christopher writes: “Now Jim, if you would just limit yourself to the occasional insight, say 1 post a month, you would not be a Troll and a jackass – but alas, I don’t think you will bother with the honorable thing…”
Once again I must remind you that it is the blog owner who defines honorable or appropriate behavior, and not the participants.
But if I may be permitted a question, what did you think of the results of the study? Why are younger people, Christian and non-Christian forming less-favorable views of Christianity? Is that “society’s problem,” or is the church doing something to bring that about?
One of the things the study specifically mentions is that Christianity is increasingly perceived even by young Christians as hateful, and (not in a good sense) anti-homosexual. I have to wonder if this is an effect of Christians being more involved in political and social issues. Perhaps to the extent that Christians lead with the “negative campaign” against various people and other ways of thinking, it becomes perceived more as something primarily “against” this is that. We know from politics that negative campaigns “work,” as far as defeating particular candidates, but the other effect is that people become rather turned-off by the whole process and less likely to participate. Is it possible that in fighting the culture war battles, perhaps even winning some of those battles, that the church may end up losing the war in the end through losing the younger generation?
Note 212: Can you clarify who you believe has authority in these matters? When a physician says a patient is physically dead, have you ever known the Church to attempt to refute that in either material or spiritual terms and condemn the diagnosis? When those machines stop beeping and the line goes flat, does the Church say “To heck with your science! The person is quite clearly alive!”?
How do you determine when someone is dead? Do you base it on whether you can tell if the person’s soul is still there, or do you use some sort of medical/technological tool to determine that?
Christopher writes: “So you do make a materialistic judgement as to rather Terry was alive. It’s the same old “brain in a body” anthropology.”
This issue comes down to this: is it the Orthodox position that everyone in a PVS must in every case be kept alive as long as possible, no matter what? If that’s the case, I wish someone would just say that and have done with it. But having spent considerable time on the web searching for an affirmation of that position, I have been unable to find it. So far the Orthodox have the best of both worlds — they can express “righteous indignation” over the Schiavo case all day long, without ever having to take an actual position on PVS itself.
A related question is whether it is the Orthodox position that there is no such thing as a persistent vegetative state? Again, if that’s the case, I wish someone would just say it.
Most of the Orthodox material that I have read on the Schiavo case is based on a misunderstanding of a) what the PVS state is, and b) Terri Schiavo’s actual condition.
If Terri Schiavo was not in a PVS, then no one is, was, or ever will be. Extensive destruction of the cerebral cortex. Multiple flat EEGs. No evidence of any consciousness or purposive movement. No response whatsoever to any therapy. No change in her condition for 14 years. Absolutely nothing in the extensive medical record to indicate any improvement whatsoever. In fact, before the case became politicized, the Schindler family even admitted in court and in depositions under oath that she was in a PVS.
If you’re going to reject “materialistic” criteria for determining death, then certainly in your view there would never be a reason to turn off a respirator on a brain dead person, because this would be “brain in a body anthropology.” No, you would in fact be obligated to keep the body going for as long as possible. But for some reason, that’s not the official or unofficial Orthodox position. So when it comes to brain death, all of a sudden materialistic criteria are relevant. In PVS they aren’t.
I suppose the ultimate anti-materialist is Norman Bates in the appropriately-named movie Psycho. He keeps his mother’s dessicated body dressed and seated in a chair. And why not? Once you reject materialistic criteria there simply is no way to determine that anyone is “dead,” in any sense.
JamesK the confused one:
How do you determine when someone is dead? Do you base it on whether you can tell if the person’s soul is still there, or do you use some sort of medical/technological tool to determine that?
I don’t do it materially – I don’t look for a “diagnosis”, or an indication of some measurement that says “when this line is flat, the person is dead, when it is not, the person is alive”.
Actually, there are all sorts of people walking around, talking, working, even posting on this blog, who are in fact dead “let the dead bury the dead” says the Lord. There are others, who are laying in hospital bed right now, who are PVS, or ALS, or _you_fill_in_the_blank_ who are very much alive.
Do you see how you are approaching this question with all sorts of materialistic baggage, asking the wrong questions?
JimH the frightened one:
If Terri Schiavo was not in a PVS, then no one is, was, or ever will be. Extensive destruction of the cerebral cortex. Multiple flat EEGs. No evidence of any consciousness or purposive movement. No response whatsoever to any therapy. No change in her condition for 14 years. Absolutely nothing in the extensive medical record to indicate any improvement whatsoever. In fact, before the case became politicized, the Schindler family even admitted in court and in depositions under oath that she was in a PVS.
So what? What does PVS have to do with being alive? I would argue that you are in fact dead – and are still burying Terri
Most of the Orthodox material that I have read on the Schiavo case is based on a misunderstanding of a) what the PVS state is, and b) Terri Schiavo’s actual condition.
Wrong. We don’t judge Terri on some materialistic “condition” – she is, even now, more alive than you.
they can express “righteous indignation” over the Schiavo case all day long, without ever having to take an actual position on PVS itself.
You just can’t stand it can you, that we don’t think like a materialist, act like a materialist, and judge Terri or anyone else like a materialist. Why do you keep banging your head against the same wall over and over and over and over and over and over…
In my judgment, you are more dead than Terri is, even now (right now), yet you don’t seem to have PVS. What gives?
If you’re going to reject “materialistic” criteria for determining death, then certainly in your view there would never be a reason to turn off a respirator on a brain dead person, because this would be “brain in a body anthropology.” No, you would in fact be obligated to keep the body going for as long as possible.
Strange, you seem to understand we don’t judge materially, but then go on to a material conclusion (i.e. keep the body going for as long as possible). You just can’t help it can you. Try as hard as you can, you just can’t even imagine anything but a material outcome.
Because you can’t think outside the material box, you literally can’t keep from coming to the thing that frightens you – a “body alive” on machines indefinably. Because you are captive to you fears, you project them onto Christianity. This would be silly, and is, coming from a dead man.
I suppose the ultimate anti-materialist is Norman Bates in the appropriately-named movie Psycho. He keeps his mother’s dessicated body dressed and seated in a chair. And why not? Once you reject materialistic criteria there simply is no way to determine that anyone is “dead,” in any sense.
LOL! Your so frightened you resort to Hollywood horror movies to depict your dead, materialistic, fears.
Cling to the Lord Jim, as He says:
“In this world ye shall have tribulations, but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world”
ATTENTION: Please, pray for my wife (Kim)
Just got off the phone with my wife. She has been consulted on a TBI case, and the family is pushing for a death by starvation. Thankfully, this person is showing a strong recovery, and even the death eaters on the “ethics” committee are reluctant to go along. My wife and her colleagues will be talking to the family in an hour or two – Pray for the doctors, the family and all involved!
Note 218: I’m beginning to understand. There’s no such thing as being “dead” in a material/physical sense. There is only spiritual death, and physical death is a figment of our imaginations. I guess you could argue that the embalming process is a form of murder, but since you don’t believe in a physical death, I’m not sure why you’d bother prosecuting. In fact, no one’s really capable of murder, because you can’t “make dead” someone.
In light of this, your arguments make sense. You must pardon me, but I was under the crazed assumption that the Orthodox believe that there’s actually a thing as physical death. I’ll waste no more time arguing on this one.
“I’ll waste no more time arguing on this one.”
That would be best, because you don’t get it. Your incapable of thinking outside the “physical” box. Thus, when we point out the other dimensions of life (remeber, we are created from dust – Christianity is more “physical” than even your philosophy) your eyes glaze over, and you pull back in to the silly “your denying the physical” rationalization.
Now go get that catechism and try to learn something – ‘debating’ with Christians is a dead end…
“‘debating’ with Christians is a dead end…”
Pardon the pun? lol
As promised, I’ll no longer “debate” … but you still haven’t answered my very simple question (which I ask in sincerity because you haven’t quoted anyone or provided an answer, and I can’t find it on any Orthodox site):
– Is physical death real? If it is, how do you as an Orthodox believer determine that someone is physically dead?
It’s a simple question, really, and it would help if instead of being evasive and labeling me a materialist you simply answer the question.
“- Is physical death real? If it is, how do you as an Orthodox believer determine that someone is physically dead?”
Answer: Christianly. We assume a human person, and relationships, and what it means to live sacrificially for God and others. We consider a whole host of factors, and of course listen to the heart.
Bummer I know, no easy out to a machine or test or “diagnosis” of the material sort.
“It’s a simple question, really, and it would help if instead of being evasive and labeling me a materialist you simply answer the question.”
It’s not so simple really. Behind your questin is your materialist (this label fits you by the way – in the context of this discussion – despite your denial) view, which means you are looking for the material point when a body is dead. Becuase you don’t see a person, rather a “brain in a body”, your philosophy demands a point. You then come to us, who don’t see a “brain in a body” but rather see a person, and ask us to conform to your view “give me that point”. This make it easy for you to say “Terri was dead (or alive)”, but we consider more – we consider Terri, not just her brain and body…
But keep trying! Keep banging your head against that wall!!
Christopher, I found the following from a Greek Orthodox site. It is written by
Stanley S. Harakas, a priest of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and Professor of Orthodox Theology Emeritus in the field of Orthodox Christian Ethics at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology:
Do you reject Rev. Harakas as un-Orthodox because it implies a dependency on medical definitions and criteria to determine a time of death? I don’t deny the usefulness of the term “spiritual death”, but I think your assertion that the Orthodox Church finds the concept of physical death to be irrelevant is erroneous.
Do you reject Rev. Harakas as un-Orthodox because it implies a dependency on medical definitions and criteria to determine a time of death?
Try again JamesK. What does the last sentence say? What does the second sentence say?
By the way, My wife reports the meeting went well – fear did not prevail today…
What to make of the Christians who debate with non-Christians, who cite such things as “evidence,” “studies” and “data?” Are they being dishonest? Or simply being un-Christian?
Note 225: The last sentence states:
Does it state that the process never completes, that it cannot be determined when it completes or that it never begins? If it did, I must have missed it.
Words matter. So what if you can’t determine when it begins? It doesn’t mean it never starts, and it doesn’t mean it never can be stated with clarify when it ends. You’re reading words that simply are not there.
Note 220. James writes:
Alas. You argue this point like you argue your points about the welfare of children, that is, with no real experience.
James, if the Orthodox do not believe in a physical death, why have funerals?
Look, because of technology and the rapid advance of knowledge, the definition of death is in flux. Even the definition of a coma-like condition is in flux, as the most recent research reveals that the areas of the brain that contain the centers of self-awareness (not measurable as recently as six months ago), show neurons firing. What to make of this? We don’t know. But the key here is “we don’t know.”
Chrisopher is arguing that the definition of the human person — a definition that factors into end of life treatments — is more than his material makeup. Man is more than his body, IOW.
You need to think these things through much more. Upstream you declared that you don’t consider a feeding tube required care. Oh? Thank you for your declaration, but how can we possibly take it seriously when it is clear you have not done any serious thinking on the issue?
Note 277. Phil writes:
Before data can even be addressed, fundamental assumptions have to be clear. You argued erroneously that homosexual couples are infertile when in fact they are sterile. That didn’t work so you argued that celibacy and homosexual coupling don’t produce children implying that the coupling is morally equivalent to celibacy. Earlier you tried to make a case that sodomy is morally equivalent to heterosexual intercourse by ignoring completely that in physiological terms the anal canal is not made for penetration.
You arguments are blind to self-evident physiological data. Now you want to overlook these flawed arguments and delve into sociological data? You can see why the charge above will be met with some skepticism.
Clear thinking requires making proper distinctions Phil, and so far you have not proven that you can make them.
But it doesn’t matter to me whether homosexual couples are sterile or infertile, and, according to you, it doesn’t matter to you whether homosexual couples are sterile or infertile.
You’ve previously stated that (hypothetical) incontrovertible data about child-rearing would cause you to change your mind and support same-sex marriage.
So, since neither of us find the distinction between “sterile” and “infertile” relevant when it comes to deciding whether to support same-sex marriage, why do you keep harping on this distinction?
You keep saying “distinctions matter.” But this distinction does not matter to me. And unless you lied earlier, it doesn’t matter to you, either.
Note 231. Phil writes:
Now you are shifting ground. You (erroneously) argued that because homosexual couples are “infertile” (homosexuals are fertile but homosexual coupling is sterile), they should be allowed to marry just as infertile heterosexual couples are.
And yes, the sterility of homosexual coupling does matter to me. Physiology cannot be discounted here.
Well sure, hypothetically it would matter, a great deal. But hypotheticals are hypothethicals. It’s a statement about the authority of data, not about the quality of present data. Frankly, given the tremendous problems caused by the breakdown of the traditional family as well as the hypersexualized cultural climate on childhood development, I can’t see the data supporting homosexual “marriage” as a stabilizing cultural force, particularly given the promiscuity endemic to the homosexual “community.”
I “harp” on it because it shows the sloppiness of your thinking. You struggle to draw a moral equivalence between heterosexual marriage and gay coupling, but obliterate very important distinctions along the way. Distinctions are essential to clear thinking.
Further, your assertion that “neither of us find the distinction between ‘sterile’ and ‘infertile’ relevant when it comes to deciding whether to support same-sex marriage” is not true (and another example of collapsing another distinction — in this case ideas that distinguish my argument from yours). The natural sterility of homosexual coupling is highly relevant to any discussion of marriage.
The more I read from you, the more I see that collapsing distinctions is the only epistemological method you employ.
Note 229: “Man is more than his body”
Absolutely, I don’t disagree with this.
“if the Orthodox do not believe in a physical death, why have funerals”
Here’s my point: if we’re going to condemn an action as murder, we need to construct some framework to differentiate murder from what is acceptable, and no one seems willing to do that. I don’t disagree that the move to terminate life is pushing into the boundaries where someone is clearly alive (even in medical terms). What I don’t understand is the refusal to at least acknowledge that there are material/physical boundaries which define life and death. To admit that the boundaries are hard to determine is understandable, but to refuse to admit these boundaries exist at all is foolish, and that seems what Christopher is doing. I’m not asking for 100% irrefutable definitions here, just reasonable and coherent ones.
By the way, I have dealt with end-of-life issues: both very extended and painful. In neither instance was anything other than allowing nature to take its course up for discussion.
Fr. Hans writes: “James, if the Orthodox do not believe in a physical death, why have funerals?”
I think the issue is that there don’t seem to be any criteria for determining when medical interventions can be discontinued. A couple of statements indicate what I mean:
Christopher: “you are looking for the material point when a body is dead. Becuase you don’t see a person, rather a “brain in a body”, your philosophy demands a point. You then come to us, who don’t see a “brain in a body” but rather see a person, and ask us to conform to your view “give me that point”. This make it easy for you to say “Terri was dead (or alive)”, but we consider more – we consider Terri, not just her brain and body…”
Fr. Hans: “Chrisopher is arguing that the definition of the human person — a definition that factors into end of life treatments — is more than his material makeup. Man is more than his body, IOW.”
So what are these things that are “more than the body” — that one can observe or intuit or experience or sense or feel or in some other mystical way apprehend — that can be used to determine when death has occurred? So far it sounds like it’s a mistake for a physician to declare someone dead, because the physician will only have access to materialistic criteria. Instead we need to have an Orthodox priest come in and figure out, by some method known only to him, whether the person is still alive.
It’s fine to say that “we consider Terri, not just her brain and body,” but in talking about death we’re talking about the death of the brain and body.
Fr. Hans: ” . . . the most recent research reveals that the areas of the brain that contain the centers of self-awareness (not measurable as recently as six months ago), show neurons firing.”
But that’s just more materialism. And this is what makes it so difficult to engage Orthodox believers on this point. The argument slips and slides and there’s never any consistency or coherence. At one point materialistic criteria completely beside the point; those are ignored and the “person” instead is considered. A minute later materialistic criteria are relevant. One minute you insist that Terri wasn’t in a PVS — using materialistic criteria, and the next minute you insist that things like PVS are completely irrelevant.
When various of us “outsiders” try to make sense of all this, Christopher uses that as evidence of our spiritual depravity. A simpler explanation is that the Orthodox argument is simply incoherent, either because the issues have not been thought through, or because the Orthodox are intentionally trying to be obscure.
In either case, as much as Christopher denounces the idea that there is a “point” at which death occurs, in the medical world, the real world, medical professionals have know when that “point” is. If the Orthodox can’t explain when that point is, then their views become irrelevant.
Also, the idea that the Orthodox consider the “person” while others don’t is utterly false. The whole point of medical ethics is to understand the person. To the extent the Orthodox think they have the market cornered on that, they are deluded.
Note 223. James writes:
Who is saying there are not?
Note 234. Jim writes:
It’s even more fundamental than that. It also includes such things as what constitutes a “medical intervention”, to cite one example. You argue for example that a feeding and hydration tube constitute a “medical intervention.” Others, including prominent ethicists and theologians, more versed on these issues than you or me argue the opposite.
Thus, you first have to define the assumptions behind your definition of “medical intervention” before any progress can be made.
I can’t speak for Christopher (have been gone for about four days), but if he is arguing that these fundamental questions reach deep into assumptions about the nature and value of human life that can’t be answered through science alone, then he is 100% correct.
Your frustration then, while expressed towards Christopher and by extension the “Orthodox view” (or however you may frame it), might also be due to the fact that the assumptions informing your assertion remain unexamined.
Fr. Hans writes: “Thus, you first have to define the assumptions behind your definition of “medical intervention” before any progress can be made.”
Ok, let’s talk about the feeding (gastrostomy) tube.
1) it can only be ordered by a physician.
2) a stoma in the abdominal wall is surgically created, and the tube is placed into the small intestine or stomach.
3) a tube that falls out can only be reinserted by a physician.
4) tubes must be maintained by nursing staff, and typically have to be replaced every 2 to 3 months.
5) there are a variety of complications that can occur including infection and necrosis.
6) the nutritional fluid delivered by the tube is selected by and ordered by the physician.
7) the gastrostomy tube is a fairly recent development in medical technology. (50 years ago Terri Schiavo would have died early on, and there would have been no “Terri Schiavo case.”)
I would say that a procedure that can only be ordered by a physician, and that involves the placement of a medical device (registered and regulated by the FDA) through a surgical procedure into one of the internal organs of the body is a medical intervention. The substance delivered by the tube is irrelevant. Air is certainly a common substance, but when delivered by a respirator, that is a medical intervention. Is that a “properly defined” assumption?
Fr. Hans: “Your frustration then, while expressed towards Christopher and by extension the “Orthodox view” (or however you may frame it), might also be due to the fact that the assumptions informing your assertion remain unexamined.”
Ah, so the problem isn’t Christopher’s obscurantism, it’s my assumptions. Well, all I can say is that I’m happy to lay out my position in great detail, and anyone is free to examine my assumptions. On the other hand, getting any detail out of Christopher is like pulling teeth — with bare hands. He attacks others for “materialism” from a position that is so obscure that it is impossible to know either the content or implications of his position. I guess it’s a nice gig if you can get it. But good luck taking that on the road with the new AOI. I’ll be interested in how the “everything you believe is just materialism, but my thing — that I can’t talk to you about because you’re a materialist — is divine” argument plays out on the street. Let me know how that works.
Let me know how that works.
Jim, I am going to help you out here: This blog is a honeypot, and you are a fly. You not going to know “how that works” because
a) You can’t, because your education or disposition or wit – for whatever reason – you can’t see past your own premises. You really have no idea what I am talking about, so you end up back where you begin (i.e. trying to “make sense of all this” when you don’t even acknowledge others premises) When you talk of being “an outsider”, it really is true in your case, but it’s a self imposed exile (or a natural limitation)
b) more importantly, you’re a fly – a means to an end. Your not supposed to figure it out because that’s not what you’re here to do. Your here to explicate a narrow idea, not break out into other ideas ,let alone something more than an idea, say like Christianity. I happen to think that is wrong so I am telling you it straight up – let’s see what you do with it…
Note 237. Jim writes:
No, not really. The issue is not whether a hydration or feeding tube is a “medical intervention.” The issue is when the removal the tube is morally permissible or prohibited. This draws on assumptions deeper than a description of the procedure.
Fr. Hans writes: “The issue is not whether a hydration or feeding tube is a ‘medical intervention.’ ”
Well, three posts ago you said
It’s even more fundamental than that. It also includes such things as what constitutes a “medical intervention”, to cite one example. You argue for example that a feeding and hydration tube constitute a “medical intervention.” . . . Thus, you first have to define the assumptions behind your definition of “medical intervention” before any progress can be made.
How quickly things change in the space of three posts. Now, there’s another issue:
Fr. Hans: “The issue is when the removal the tube is morally permissible or prohibited. This draws on assumptions deeper than a description of the procedure.”
You know, I don’t think that’s something I need to work on. That’s something the home team needs to work on. In countless posts here on the Schiavo issue I have laid out in great detail my assumptions on that issue, both generally and specifically in the Schiavo case.
Certainly the Orthodox have something to contribute on many issues. But in my experience here, when it comes to Schiavo, it’s mostly smoke and mirrors and misdirection and sleight-of-hand. Or total silence. For example, in this thread I asked:
Is it the Orthodox position that everyone in a PVS must in every case be kept alive as long as possible, no matter what?
The answer is silence. I mean, forget assumptions for the moment, it’s virtually impossible to get the home team even to articulate their basic position. In the case of abortion they can articulate a basic position, but not in the Schiavo case.
Well, so much for that question. So when I ask Christopher
so what are these things that are “more than the body” — that one can observe or intuit or experience or sense or feel or in some other mystical way apprehend — that can be used to determine when death has occurred?
once again, silence. What does he offer to the “discussion?”
Jim, I am going to help you out here: This blog is a honeypot, and you are a fly. You not going to know “how that works” because a) You can’t, because your education or disposition or wit – for whatever reason – you can’t see past your own premises, & etc.
Well, that was helpful.
By refusing to articulate basic principles, and by refusing to engage in something that even resembles a discussion the home team is able to denounce people such as JamesK and me for our “materialism” and our “unexamined assumptions,” and so on, without ever having to put their own positions on the table. This is why I wonder how the AOI is going to “engage social issues.” I guess it will be something like “Hi, I’m from the Orthodox church, and I’m here to tell you why you’re wrong on Schiavo.”
Note to JamesK: your evident frustration with Christopher, and mine, is due to a simple mistake that you and I have made. We try to engage him in a discussion, in an exchange of ideas. But from his point of view, there is no discussion. He’s here to tell you why you’re wrong. In his view he has something to offer you, but you have absolutely nothing to offer him. He doesn’t talk with you; he talks at you. So there are two entirely different things going on. You walk on to the field with your baseball bat thinking that you’re going to play baseball. He walks on the field with his bat so he can whack you over of the head. Your assumptions are examined in detail; his assumptions are closely guarded secrets, occasionally revealed in little drips and drabs, if at all.
Notice what he said earlier in the thread:
Since you are posting at a site called “OrthodoxyToday”, you would be correct in assuming that Traditional Christians would not really be interested in what your reasoning, your logic from point C to D, to E when assuming point F, etc.
“Not really interested.” And you can take that to the bank. He means that literally. When he brings up various topics, he couldn’t care less about what you have to say except in using your response as a demonstration of your “confusion.”
Fr. Hans wrote: “This is a great discussion. Christopher.”
It’s not a discussion in the sense of being an exchange of ideas. Christopher is preaching. It would be more accurate to say “this is a great sermon,” or “this is a great lesson,” or “this is a great short essay.”
By refusing to articulate basic principles, and by refusing to engage in something that even resembles a discussion the home team is able to denounce people such as JamesK and me for our “materialism” and our “unexamined assumptions,” and so on, without ever having to put their own positions on the table.
LOL! You seem to be serious, which is sort of sad. You make a basic mistake: You confuse “basic principles” with articulating, or rather conforming, to your worldview. You and JamesK consistently ask not for us to “articulate basic principles”, which we do all the time, but to conform our basic principles to your basic principles. You don’t really like our basic principles, thus you demand that we answer questions (about Terri S for example) in your own terms, as in “what exact medical diagnosis, based on evidence as I define it, is Terri ‘dead’ in a way that I can accept in my worldview”. Jim, you don’t even rise to the level of the liberal “round table of ideas”, let alone discussion of something that requires something more like Christianity.
Fr. Hans wrote: “This is a great discussion. Christopher.”…It’s not a discussion in the sense of being an exchange of ideas. Christopher is preaching.
At that point I was not, I was describing how JamesK had “borrowed”, or rather emptied the content of Christianity, and graphed his own radical individualistic interpretation while keeping the language of Christianity.
THAT is what it means to talk about basic principles, presuppositions, and all that. THAT is where you have to start, and spend most of your time, if you want answers to questions like when was Terri “dead” and what is the morality of the manner of her death.
For someone who complains about “basic principles” and “home teams”, you display a singular unwillingness to examine your own or others. JamesK is unfortunately in the same boat…
“Not really interested.” And you can take that to the bank. He means that literally.
I almost forgot. The above is true, literally true. I am not interested in the internal workings of your worldview – I already understand it (been there, done that). IF you are interested in the ground of your worldview, and IF you are interested in the ground of Christianity, and IF you are interested in a comparison and discussion of the two, then we can talk. But in all the (what is it, 3 or 4 years for you Jim) that you have been posting here, you have never displayed much interest in that. Even when you THINK you are talking about presuppositions, like when you ramble on about “Christian origins” or the various sociological/political interpretations of Christianity, you are really only assuming your ground (your worldview) and then go on to reason from there within your own worldview. You never get to first principles. If you did, these threads would be a lot shorter, because you would quickly understand the immorality of Terri’s death, the emptiness of sociological/political debunking of Scripture, etc….
A couple of more thoughts Jim (and JamesK and the other non or anti-Christians):
1) As you noted Jim, Michael and I don’t see any common ground. You guys are as C.S. Lewis/Fr. Hopko said in his talk, “post-human”. Your not wicked men, or evil men, rather you aren’t even men (I linked the talk above – do you have the ability to play mp3‘s? If so, download it, skip the first 10 or 15 minutes). Thus, if you want to talk to myself (and I believe Michael though I might be putting words in his mouth here) you have to back all the way up to first principles. However, you and JamesK don’t even display an awareness of your first principles, so I am not holding my breath.
2) So, following from #1, I talk like I have a need a fly swatter. However, you might notice that someone else is putting out the honey, and DOES respond to the inner workings of your worldview, and (from what I can tell though it’s never been made explicit) does see “common ground”. Perhaps you (and JamesK and the other anti-Christians) should focus on that sweat taste of the tongue…;)
Christopher writes: “they’re not even men”
I’ve never known you to write something you didn’t mean. I assume you mean we don’t fit the definition of human, yes? By extension, I assume you mean that we are animals? At the very least, it seems you are saying that you and others are not bound by any moral constraint in terms of how we are to be treated, at least not in terms of how one is to treat actual “humans”. Is this a correct analysis of your statement?
“You and JamesK consistently ask not for us to ‘articulate basic principles’, which we do all the time”
We’ve asked several times: how do you define physical death? It’s a very simple question, Christopher, and you must quit reading into that question any assertion that there is no such thing as spiritual death or that man is just the material. Just because you’re uncomfortable with the question does not mean you may put words in my mouth or make false judgments about what I believe or do not believe.
You’ve asked “what is man” and to the best of my ability, I’ve answered.
So I ask: “what is physical death, and how to determine one is dead in purely physical terms”?
“What we have here is a failure to communicate” The Boss, Cool Hand Luke
Intrepretation: Unless we acceed to the non-Christian world view, logic and categories of thought, we are refusing to engage honestly.
As I mentioned upstream, I don’t see how the chasm between the secular, modern worldview and Christianity can be bridged especially when so many who self-identify as Christians have not only accepted the modern view in place of Christianity but whose theology did much to create it in the first place.
Here’s my first principal: Worship of the one God in Three persons who created and saves us– the undivided Holy Trinity. To the deniers, that is fanciful, irrational and something to be feared. To me it is the sine qua non for being able to understand who we are as human beings and how to construct communities, societies and cultures that allow us to become more human, not demand that we be less than human.
Jim, Phil and JamesK have systematically rejected each and every attempt to discuss anything other than policy founded upon principals that are antithetical to Christianity. Those here who are committed to political solutions are constantly faced with the tempatation to identify their political commitments with Chrisitianity. When attempts are made to articulate a Christian approach using modern language, the modern templates tend to distort the Christian message.
To me the question comes down to how can be be in the world but not of it when the world to a greater extent than ever before denies the sacred interrelationship with the divine that is the foundation of humanity.
It is becoming increasinly clear that Christians will be left with only one choice: apostasy or marytrdom. Maybe that has been our choice all along–serve God or serve mammon. If we are not honest about the choice for ourselves and for others, we are not doing what we are called to do.
In the United States the Church has not been honest, she contiunes to be dishonest. Is it any wonder that our enemies rechoice?
Christ or nothing! Take your pick.
Michael writes: “Unless we accede to the non-Christian world view, logic and categories of thought, we are refusing to engage honestly [speaking ironically] . . . . I don’t see how the chasm between the secular, modern worldview and Christianity can be bridged . . . When attempts are made to articulate a Christian approach using modern language, the modern templates tend to distort the Christian message.”
I’m again confused here, no doubt because of my reprobate materialism, but bear with me for a moment.
A large portion of early Christian writings consists of responses to the writings of heretics and unbelievers, sometimes even addressing them directly. For example, as I recall, both Athenogoras and Justin Martyr wrote defenses of Christianity to Roman emperors. (Marcus Aurelius and ???)
The volume of responses to the perceived opponents of Christianity is so great that in most cases, the only reason that the writings of those opponents even exist is because they were recorded by early Christians. (E.g., the fragments of Celsus.)
These writings cover a wide variety of topics — idolatry, nature worship, Greek, Roman, and other gods, Christian morality, unbelieving philosophy — both philosophy that was wrong and that which was correct, the nature of God and mankind, natural science (Hippolytus vs. Thales), and so on. The list of topics goes on and on.
For the early Christians, engaging with other worldviews, and crafting responses to them in language intelligible to all, was all in a day’s work. It was no big deal — all of these other worldviews were just part of the landscape.
For some Christians today, such responses are also all in a day’s work. For example, consider the two-hour debate between conservative scholar Mark Roberts and atheist Christopher Hitchens on the Hugh Hewitt show:
http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/
debate-chistopher-hitchens-vs-mark-d-roberts/
But in this venue, for some on the home team, such responses are seen as almost impossible. According to Michael, “to articulate a Christian approach using modern language, the modern templates tend to distort the Christian message.” In other words, for the home team, even to try to engage modern people damages the Christian message.
Michael writes: “To me the question comes down to how can be be in the world but not of it when the world to a greater extent than ever before denies the sacred interrelationship with the divine that is the foundation of humanity. . . . It is becoming increasingly clear that Christians will be left with only one choice: apostasy or marytrdom. ”
Have you read the fragments of Celsus?? Here’s just a few:
This is from around 180 A.D.! This is who the early Christians had to deal with. Buck up, man. Things aren’t that bad. Please don’t give me this “apostasy or martyrdom” thing. I mean, what have we come to when the materialists have to encourage the believers? Dude, you don’t have to respond to me, but I get the feeling that you’re discouraged. But look at what the early Christians had to deal with. They engaged the worldviews of the day without a problem. Why not you too?
A large portion of early Christian writings consists of responses to the writings of heretics and unbelievers….For the early Christians, engaging with other worldviews, and crafting responses to them in language intelligible to all, was all in a day’s work.
True, but only a minority of those who were the object of these apologetics had “ears to hear”. Same today.
For some Christians today, such responses are also all in a day’s work.
True, but then again, only a minority have ears to hear. Your not in that minority.
But in this venue, for some on the home team, such responses are seen as almost impossible.
Only to you – we craft such responses all the time – you simply don’t have the ability to come out of your shell and engage them. Thus you keep asking the same questions, leveling the same charges, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over and over and overand over and over and over and over and over and…………………………………………….
Have you read the fragments of Celsus?
Your no Celsus or any of the ancients that the early Christians dealt with. They were dealing with men, not “post-humans” such as yourself. These men were much closer in heart and mind to Christians than you are. In a post human world, we are dealing with a new phenomena. Something that we do need to get a handle on.
That said, I doubt the situation is any different in the sense that only a minority will ever have ears to hear. I am not holding my breath with yourself, as you are stubborn and just a little dim witted…
This is from around 180 A.D.! This is who the early Christians had to deal with. Buck up, man This is who the early Christians had to deal with. Buck up, man. Things aren’t that bad. Please don’t give me this “apostasy or martyrdom” thing. I mean, what have we come to when the materialists have to encourage the believers? Dude, you don’t have to respond to me, but I get the feeling that you’re discouraged. But look at what the early Christians had to deal with.
Yea Michael, buck up “dude”. If Jim did not have you or me to Troll against, he might get bored waiting for the occasional response from Fr. Jacobse or Missourian. If you start to blow up the fiction that Jim is here in any honest sense, he might have to find another blog to hijack, thus his addiction to meaningless and unending debate with Christians might not be fed for a few days…
Note #240. Jim writes:
What’s changed? Am I missing something here?
“PVS” is not a consistent diagnostic category in the sense you employ it here, thus the question, framed as a negative, doesn’t make ethical sense. You need to ask “in what situations does the removal of a feeding tube not violate ethical norms” which brings you back to foundational assumptions.
And yes, a basic position regarding feeding and hydration exists: food and water are a fundamental human right. You don’t agree with this (neither does James). It’s that foundational assumption thing again.
Fr. Hans notes: “Food and water are a fundamental human right.”
Actually, I agree with this. So is air, though. As I mentioned, I’m not arguing for the things I think others here assume I’m arguing for. Had Terri been in a coma, been only mentally impaired or had Alzheimers, I’d be agreeing with you that the tube needed to stay in. We just disagree on the medical diagnosis, that’s all.
By the way, if food and water cannot be obtained by an individual because of a lack of means, whose responsibility is it to provide that for them? Us, yes, but through what mechanism?