Refuting What I Deem As Silliness Part 1

I know, it's another one of THOSE posts. I'll try at least to be brief, but the general lack of "mind" the post-modern (or modern, depending on whom you speak with) displays is astounding. I saw this today:

This sort of thing makes me, sometimes, irrationally angry (to borrow a term from a friend) because it recognizes no nuance and clearly doesn't understand what the Church teaches. I mean the Catholic Church (which is more than just the Latin Rite by the by), because Protestants are more scrambled and less unified, so their answers reflect this. All of these points made by whomever wrote this are, in fact, refutable. They are VERY refutable. So, I will just go through each one and attempt to do just that.

1. If Jesus did not mention a subject, it cannot be essential to his teaching.
   
First of all, this is actually a fairly silly way to look at religious teaching in general. Lots of specific cases are not mentioned, because it is already hard enough reading Leviticus as it is (or any deep holy book, really). Can you imagine if the Bible had actually come down from the sky in fullness with a full summary of everything mankind would have to deal with past, present, and future? That would be a book big enough for me to climb and far too large for me to make out the words but from space. It would be as insane to conceive of as my hyperbolic description of it was. I, honestly, have no idea where that came from.

Christians, specifically Catholics and Orthodox, do not believe that about the Bible in the least. The idea is that the books of the Bible were written by authors inspired by God who used them as a vessel to communicate with people through words. These books were then gathered and compiled by equally inspired people who put them in a certain order after lots of thought, prayer, and discussion. Remember, Tradition predates the Scriptures. Scripture is necessarily the product of Tradition, the people would still have believed as they did, even if no one thought of writing anything down. This is true of both the Old and New Testaments. Also, please note that, just because they were not as scientifically or medically advanced as we are, doesn't mean that they are ignorant nor stupid. Acting as though the compilation of the Bible was done haphazardly done by idiot ancients is a slap in the face of history and pays little respect to the people who got us to where we are now. No one would be here without the ancients, so it is about time we showed a little respect and decorum.

So, since the Bible is not a book that was written covering every possible scenario (as it did not fall from the sky in a perfect form) we have to use what we learn from the Bible and Tradition to figure out how to approach various problems that arise in different epochs. The issue that this picture is talking about is Gay Marriage, because that is one of the hot button issues of the day, but thinking that no direct mentioning of homosexuality or various other sins means it isn't essential to his teaching is silly.

Remember, when Christ was on Earth, his first mission was to those who would already understand what he was talking about. If he showed up in Greece or Meso-America, the concepts of sin and repentance would have needed explanation. I don't mean that these people did not right from wrong, they did mostly, but the Jewish understanding of such things was actually rather revolutionary as most ancient religions just said that the world was simply the way it was. Jews and later Christians actually placed blame somewhere other than chance or the gods. Humanity was at fault for our current state of affairs and it was due to our ancestors committing foolish acts that brought sin into the world. Back then, that was entirely revolutionary.

People have trouble thinking in those terms, because they have heard or, rather more often, misheard what sin and redemption are in Christian terms. The Western World is a product of the Christian beliefs that their ancestors accepted and developed. What we have now, that other countries are just getting to, are a result of that background.

Anyway, Jewish theology and religion, as it developed, looked less and less like the religions that it had sprung up around. There was something quite odd happening with those people and Christ came to the people who would better understand and receive his message first. It is hard for him to dialogue with people who have different definitions for different terms.

So, the next question was what was Christ's message? Well, it appears that his focus was on repentance, learning to love God with everything, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is, arguably, one of the reasons he hung around the "sinners" of his contemporary Jewish society. Those were the people who really needed his message. He himself says this a few times. He came for the lost, not those who had an okay grip on things.

If those things were his focus, and we can admit that not every possible problem that will arise would necessarily be addressed, then we have to realize that, in calling for repentance, Christ was telling people to "Sin no more." His people, the Jews, had a true concept of this, one that the rest of the world was soon to receive. They had many laws that had been passed down way before Christ was born, and he would (besides the fact that he was God) have known about these laws. He tells people that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. Does that sound like someone who is going to encourage people to do something believed to be a sin?

Now, about Leviticus (and Deuteronomy). I want to reiterate that the Bible was not compiled as books just popped out there. There was discussion, argument, etc. Just because people more often held mystical beliefs back then does not mean they were meatheads, though some SURELY were. The books (remember the Bible isn't just ONE BOOK, it is many) were written and placed in a certain order with a purpose. The Bible is also filled to the brim with many a literary genre. Not understanding this fact will not let you understand what the Scriptures are, nor what it took to compile it. The entire Bible is not meant to be taken literally, that is a fallacy that many Christians early on and many Protestant ones have fallen into (though it is worth nothing that their usage of literalism is selective).

Leviticus is a book of Law for the Hebrews as God's first people. It drags along with various stipulations, many of which are repeated and elaborated on in Deuteronomy. There were many specific rules that were all a part of helping the Jews be set apart. A notion Christians would later take as being a City on the Hill.

However, there are also many laws that were in Leviticus that were not simply laws for the Jews, they were natural laws, such as those involving sex being both procreative and unifying, something naturally lacking in homosexual relationships throughout all ages. Current homosexual erotic relationships have to have some money to conceive a child in unconventional ways or adopt in order to do something that will usually happen naturally in an heterosexual union (preferably in a marriage). Before we go on, let's note here and now that I am not saying that homosexual erotic love is not a reality or that what the people feel isn't real. That isn't even what the discussion is about. We feel lots of things, but that does not mean that we have to act on said feelings or, even more, that these feelings are what define us as human persons made in the image of God. The fact simply is, naturally speaking, homosexual couples cannot have children. (notice I don't blanket it on all those with SSA because some get into heterosexual marriages and conceive children that way)

That fact is a natural one and irrefutable. The reason why the Church still follows the Ten Commandments, but not all of the laws of Leviticus, is not because they just wanted to pick and choose like many people have desired to do through all ages, but rather because they are rooted in reason. Natural Law is all that we can deduce about proper conduct just from using our reason. Thus, murder etc. are wrong. So, in the Church's eyes, homosexuality is disordered because it takes the good of sexual desire and misaligns it. Everyone is aware that people can become infatuated or fall in love with things that it would be inordinate to be in love with. This is further tied to the fact that sexual congress is, on even an evolutionary level, used for the production of children. Other uses for sex evolved, but the core of it is still in passing on genes to a new generation and raising them up. That is the first and most important aspect. Homosexual congress clearly does not line up with this, and so must be disordered in some way. (Christians go further in the discussion of Chastity, but that is for another blog)

For a really good succinct explanation of why Catholics don't follow EVERY law in Leviticus go here:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

A final note in this line of thought, Christ came to enhance our understanding of the law and often did things that the strict Pharisees disagreed with but, because of who He was, he was able to better define the law into the spirit behind these laws. (also, some of those laws were matters of discipline more than matters of sin. Is everything that is against any set of laws necessarily a sin? No.)

Now, my final point is this: the Bible, as I have shown, was not dropped in a complete form upon the heads of unwitting Jews. The same thing is true of the New Testament. The writers of the Gospels, which chronicle important aspects of Jesus' life in a condensed fashion, did not write those full accounts down until they were fairly old. It was done to combat heresy a lot of the time. Read the beginning of Luke to see this (he tells the dude he is writing that these are the really big points that happened so he knows the truth of the eyewitnesses).

Also, note that the Gospels were not biographies in the sense that we think of them now. They reported the facts, but focused more on a person's essence than reporting everything in supreme detail. The disciples likely took notes while Jesus was their rabbi, but it is obvious enough to know that those notes would be different, because different people remember and focus on different things. The points where they agreed on were probably the most essential, and one of the most essential parts of Christ's ministry was telling people to turn away from their sins. He told the woman at the well, who had been treating marriage like a hobby (joking), to go and sin no more. Turn away from that life.

So, what does that mean? Well, it means that every single, word-for-word, instance of Christ teaching or rebuking something is not going to be recorded and the goal of the Gospels was not to uncover every single stone. It was, instead done to show what was witnessed and done in a more condensed fashion than some of the biographies we read today. That said, what biography is going to be word-for-word, action-for-action, complete? People are going to remember different things, forget things, etc. Expecting ALL what Christ said and is foolish. A couple of the Gospels even have verses where they claim that Christ did this and many other wonders. They clearly saw more, but did not want to write for that long. They didn't have computers then, you guys!

Now, to wrap this up, here are the major points:

1. The Bible is not believed to have suddenly appeared in perfection with all questions answered. That is simply an improper way to view scripture.

2. You need to properly understand (though I am not perfect at this myself) what Christ's message was and take into account that the first people he brought it to were people with concepts that they could readily attach to what he was saying (though, again, done imperfectly. The disciples were often like WTF, Jesus?) Christ message wasn't simply a lazy "love" that accepts everything people do as okay, but rather a turning a way from such thinkings and learning to truly love. Abandoning sin and learning to live as we should. It is a message of the complete alteration of the self into what it is suppose to be. If you think Jesus was just like, be nice and "love" everyone, you have not read the right scriptures.

3. Understanding how the Bible was compiled, respecting the ancient compilers, and learning to distinguish between laws that really had to do with a man's soul and those of discipline are essentially to understand any of the Church's view on things. Christ did things that were "anti-Sabbath" but simply redefined them to help the people understand more. We know that fish does not ruin your soul, and neither do your clothes. In fact, in the words of 'Ye, "the prettiest people do the ugliest things." Many of those laws were not essential to the salvation of the soul. So, the Church had to form a new understanding with the advent of the Holy Spirit. (see: the Circumcision issue in the NT)

4. Natural law is often used by the Church to determine what is ethically acceptable or what is in proper order to its purpose etc.

5. Expecting every single word of a two year period to be exactly written down shows a misunderstanding of what Scripture is and a misunderstanding of what it is to be human. The Church wasn't expecting every single thing to be written down, but instead used what had been traditionally taught to see what Scriptures were inspired or not. Every single thing he addressed is not likely to make it into the writings, but a lot of really big important stuff is.

That's all I have for now! This is gonna be a multi-parter!

Z

Secular Law and the Christian

I would like to preface this post with the following: the United States was a secular government from its conception and the whole "under God" thing in the pledge and on our money was the result of an attempt to separate the US from Communist Eastern Europe. Additionally, most of the Founding Fathers were deists and did not believe in God truly interacting with His Creation. Franklin and Jefferson are prime examples of this.

Logically speaking, this means that what the Church says about anything does not matter to the American government, right or wrong. Most of the governments of the Western world are of this slant.

Now, here is what grinds my gears: As Christians, we are called to be in the world but not off it. We are also told to live justly under the laws set before us by secular governments we live under. So, whatever the laws end up being, we are to abide by them.

Here is the next issue, the United States in a Democratic-Republic where everyone is supposed to get their voice out there through various government officials. Whenever we vote, it is with the hope that, if our person gets elected, they will help steer our government in a direction we find desirable. For many liberals, this means that the Democrats need to be in power while most conservatives think that the Republicans need to be in power.

Whomever you believe is best suited to run the country is a decision that must be made based on one's beliefs, convictions, and conscience. As a Catholic, if you are as faithful to the Church as we all hope to be, this will put you into several binds.

First of all, you cannot vote in favor of things you find dubious or against your conscience. That would be ludicrous. Many people will do this out of pressure from the outside and internal struggles, but that really is not what is best for the soul. We are at our best when I hearts, bodies, minds, souls, and spirits are in proper relation to each other. People may disagree on what this relation is, but the fact remains that human happiness and health are connected to this fact.

The next bind comes in the fact that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, to love God with all our heart. The question is, what is it to love one's neighbor? The Ten Commandments give us a good starting point, and we can relate back to them in an effort to choose rightly, but there is still going to be a tension. Part of loving is being merciful and helping the oppressed. Part of loving God is going to be deploring sin and doing one's best to (with God's grace) rid one's self of sin and to help others, whether or not they are striving to do the same, do the same.

So, when it comes to our political practices, like voting, we have a lot to consider. These decisions should and will weigh heavily on us.

Now, let's look at a few hot button issues: abortion and gay marriage.

With abortion, we are clearly defending the right of an innocent, at least in our minds and hearts this is how we feel. To our opposition we are depriving a woman of the right to choose having children. No matter what, I know I will always vote against it, but I now would like to address the charge that we keep women from choice.

Pro-Choice is a misnomer and, as Sartre would say, a sign of an inauthentic life. The fact is, we are free no matter what the government says or does, right or wrong. A law being put in place that prohibits something no more deprives you of choice than parents telling their child they cannot date. Whether it is done in secret or with the full blessing of the law or one's parents. The choice will always remain, a law certainly does not change that or free-will is not a real thing.

Legislation disallowing abortions would make the decision that much harder, but it does not eliminate the possibility. Surely, most of us have been human long enough to realize that, in the very least.

This argument can be brought up with birth control as well. We will vote against or struggle against things that force us against our Church, but it does not eliminate the ability to choose to use birth control.

By the by, insurance being provided by employers is not, in fact, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a wonderful, helpful privilege. Not all employers even provide that. I worked a full-time job at a small car shop for a full year and we had no insurance. We were on our own.

Now, for gay marriage. Christians are going to tend towards voting against it because we believe that ENGAGING in homosexual behavior is a sin. The attraction itself is uncontrolled and attraction itself is so complex in how it is formed it is foolish to blame someone for those inclinations. You are not condemned for having the inclination (and please do not site Jesus using hyperbole to counteract this).
However, choosing to engage or add those sorts of sexual relationships to your life is an offense.

This is still a sin, whether or not you are a part of the Church. In our view, these laws stem from natural and divine law, and it applies to all. So, that means we cannot show support for certain lifestyles. Don't get me wrong, this does mean we show hatred and do not love those engaging in said lifestyles, we just cannot give our blessing to it. It is great that you are happy, but we have something that will actually give you the happiness you look for. It is found within God. It takes a long time to grow accustomed to the fruit and life of Heaven, but it will be far worth it. Everything is much larger on the inside of the Church than you think. But, we have to be prepared to give things up.

So, I cannot vote for gay marriage as gay marriage. For the Christian, there really is no such thing. It is affirmed in the New Testament and evident in natural law that the primary purpose of a marriage is to sire and raise the next generation. People with natural inhibitors to this aspect of marriage, like those who cannot conceive, can still live in a holy marriage and are likely excellent candidates for adoptive parents. They may not be able to have children that are of their own blood, but they can certainly benefit children who are not.

The fact is, gay relationships are, naturally speaking, a dead-end. If the wording troubles you, think of it this way: for humans to be born, both the male and female must be united (egg and sperm), so it follows that naturally homosexual relationships will not produce progeny. They cannot naturally do so. We do have technology that can change this, but it is technology that I worry objectifies people more than anything. It is nice that someone can donate sperm to couples who cannot conceive, but there seems to be an underlying danger there. There are people who donate sperm often and have a bunch of children they do not know about. There seems to be something wrong with that picture. Sure, we are use to women raising kids on their own, but that is not the ideal. Also, using someone else sperm or egg seems to be bringing a third person into what is supposed to be a union of two.

Anyway, it is not something we can advocate. However, I think, since our government is secular and the Church and State are supposed to be separate, that civil unions should have similar rights to marriage. I am not married, so I am unaware of what the rights are, but I am plenty aware that those unions do not, in the Christian view, constitute what marriage truly is. This fact is why many Christians vote against gay marriage and that is not a bigoted or hateful view. I tired of people approaching such discussions with a chip on their shoulder and deeming anything they don't agree as hateful. It makes no sense, and I feel as though we can at least be sensible and just in such discussions.

So, the Christian is stuck between a rock and a hard place. We are citizens of the City of God, but we still live in the secular, post-modern world. We have to stand for our beliefs and live them out, and this seems to require us to get spat at and called hateful because we do not wish to condone choices that are actually more harmful to a person than they realize. It is as the Gospel said, is it not?

  

Bl3nding and The Iron Giant

I am currently listening to a song by the artist formerly known as Ton3x. It's called "Bl3nd" and appears on one of his last gospel records, before he completely gave into secularism. He now goes by B. Slade and still makes great music, but I feel like something is lost in it.

In any case, that is not what I want to focus on. I want to deal with the philosophical implications of this song. The message of the song is fairly simple: just be yourself and love yourself. It is a common message we hear these days, and there is a certain amount of truth in the idea. Don't worry about if you stand out a bit and don't spend your life just trying to blend in with people and losing yourself in the process.

I find that my reaction to this philosophy to be quite mixed. I do believe that you should be who you are and love yourself (doing so will surely be useful when you have to learn to love your neighbors and love the Lord Our God). You were created to be who you are.

I find the conflict I have about this philosophy is that it is one that necessary begs the question, a common logical fallacy. Unlike my wonderful girlfriend (hey, hannah), I would rather thoughts be followed to their logical conclusion than to just be rhetorically wonderful. This isn't to say that I do not enjoy good rhetoric, I just would rather be told the truth even if it is done terribly. Also, this is not an indictment on Hannah, she just is not as staunch about such things as I am.

So, what is the question that is hanging behind this "be yourself and love yourself" philosophy? It is probably more than one, but the most obvious one to mind mind is this: How do you know who you are? With this thought come others like: 'how do I know when I am being authentic?' 'What is it to be authentic?' The list, honestly, could go on for miles.

This question is especially important for the Christian. What does the Faith teach on the matter of who we are? There are some quick and dirty answers, like the fact that we are created in the image of our Creator, we are to love others and love God, and meant for connecting with our creator through worship.

However, there is a flip side to all of this, and that is the doctrine of the Fall. Adam's felix culpa is an event that shook the entirety of Creation in the view of the Church. With mankind's Fall, the entire game changed and suddenly things were not as they should be. The risk of having to cast mankind from Paradise was a very real thing from the moment we had the life of our Creator breathed into us. When mankind became mankind, however the creation process went, there was always that possibility that the silly creatures we are would ruin what was already Good.

Laying aside issues like the idea that the goodness that we can achieve now is of stronger stuff than the original paradisal good, it can be said that the fact that we call it the Fall indicates that we are not as we should be. Indeed, from a Christian point of view (inherited from God's original chosen, the Jews) it seems important to note that the entire story of all history is highlighted by God's attempts to restore humanity to its rightful place and relation to Himself.

I have heard it said that the whole story of mankind's redemption, with the climax being the Cross, is a story of mankind recovering from a terminal illness that only recently, in relation to our universe, was able to be fully cured.

Taking that metaphor a bit further, a sick person is not as they should be. Whatever sickness a person may contract in this life, it is a sign that something within the body has gone awry. Something is horribly wrong. A psychological disorder signifies damage to the brain and the soul and requires treatment to get it out. There is a reason Christ is also referred to as the Doctor of Our Souls.

So, as I have laid out just now, humanity has the illness of sin that is the world's worst Sexually Transmitted Disease. We pass it to our children, whether we like it or not, and try to fix it in various fashions (human and supernatural).

Now, I want to go back to the "be yourself, love yourself" philosophy. I have admitted that there is a lot of truth in the philosophy, but that it ultimately begs the question. I also think it is apparent, from what I have said about Christian belief on the state of mankind, that we truly are not ourselves yet. A healthy man does not need a doctor, but a sick one certainly does. The existence of evil itself and the misuse of our free will is constantly affirming that we are sick.

Christians believe that Christ is the cure to this sickness (being Catholic, I believe this "Christ Medicine" is administered through the various established sacraments) and, as I have said, the fact that we are sick means things are not working as they should be. So, if you tell someone to be themselves, what are you really saying?

In our society, this is usually used to sweep our various faults under the rug. At least, that is how it seems to me. I mean, the way our society says we should love and accept ourselves seems to glorify the faults. My father is a prime example of this, for he is known to say that he is simply the way he is and that's it. He leaves no room for growth. It saddens me that he has blocked himself in that way, but it is his choice and there is little that I can do about it.

This way of thinking reeks of materialism and fatalism, and I am not referring to the materialism of the mall rat, I am referring to philosophical materialism. The philosophy that claims that everything that there is is nothing but the physical world. A tight circle for many a madman. The logic in it is sound, until one realizes that it keeps you from even thinking or believing because there is no you. But, I digress.

Here is the point, materialism and fatalism both mean that there is no choice in the matter on who a person is. They are simply what fate, genetics, or whatever factors made them to be. They leave no room for choice and, as a truly Pro-Choice person (I'll explain this in another post), it confounds me and makes me shake my fists in indignation.

I believe in choice, which is to say that I believe in free-will. Anything that negates the fact that I have a say in who I become or what I become is repugnant to me. It is, quite simply, an abhorrent and sick idea to me. It is the height of foolishness.

That said, I was very much influenced by the movie "The Iron Giant" as a child. The theme of the movie was simply 'you are who you choose to be.' The giant was actually built as a weapon but, when he discovered himself, he did not wish to be a weapon. In a pivotal scene in the movie, the giant sacrifices himself to save people. The scene always brings me to tears. It's valiance in the purest form I may have seen.

This is what I am trying to hammer home, our bodies, genetics, upbringing, or whatever affect us, but ultimately it is going to be our choices that determine the sort of life we lead and who we become. The self is actually quite fluid, people can change if they so choose. This choice does not have to be conscious either. People who, say, become Goths may take on that persona consciously or they may be sort of pushed towards it by their reactions to various circumstances. I saw a woman who hates the color white so much that she could now have her wedding dress be white. She uses her tattoos and dark clothing to make herself stand out. Upon further inspection, it was shown that she started doing this as a reaction to how the popular kids treated her. Her current state was the result of conscious and unconscious choices. She created who she was in the moments that I saw her on this crazy wedding show my sister had on.

As I have stated, as a Christian, I have to accept that we are not as we should be, and the whole start of the Christian journey of recovering is the conscious choice to trust the Creator, and the Church He left for us, to heal us and help us recover ourselves. The problem I have with the beautiful song that prompted this craziness is just that it is likely steeped in how the world views the self. I was born this way, so you can't tell me it is wrong, is the mantra we hear worshipped so much these days. I am not responsible for how I have turned out, so just let me be. This is all false thinking and belief; and, it is actually quite dangerous for the mind. I won't go into those dangers, because this is already too long.

Who we are cannot really be decided until we die. That's my conviction, until we are in eternity, we will not know who we really were. The difference between a good man and an infernal one is not decided until the judgement. We still have many choices to make, so we should worry less about whether or not we stand out (be that a good or bad thing) and more about how we are living. How you live is a reflection of who you are, at least in those moments. Nothing is set in stone yet, so if you are someone you never wanted to be, stand up and change. I leave with a quote from one of the most influential Michael Jackson songs in my life:

"If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change."

This world's salvation begins in the changing of mankind's collective hearts.

-Z

Rightness, Wrongness, and Respect

I was reading an interesting blog about a recent conference that Baptist Christians had to address the issues of the objectification of sexuality and other relavent issues in that vain (such as whether or not the idea of a Convental Relationship to homosexual relationships).

After the article, there was one comment that said the writer of said comment had converted to the Universalist "church" where respect for people and their beliefs trumps the desire for rightness or wrongness.

As per usual, I disagree with the sentiment expressed. Rightness and wrongness should not be secondary, or be trumped by, respect. These things are not mutually exclusive and there are some very obvious problems with trying to put respect before rightness and wrongness.

Here is my point, would you rather someone correct you in a disrespectful manner or let you continue to do wrong out of respect? Respect is important yes, but rightness and wrongness are inherently more important. They have to be, if only because showing respect is considered the right way to relate to people. I, of course, think there is more to it than that; but, respect itself has a value conferred to it by the ideas of rightness or wrongness. Rightness and wrongness gets their value conferred from an even higher level, the human mind and the mind of God. God and humans think it is important to be right or wrong, but all virtues or proper ways of behaving are subordinate to rightness or wrongness, something that could also be called morality.

Personally, I would rather be corrected in a poorly done fashion than continue to do things wrong. Think about doing a problem in mathematics, the rightness or wrongness of your approach is going to determine if your answer is correct or not. It would be ill-fitting for a teacher of mathematics to let his or her students just figure out their own way of doing the problem when there is a correct or right way of doing the problem. If they did allow such things to happen, they would likely get a plethora of incorrect answers with a multitude of paths chosen to get to these "answers."

Morality is much the same way because there is some sort of standard of behavior to which we feel we must adhere. In general, if you examine the written moral codes from ancient times that we still possess, the ideas of morality were not extremely varied. The differences would tend to be found in which immoral behaviors will be tolerated and which ones would not. In Ancient Greece, pederasty was tolerated. It appeared at though the boys involved got an education and the ability to advance themselves through that system, so the sexual aspect of it was tolerated. It is more than likely that a lot of people were squeamish or felt as those the sexual aspect of pederasty was plain wrong. However, it was allowed to go on for a number of years.

One can also look at the idea of marriage. All cultures agreed that man and woman should be joined together. They differed on whether marriage was eternal or more like a contract. They also differed on how many wives or husbands was allowable. However, the underlying rule was that men should not have just any of the areas women when he so desired. Sleeping with another man's wife was considered a transgression. This all counts for any man or woman who is having sex with one other than their spouse.

So, it is clear that there is an underlying morality to everything, even if different cultures may have weaknesses or simply allow for certain reproachable behaviors to go on for whatever reason. Tolerating behavior is not the same as assenting to its correctness. Ours is an age where the word tolerance is tossed about and essentially stripped of this meaning. It is most often used by what most people would call the far-left in political terms. These are the more liberal people who consider themselves champions of freedom. In the political realm, this means that they push for legislation that will challenge the status quo and give marginalized people fairer share of things.

Liberals in any age have often helped move society into profitable directions, but that does not mean that they cannot be wrong. What is forgotten is that not all change is desirable or good, and that the natural human condition is freedom. As Sartre would likely say, these people are not living authentically. Changing laws in a nation can be a good thing, but it can also be simply a way to assuage one's conscience when engaging in actions that could be considered deplorable. One such example is abortion, but I cannot go too deeply into that issue for the sake of keeping things on track. Suffice it to say that, even in that incendiary topic, laws in a nation are not necessarily just nor are they necessarily correct. In fact, law does not actually eliminate choice in any sense, however strict or tyrannical a law may be. There is such a thing as defiance, whether it is occurring in a sit-in or in a battle with guns.

Morality is not that easy, it is not that cut and dry. Morality can only exist in a world where people have a choice. If all of these behaviors were simply instinct imprinted on us in birth and assuming we did not have the cognitive capabilities that we have, then all this conversation is moot. Choice is what makes humans human. If choice is not, in fact, possible then nothing that is discussed has any meaning or bearing on reality.

The truth is, people will always do what they choose to do; their want of what they choose is an irrelevant issue. People will make choices, and that is simply how it is. Outlawing something and putting strict penalties for getting caught doing something does not eliminate a person's freedom, mentally or physically. Even if being incarcerated pushes a person's physical and mental freedom aside, the inmates still have a choice in how they are to conduct themselves. All actions have consequences or results that stem directly from the choice made. Let us face facts, the law only places restrictions on possibilities, and does not clash with a person's freedom. They can never fully lose their freedom.

So, to recap: Law does not eliminate freedom, it just makes the decisions more difficult than they might be otherwise; and Rightness or wrongness are more important than respect. Respectful delivery of praise or admonishment is, of course, desired; but, it is not explicitly necessary. Some people simply do not show respect to those they believe are in the wrong, and that probably is a failing on their part.

In any case, I would like to get this back to the Christian worldview.

When one reads the Holy Bible, one will have to note that people are making choices left and right. Jonah chooses to flee his vocation, David chooses to kill Uriah for the prize of Bathsheeba, and the Pharisees chose to hand the Christ over as if he were some criminal. All of these acts were acts of disobedience, a lack of charity, coveting, and the like. God gave the laws in a direct fashion, but having a law does not mean it is actually obeyed.

That said, the author of the comment clearly believes that respect is a good or right mindset to possess. So, he/she clearly does believe a certain kind of rightness is necessary. Let it be known that I agree that respect is good and useful, and more likely to bring people to the Church. However, I cannot say that I would rather trade respect for Truth or rightness or wrongness.

If people were disrespectful and yet speaking truth, it would be far more beneficial than stepping on eggshells and not correcting someone that needs to be corrected. Part of the Christian life is to admonish one another. While one can do this to people outside of the Church, the ones inside the Church are the more obvious and necessary ones to notify of their wrongdoing, being asked to repent. The Church is meant to be one in mind, Faith, and a multitude of other things. Correction from within the ranks are, therefore, necessary. This being done in a charitable and respectful fashion is preferred, but will never preclude the possibility that correction is done in the exact opposite fashion. Though that may push a lot of other people, it is preferred that truth be spoken. The person who does not do well with the task of correcting someone, still needs to work on themselves obviously. But, being right or truthful is a good trade off.

To finish off this longer than planned blog, I will say this:

The Greatest two commandments are "Love the Lord, Your God, with all your heart, soul, and mind," and "Love your neighbor as yourself." People of our age seem to forget that love is not necessarily describing a feeling. In fact, love properly described is more akin to action than flowery feelings. Most people who have joined the Christian life have to learn that doing actions that express those two commandments has the effect of producing proper feelings towards themselves, others, and God himself. Consider that period of empty feelings to be the crawling phase of the walk with Faith; as one grows, one will be better able to feel the proper feelings that go with the action in question.

The same can be said with respect. It takes practice to properly respect others and behave in a right and just manner. People who cannot do this need to be borne with patience and charity, which will contribute to the virtue of all involved. Let us not lose truth in our scramble to express understanding and respect. Respect is important, but not at the expense of truth. This is why people have fought and died defending truth. Men have fought and died defending their honor, but that honor and respect is usually given in response to what the man does in relation to the truth and rightness. Respect cannot come before rightness or wrongness. It has to be determined that someone is right or wrong before any sort of correction can be shown in any manner, let alone a respectful manner.

Getting Clobbered By Someone Who Is Clobbering Bible Clobberers?

That is a most ridiculous title...

Anyway, I came across this today: http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/2011/10/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing.html

It uses the understanding of the Greek etc. of the Bible to show that homosexual relationships are not condemned biblically. The author goes through and shows how most of the verses that are used to condemn homosexuals by Bible Bashers are not referring directly to consenting homosexual relationships, but the abnormal forms of those relationships. Judging from the translation, this is a reasonable assertion to make. The point about Paul using the word physikos from which we get the term physics in Romans 1:26-28. The author of this insightful post makes the logically valid point that this term is referring to how the whole of the universe and Creation are to act as they were made to. This is true, Creation is supposed to behave just as God created it to. However, the author goes too far in reasoning that it does not mean that homosexual relationships (even consensual ones) are acceptable under this proper understanding of the word.

Here is the issue with this jump in logic, it completely forgets the doctrine of Original Sin and the general feeling of even the Pagan world that things were not right on Earth. Humans throughout the ages have found that they tend not to feel as though the world is as it should be. There is something written on our hearts that tells us something is not right with the state of the world or ourselves. In other words, humanity seems to have this incredibly odd notion that humanity is supposed to be something higher. Sure, we are the "political animal" (Thanks, Aristotle. *wink) or the "reasonable animal," and that seems to elevate us above our animal relatives. It does, in fact, do this. When other apes, killer whales, or bottle-nosed dolphins begin to capture humans and study them, there will have been a paradigm shift. That has not occurred, however.

Humans are different than the whole of the animal kingdom, but still have this feeling that they are not where they should be. This, according to a quintessential Christian (and I hate to say this terrible word) dogma, is a direct result of some sort of catastrophic Fall. That is The Fall, ladies and gents. The whole Genesis account of it is something most everyone knows because the Western World continued to exist due to the Church and this was a Church teaching. Results of The Fall, Adam's "Happy Sin," include enmity between men and women, mankind and the natural world, and that whole stain of Sin all of us are born with (excepting for Our Blessed Mother's pre-Birth salvation).

The doctrine of The Fall lets us know that the whole of Creation is not as it should be. In particular, Mankind is not as it should be and this has had ripple effects since that point in pre-History. Sometime after we became mankind, however it ended up happening, we failed to live up to what our natures were created to live up to.

Pushing aside the fact that The Fall made many things possible that were not possible for us before, such as bravery, let us not forget that it was still a dreadful mistake that ended up in our Creator, God the Father Almighty, had to send His only Son to save us. All of human history since that time is a story about how our Father's love is calling to us, though we prodigal children often run away from his voice for shame, fear, or anything that catches our fancy. The point is, The Fall was a bad thing that God had to turn to good for the sake of allowing us to have our own wills. Free-will is also important to what I am trying to illustrate, but I will come to that later.

Now, being such that Creation has fallen as a result of our actions, what conclusions can properly be drawn from such a notion. Let's try this: 1. Both Creation and Mankind as a whole are fallen. 2. Being fallen refers to a state of affairs where a creature or created thing is not behaving as it was intended to behave. 3. A creature or created thing that is not behaving as was intended is doing so against its own nature. 4. Creation and Mankind as a whole are not behaving as they were intended to. 5. Therefore, If Creation and Mankind are not behaving as they were originally intended, not all of what is now "natural" is indeed natural. (underlying assumption: some of our behaviors are in accordance with our natures.)

All these lines of thought flow logically. Now, it takes an acceptance of Original Sin, something one of my favorite writers, G.K. Chesterton, states is the most obvious and provable aspect of the Faith. People have some odd notion that we are supposed to adhere to some invisible standard, otherwise--as C.S. Lewis would say--quarreling as such cannot exist or make any sort of sense. Since we feel as though our fights about various infractions on our or other's parts make sense, then there is a standard we must be appealing to.

Accepting all of this, and accepting my first premise means that you necessarily must come to this conclusion. Another premise that could be placed before my first premise is that we are created creatures. If that isn't the case, then none of the rest matters and we can behave as we wish (as if laws mean we won't). What I mean is that we truly can say that we make our own meaning and the like; you know, that whole--dare I say it--dogma of relativism: all truth claims are relative...except for this one (can you say arbitrary?)

Assuming all of these, because one has to have a base or standard to reason from, not all of our currently natural actions or thoughts are what we were intended for. Essentially, our free will allows us to misuse our bodies, minds, souls, and the entirety of the Earth. God could, realistically, override our wills if He so chose. However, it appears as though He chooses to refrain. Otherwise, evil does not exist, as we believe that God is wholly good. Indeed, God is the ultimate good, God is Love itself!

Now, here is the line of thought to take on: how do we know which behaviors are against our original natures? This is an incredibly important conversation that humans have always sought after, even if they did not realize that they were, in some fashion, acknowledging Adam's "Happy Sin." Pandora's box, every pagan myth that tries to understand the ills of our world recognizes that things are not as they should be. So, how can we figure out what things are bad and which ones are not? Trial and error is one way. For instance, you only get to see your friend poke a Grizzly Bear once before you realize that bear poking really isn't for mankind.

Thankfully, we do have some tools to help us understand our world: reason and, later through the Church, science as a discipline. In the pre-Christian world, it was simply reason. Philosophy was born out of this need. Science stems from natural philosophy really.

It was reasoned by many cultures that homosexuality was off somehow. The author of the article I am refuting says that men believed the whole of life was contained in male sperm. This is probably true for a lot of cultures; after all, we could not understand the womb back then as we did not have the proper tools. It was a reasonable thought process, however misogynistic. Logically speaking, a woman does not get pregnant until a man gives his sperm to her and the baby does, in fact, incubate in its mother's womb. So, maybe there was superstition regarding this belief, but that does not mean it is a reasonable position to take given what they had. Let us, post-Modern/Moderns stop acting as though we invented reasoning and the ancient world was full of the dumbest humans ever. Every age has dummies (see: The Jersey Shore. How much spray tan can one apply to one's body without dissolving into nothingness? No one knows, I think The Jersey Shore is secretly a documentary that is attempting to understand that conundrum).

If you can admit that men form their dogmas or beliefs from reason, life experience, and any possible transcendant experiences (In the universe, as painted by my argument, the latter are allowable nay probable) then we are ready to continue down our path.

People throughout the ages, through intuition, reason, and experience, have attempted to figure out just how to live. Many wrote about it, but originally this sort of knowledge was passed down orally.

Speaking of oral tradition, that is exactly where the entirety of the Christian Scriptures (both testaments) comes from. Without that prior tradition, there would have been nothing to inform the God-inspired writers of this Holy Book. With or without writing down what was believed, the people of Israel (initially) and later both Christians and Jews would have had their Faith imparted solely through tradition (I exclude the other Abrahamic religion, Islam, because I am fairly sure the Quran is believed to have come down in its complete form. I could be mixing up facts as it has been a while since I engaged Islam).

So, what does all of that mean? It means that the Scriptures are still Holy and still useful for living within the Faith (Jew or Christian), but this is not the only source of true doctrine. Doctrine, in fact, produced the Scriptures. Every book of the Bible is inspired by God, written by men and then compiled into the more cohesive Holy Bible (I'm veering back to the Christianity part). The Bible itself comes from the Church, and would not exist without it.

The fact that the Bible was compiled over a series of councils throughout history and written by God-inspired men is an important to remember when discussing scripture. This is because the Bible was not compiled for the uninitiated. It can help others convert, but it is primarily a book for the faithful. My patron saint, St. Augustine, converted after consulting the Scriptures, but he had to come to a place where he desired to and that means you're already practically in the door of Faith.

So, the Bible is for those within the Church. It has to reflect the teachings of the Faith and that was passed along orally by eyewitnesses initially with some supplemental writing (like the Epistles of the New Testament). Thus, all of the writers of the Bible are working within the realm of the Faith. They are speaking to the faithful, to the various branches of the Church that popped up after Christ's death and Resurrection.

The epistles in particular were written in response to specific issues that arose within the early Church. The same can be said of the Gospels because one good way of fighting heresy is having the essentials within grasp (see: the prologue of Luke's Gospel). Now, does that mean that these issues do not apply for today's Christian? Not at all. After all, there really is nothing new under the sun. Heresies come in and out of fashion just like ridiculous clothing. Heresies even take on different forms, appearing as lambs but hiding a wolf beneath.

Here is the point, Paul may not have mentioned other specific homosexual behaviors for many reasons. The author of the document I am rebutting makes a good point. It is logical to say that, just looking at the Scriptures, the Bible is not always specifically condemning consensual homosexual relationships between two adults. That is a logical conclusion, and this author must be applauded for it (I really should look up the name, but I got in the zone). He is very much right within a specifically Protestant context, which raises the level of Scripture to untold heights. Sola Scriptura was a common battle cry for Protestants during the most turbulent parts of the Reformation and has continued to be one today. Unfortunately, Protestantism (even though trying to count all those churches under this banner is actually quite difficult) has fallen victim to several heresies. It probably is not a new one. I am sure other faithful adherents of Christianity and Judaism ran into a similar problem. It could not happen early on because there weren't generally agreed upon Scriptures yet.

Still, this idea of Sola Scriptura, translated "By the Scriptures alone," is set up for the failings that the author of that other post pointed out. If it is simply the Scriptures and everything must be taken literally, then it stands to reason that some homosexual behaviors seem to be permissible. However, his argument only stands without reference to Tradition and History.

As I have shown, the Bible came about over many years and had to be informed by Tradition. Even the earliest books of the Old Testament are a product of tradition likely written during one of many exiles. The belief that homosexuality, in general, was wrong is a traditional one and is not exclusive to any one religion or people. Many pagan cultures disapproved of homosexual relationships, though it is true many approved or at least tolerated these relationships. It is important to note that different ages, and different people have their own virtues and vices.

I realize the word tradition is liable to get a lot of people exiting this page en masse (if there are that many people), but everyone draws from some sort of tradition. Families have traditions, Science itself has a traditional way of approaching the physical world, and religions have traditions. Some things in a tradition are superstitious and some are not. Some things in a tradition are valid while some not. So, I am not under the illusion that tradition does not have its faults, but the knee-jerk reaction is completely unnecessary. Everything we have now was built off of previous societies and cultures. Humans borrow from each other all the time, and there has been an abundance of sound wisdom and reasoning throughout human history.

Here is another truth: people tend to agree on what sorts of things are evil, but tend to disagree on which ones are tolerable. This is another paraphrased nugget from G.K. Chesterton. Prime examples include the vices of cowardice and adultery. All cultures have said that those things are wicked and deplorable. Cowardice because it is only through bravery that we can get anywhere, and adultery because it necessarily disrupts families (polygamous or not).

Mankind has agreed that marriage is between man and a woman, for the purposes of starting a family. The family was the most important unit of life back then, really. Where they disagreed was on who was in charge, how many husbands or wives can one have, and whether or not in-laws are of the devil.

Similarly, there have been many cultures who disagreed with homosexual relationships. The tradition that Christianity and Judaism draw from are in agreement on this matter. Homosexuality is wrong, however people end up that way. The current teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter is that, actively engaging in homosexual desires is wrong, and not the inclination itself. This is the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" notion that the author scoffs at. He cannot see how one can separate the sinner from the sin. That's fairly reasonable, actually; but, that does not make it a correct view. Viewing a person as a person first and taking into account what they struggle with is perfectly reasonable and perfectly possible. It is forgiveness for all, right? Murders, blasphemers, and the like can all be forgiven and accepted as a person beyond their faults and sins. Thus, the Church can realistically teach what it teaches on the matter. All can be forgiven if they ask for it and all can be loved even if they continue to do what is wrong. You liking them personally is of little matter. You can love someone and not like them, because love is not simply a feeling, it is action. So, the author is off base in thinking that sins cannot be separated from a person, if you are a Christian you know that it can be cleansed.

Think about this as well, having a desire to do something or attraction to someone does not mean that you have to go indulge in that desire. Similarly, sex before marriage is the result of normal, healthy desires that are indulged, in the belief of the Church, in an improper time and place for such behavior. There is a lot more depth to all of this, but just ask yourself this: can you honestly dislike/hate someone simply for their inclination to slap you in your face if they do not engage in it? Maybe, but you cannot do so reasonably. They have done nothing wrong. (I hear people turning to Matthew and finding where Christ said even the thought to do something is wrong. I think that is hyperbole, but we can't get too far off track.)

Leading us back to the point, it is a traditional view that homosexuality is against nature. Even religions who do not have a fall of man have had similar notions. From whence does this notion come? Well, let's look at the Natural Law; humans, are able to look at the universe and note that certain things follow from other things. All humans know that male and female copulation results (if all goes well) in a child. All humans know that, for the human race to persist, sexing must be done. Because it is kind of hard to get pregnant, a lot of sexing must be done.

That said, humans also noted that a homosexual relationship, whilst sharing a great many of the qualities that makes heterosexual eros so enchanting, cannot produce life. It was clear that man and female are to compliment each other and that life, which is a good gift, cannot continue without it. This does not say that the feelings of the homosexual couple are not real or valid, they just unfortunately go contrary to this Natural Law. It also stands to reason that those two types of relationships are ultimately going to be of a different nature in the end.

The nature of each is as follows: one produces life and the other must end where it is. Until very recently, it was not possible for a homosexual relationship to garner children beyond two kindhearted partners decide to adopt a child in varying circumstances. Now, with the help of sperm and egg donation and surrogacy, this can happen. This is nice for homosexual these days, if they have the funds to do such things, but it still does not erase that natural truth. We may not always have these technologies, and one day we may have to start from scratch. Thus, come to the same truth. A heterosexual relationship can produce life while a homosexual one cannot.

Since the two relationships are really a bit more different than most would care to admit this brings me to the next step in understanding what Natural Law says about this matter. This has to do with telos or the belief that things are made a certain way for a certain end. The fact that we and other animals produce with male and female pairs shows us that such sexual encounters are for species and cultural continuance. If we take that thought further we can see that sexual encounters have a certain telos about them. Human males and human females are necessary components and one cannot continue without the other. Their copulation ultimately has the natural telos of producing a human child. That is the ABSOLUTE end that sexuality seems to be for. The fact that it feels wonderful and can bring about further intimacy is secondary to this end. The Church and the Jews both upheld this notion. The "natural" and good use of sexuality is for the purpose of bringing forth children. Thus, it is unlawful or sinful (against natural law, which God necessarily set in place) to engage in pre-marital sexual relationships of any kind. It is sinful to engage in a sexual relationship that is necessarily going to be outside marriage, and even if that were allowed, cannot naturally produce a family. It is not simply about feelings, strong though they may be. That is why such things are condemned and that is where the tradition draws its conclusions from. Sex is for a certain end and, in a fallen world, we need to do our best to hold on to these better parts of our natures. So, using someone for sex is wrong, and (as per the Catholic Church teaching) purposely withholding an essential part of this sexual function is wrong.

If we go back to earlier in this longwinded document I am writing, there are connections being made. What does tradition's relationships with the Scriptures have to do with any of this? Well, for instance, the Scriptures had to written within a certain worldview which was passed down through tradition before it was written down. This means that all of those beliefs, whether they made the "final cut" or not, inform everything about what was being written. It is perfectly possible that Paul and other writers in the Bible felt that the people they were writing to knew that homosexuality in general is wrongheaded. Tell me, if you feel as though someone already knows something and you need to address more pressing matters, such as the male prostitution that the author of that other paper brought up, are you going to take the time to repeat that thing? You may, but probably it is something that is a newer tradition. For instance, the Eucharist was a new institution created by Christ himself. Many Jews would get the gist of it and Gentiles were no strangers to sacred meals, but the fact that the meal is believed to contain Christ's full presence was something new. It is something that needed to be insisted on, and therefore references to it litter the New Testament.

The truth is, things that are easily derived from natural law need not be repeated in an epistle that was written for the purpose of dealing with specific matters. That would be like your parents reminding you to wipe your behind after using the restroom every time you did it. When you are learning these things, i.e. being potty trained, it is necessary for them to drill you in these matters. If you are 35 it is quite simply annoying.

So, what I am positing is that a more logical conclusion regarding Paul and other Biblical writer's tendency not to mention homosexuality as a sin directly is more due to the fact that they were writing to people who understood a certain tradition (or in the case of Gentiles, likely understood natural law). They were more dealing with subtleties (read: specific issues). These works made it into the Bible because the the early Church fathers felt as though these books would stand the test of time. Surely some epistles or writings that were written and acceptable maybe dealt with someone only a Corinthian would worry about (idol sacrifice and meals surrounding that are not included). A good testament to this fact is that child prostitution is still a problem in the world.

We can now see that the Scriptures may not specifically state a sin, but that does not mean that we cannot figure out if something is wrong or misguided. I personally, think that sexuality is far more complex than the author of the other work thinks. It is not simply a matter of being "born" a certain way. That would negate free will and it forgets that environment has just as much to do with who we become as people. I grew with an abusive father, and I developed behaviors and patterns of thinking that were designed to help me cope with those issues. I reasoned, if I cannot do anything right, then I probably should not try very hard, and it has taken time to heal from things of that sort. This is not to say that we are not born with certain traits and inclinations, I am simply saying that nothing is set in stone as far as who we become. There can be issues that make it difficult or truly out of your abilities to do something you desire, but humans have a choice in how they will act. Aspirations are not the same as character. Character is formed by choice.

Finally, this is not saying that any person who is homosexual, whether or not they are practicing, is a terrible individual. It is simply saying that, homosexuals are not exempt from God's natural law, His commandments, and the like. If a homosexual person wants to become a Christian, a cross they will have to bear is celibacy. It is terrifying and horrible, I know, but we have been promised that, if we give up these things which keep us from God, we will be given something more in replacement, we will be restored. Our lives will be made brand new and, in the end of all things, we will find that giving up what we had to give up was worth it.

Blessings on you all, and peace be with you.

Zaire

P.S.

I would also like to note that I agree with him (his name is Mark Sandlin apparently) on the point that we should not be using our beliefs or our Scriptures, however they are formed, in a hateful manner. We should be humble and note that we have our own stains and things that we struggle with. The best thing to do is pray for and love people. If they decide to join our ranks, blessings to them, but this is not a light task. The paradox of Christianity is that upon losing our life we will find it. That means giving things up like ways of thinking, bad habits, and poisonous relationships. Again, blessings on you all.

Something That Grinds My Gears

Yes, that is a family guy reference.

In this post I want to talk about one or two annoying people you see post on facebook (which means they will likely be the same in person). The first of these are people who post things like, "I hate these because an animal died" in response to a rather sad article about an accidental bunny death.

Don't get me wrong, I love animals and think they are beautiful. But, damnit, they die ALL THE TIME! You surely do not weep for EVERY animal that dies. Yes, the story was sad and losing life isn't a good thing. But, it was an accident and there are people who would cry about a story where a human accidentally kills an animal and not bat an eye about a story where someone does it to a human in cold blood.

I don't know if it is cause they are desensitized or what. But, it is quite maddening. These people tend to be vegetarians or PETA-type people. I am making judgements about this one person, but I am writing this here because I do not feel like arguing on facebook.

Now, we all know these PETA-types. You know, the people who take a moral high ground because you eat meat or don't have as many qualms about killing an animal. Before several of you rev your engines, I would like to note that some of their ideas are sound. Ideas like treating the animals we own as pets, or have to use for things like milk, well are sound. Just because it isn't human does not mean that we can go around mistreating them. I can get that.

It is just the crazy jump in logic that it is morally wrong to eat animals. Humans are omnivorous...like bears. Is it wrong for a bear to eat a delicious bunny? Why would it suddenly become wrong because we have larger minds and a larger sense of self? It doesn't make sense. It isn't like humans are naturally vegetarians and it is an abomination for them to be eating meat. It has become, through evolution and whatnot, a natural part of human existence. We have stomachs adapted to our diet, like every animal (and our body IS animal).

The only difference between us and our animal cousins is the fact that we can actively choose what we will and will not eat. Animals normally do not have such options. Bears are omnivorous because it opens up the possibilities of what is edible. Scavengers do the same. A lot of animals save food if they already ate because you do not know when your next meal is going to come. They also are more tied to their instincts than not, they are a bit simpler. Higher animals like dolphins are still tied to what their stomachs say they have to eat. They can't suddenly say, "It is morally wrong for me to eat these poor fish, I'll eat coral now." If the fish go, so do they. Also, as a random note, dolphins are terribly immoral by human standards...

As humans there are good reasons for not eating meat (though I find that it makes us more healthy a bit dubious). You can choose to eat meat because your religion states that animals are more sacred than plants or that meat is part of the evil material world (I'm just spitballing here). There are many religious reasons for not eating meat and that is fine, it is simply not my belief. It may seem my argument is falling a part here because most vegetarians are following their moral beliefs. That's true, but our society tries to take a stance with self-defeating moral relativism (i.e. do what you feel is right). If that is the case, you cannot proselytize or say someone else is wrong. Clearly, they think differently than you. That's where you run into trouble, but I digress.

There is also the most obvious reason for not eating meat: you don't like it. So, you have that choice. Oh, and protesting against the mistreatment of the animals. That makes sense as well.

Now, choosing to eat meat, whatever your reasons, is not the same as choosing to murder someone or steal for someone. If you are a person who doesn't do such things, you have some moral high ground. You avoided doing immoral things, but your culinary tastes are hardly that high up in morality. The treatment of the animals prior to eating them is a good one, as I said, as is just not liking it. But, it hardly makes you a better person because you see inherent wrongness with eating something with a face. Why is that the cut off point? Why not keep from eating anything with life in it (plants included). The cut off makes no sense. You aren't going to convince people just because an animal is dying. What is the difference between a tiger and myself? Hmmm?

The second annoying person is the who says things like "If life begins at conception does that mean the Child Tax credit should too?" The clear answer is no, because the child may still yet not enter the world. It can be lost naturally or someone may do something horrible like abort it. Since the development going well is still a question mark of sorts it doesn't make sense to do the Child tax credit until they are completely in the world. That doesn't negate the fact that they are life. When the egg and sperm meet the product is something genetically different from the mother. It IS NOT the mother, therefore the mother doesn't have the kind control our society likes to say. Killing is wrong because it deprives one of life. Life is good. So, just because that life is not into the world yet, we cannot claim that we are not ending a life. You're just doing it sooner rather than later. Why be horrified when a mother throws an infant into the trash and not with one who kills it before we call it an infant? It isn't a complete way of thinking.

In any case, those kinds of questions are kind of dumb. Especially when comments that say things like "At least for 12 children a year--Hey, eggs are people too. The period makes women serial killers." I am sure this person is joking, but it is an idiotic thing to say. An egg left alone clearly doesn't become life. You need the sperm. This is why the perpetuation of our species depends on both man and woman. Eggs clearly are not life, but instead are part of the equation that leads to life. Thus, the natural process of the period is not making women into serial killers. Also, no one with any sense would believe that. Before anyone goes down that road, that does not equate to the issue of male masturbation. Masturbation is an act of will, whilst the period clearly is not.

Alright, rant over.

Reflections on 1 Corinthians 8-9

As many know, I grew up in the Protestant church or, rather, I grew up in one of the many branches of the Protestant church. Those with experiences similar to mine know about how the relationship with Christ that one has is supposed to be supremely personal.

Do not confess to a priest because they are simply your sins and of no consequence to anyone else. Going to church is not explicitly necessary because you can worship in your own individual way. Do not pray to saints because they are explicitly dead and have no bearing on the living community in Christ. Peter was not the Pope and was considered no higher than any of the other apostles, they were equals etc. ad infinitum. These are but a few of predominant thoughts in the many branches of the Protestant version(s) of the Faith.

That said, I want to focus on this aspect of individualism and the rite of Reconciliation as I meditate on Pauls words to the Corinthians in chapter 8 and then broach the subject that all Papists--like myself--love: the Papacy as it seems to come up in chapter 9 (this part will be shorter because I just want to show something I found striking in that chapter).

So, a lot of Protestantism is explicitly individualistic to the point of forgetting that the Church is also considered the body of Christ, that the community they participate in also is to act as Christ's arms, eyes, and feet on Earth. This has to be done on an individual basis as well as a communal basis. If the Church is like a body it follows that each part of the body functions on it's own (though directed by the brain and nervous system) and contributes to the health of the whole. It only makes sense.

Now, it has been put forward, by myself and others, that confessing to a priest is also a reminder that we are in community and that no sin is a completely private matter however secretive one is about it. When we sin, we bring damage to ourselves and--whether or not we keep it secret--that damage to ourselves can and often does lead to sin that damages the Church as a whole. We are individual strands that make up a strategy, but pulling one strand affects other strands. One strand cannot burn with lust and not expect it to not affect the whole. The Church is not a mere tapestry, so the results won't be as disastrous as the situation I used for metaphor (not to mention the Gates of Hell won't prevail against it), but that does not mean we should not worry that our actions--secret or not--effect others and could bring others to ruin thereby damaging Christ's church.

A good and terrible example of the effects of even secret sins could be found in a priest who perhaps struggles with pornography. He confesses about it often, but cannot seem to break free. Pornography has addictive qualities and also changes your perception about things like sex. So, it makes sense that eventually it would do the same to the very human priest and can push him to do something to his parishioners relating to his inflamed lust. His secret sin became something very public very quickly. If the person was a married parishioner, the porn would separate him from his wife--however secret it remains--and likely result in similar instances with other members of his family. Sin is sin and will affect others as well as ourselves. Thus, we are commanded to help our brothers and sisters out, to pray for them, and otherwise. It makes no sense to worry about such things if the Walk is a strictly individual walk as it is sometimes is made out to be (no one can tell me how to live my faith, blah, blah, blah).

So, confessing to a priest actually reminds us that we are in communion. You can be forgiven by God by confessing and praying on your own, but I grew to find that extremely isolating. Granted, you still have the option to go to a pastor or minister and ask for assistance, but there is something about actively hearing that you are forgiven, no matter what you have done. The priesthood is in place to provide that function as other functions. Plus, you get free advice and understanding.

Now, I bring this up in light of recently reading chapter 8 in 1 Corinthians. Here Paul explicitly states that how you behave, even if your knowledge is sound, there is a possibility that you could lead another person not as far along in their walk astray. You do need to worry about your own salvation, but also about that of those you commune with. So, let us not forget that we are not alone with God, but part of a beautiful Church that goes hand in hand with our personal walk.

Finally, I just found it interesting that Paul mentions the apostles and then mentions Cephas (Peter) on an individual basis. That seems to emphasize that Peter had a special place in the Church and Paul was recognizing that fact. Catholics believe Peter was the first Pope, which mean he oversaw everything and had certain powers given to him etc. Mentioning Peter on his own does not need to be done. It shows a certain level of respect that was probably do to Peter's position in the Church.

Also, keep in mind that the Pope has cardinals around him. He does not do everything on his own, though he is the one with the deciding vote. Peter had that as well. The other apostles, including Paul, actually had active discussions and debates with him when deciding the direction of the Church. Ultimately it fell on Peter to decide, but Paul's ministry to the Gentiles has to be given the say-so by Peter to be really done. It makes sense.

That's all for now!

Blessings.

Zaire