Posted on 02/07/2010 8:33:28 AM PST by Kaslin
The problem is not the fact that gay men prefer other men. I work with gay guys, and they don’t ever hit on straight guys because it’s pointless. It’s also bad idea to date someone you work with, no matter what your choice of career. The problem is the penchant for gays to insist that everyone know they are gay and accept it with open arms. They are intolerant. On top of that they demand absolute tolerance from others. That’s the real problem.
Johnny, there are occasional swinger groups and parties in the military, but I’ve worked with the OSI, and they will tell you they are miniscule compared to the gay groups. it should worry anyone concerned about military discipline and readiness.
Would you still feel this way if your average berthing bay gets cut down the middle, with one half a giant suckathon, and the other half too scared to say anything about it?
We were the first ship to get females. First Arctic cruise, we had 29 enlisted and 1 female office on board. we medievac’d 25 pregnant off before the cruise ended.
Before they go making a policy like this, I’d like to see how they are going to change the average berthing bay. Before you get all the accommodations down, and account for some remaining sense of privacy among the less deviant, there won’t be room for food or weapon systems.
What are you talking about? The military DOES tell soldiers what they must wear, what they must eat, et al. (both on duty and off duty)! People give up many of their rights and privileges when they join the military. That's the beauty of the all-volunteer military...
One does not have to be a geneticist to know the “genetics” meme of homosexual origins has yet to be shown in any scientific study and numerous such studies have been done. Your theory is no more or less plausible than any other. But, consider the demographic. Homosexuals make up less than 3% of the population and more closely to 1 to 1.5%. I think the military can suffer the loss of representatives of such a small demographic. Unless, of course, your argument is that homosexuals are so demonstrably intellectually superior to all heterosexuals that we chain ourselves to perpetual mediocrity by excluding homosexuals for actively serving in our military.
I have seen some plausible studies that have shown that through successive depletion of hormones in the womb after multiple male births, the successive male children, robbed of the same hormones as the first few become more likely to grow up homosexual. Is this the case? Possibly. But if it were at least a contributing factor then one could not say definitively that all homosexuality is nurture nor that all homosexuality is choice.
The Catholic Church could shed light on this. With generations of records on their priests, if the younger male children in largely male families become priests, that would be consistent with the vocation as sanctuary argument throughout western civilization. My hypothesis would be that there would be a preponderance of younger male children from large families who joined the priesthood. That would provide some anthropological evidence to support the new biological studies, perhaps going back centuries.
Your comments are crafted to fit your opinion. They are indeed well written but totally self serving. Even the exceptions you point out are only there to further support your foregone conclusion...not a hint of variance. Bravo on your commitment but honestly, it doesn't develop the discourse much. I mean really, what is “Natural Law”? Is it so different than “Divine Right”? Both are man made constructs who's very definitions are dreamed up to serve either Straight man or crown to the exclusion of others.
Those same founders that we ensconce in a pantheon of righteousness were vilified in their own time as going against the natural order and the divine right of kings. Did they somehow know more or were they obstinate traitors who happened to prevail? Are blacks 3/5 human or was that just the natural order of things during the first half of the 19th century.
These things you see as concrete may just be sands that slide away as you do, forgotten curious arguments lost to the history of the 21st century and as quaint as the idea of a large turtle holding up the globe.
All behaviors are not learned. We have ample evidence of that. Twins separated at birth who grow up thousands of miles apart come together after many years only to find that certain character traits are identical even though they have never been in each others conscious presence. We know this to have been documented. How can you present a table as argument when the legs which support it can be kicked out so easily? Suggested as theory I find totally acceptable but cast in stone as your words attempt, does a disservice to the truth. And if one truth is not served, how can we believe that others are justly represented through your prose?
Finally, and of course, is your Horatio Alger reference, the exception that virtue against insurmountable odds is always present in the heroic as if to say that all who do not surmount the insurmountable are either weak of discipline, mind or character. There is always that exception...”if you just tried harder, it's your own fault.”
In the end homosexuality is not vampirism. It does not get passed on exclusively through the bite of another homosexual in an abusive act as you would have us believe. Some homosexuals are from perfectly “normal” loving, two parent households, raised in propriety and civil decency, well educated, active in sports, the boy scouts, altar boys, military, business school etc etc. and yet still without a sliver of abuse, they find they are homosexual. Was this behavior learned? Are these people vile and debased? Or are they the younger sons in a large predominantly male family growing up in an age when becoming a priest is no longer the only place to hide?
We should at least open our eyes to the 1% or more possibility that alternate paths to the present do exist. Surely you can see that.
I believe you are right but the reason there are so many underground homosexual groups in the military might be because homosexuality is forced underground. I mean if you force rats from the streets and the houses so that the only place they can hide is in the sewers, and if you invite dogs in to sit by the hearth, don’t be surprised that when you go into the sewers you see more rats than dogs.
The good townspeople have, by their behavior at least partially created the rats in the sewer problem. We need to accept that fact instead of saying, “Why can’t the rats in the sewer behave more like the golden retriever next to my rocking chair?” You must see the absurdity of that question in this example, yes?
I don't know if excluding homosexuals from the military would condemn our armed forces to a life of mediocrity. I believe our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently doing a much better job of that so mediocrity may be what we get regardless of this gays in the military decision.
I saw reports where as low as 1.3% of Americans self identify as homosexual but self identification in our society as a homosexual is not something people are encouraged to step forward and do. Kinsey shocked the world by telling us in 1948 that 10% of males are homosexual and that 37% of post adolescent males had reached orgasm with another male (however time has shown Kinsey had sex on the brain way more than what you would expect from an objective researcher). Still looking across all the studies presented on Wikipedia (for what that is worth), I'd hazard a guess that 4.00% of the American population self identifies as homosexual and somewhere between 10-55% of men have had a homosexual experience.
Let's say these numbers hold true for the military. Since don't ask don't tell requires anyone caught engaging in a homosexual act to be discharged, then all who have had a homosexual act with another person of the same sex would be subject to the penalties. That means that presently, if people changed colors to purple once they had a homosexual experience, then somewhere between 10-50% or more of our military personnel would be discharged tomorrow...rendering us helpless against a world of enemies. Could an honest military suffer this kind of demographic loss and still protect national interests?
Mediocrity or not...if honor is what we expect from our military personnel and honor means honesty, then honestly we have a double standard going on unless every single study on male sexual behavior since World War II is wrong. Or are we to suppose that these studies are true in the general population but when you put thousands of men together for long periods of time and remove all female companionship then the rate of homosexual behavior between men drops suddenly to zero. I find that idea less than plausible.
Given all of this, natural or unnatural, learned or genetic, homosexuality is with us. It is in the military. It has been since Alexander the Great and the Spartans. It will be long after you and I are dust. Why are we asking people to lie about it? Why are we forcing individuals to whom this is perfectly natural to pursue lives rife with coercion where they can be blackmailed for being themselves and with that they can be forced to compromise security because they are not supported by the very country they have sworn an oath to protect. I think we all should lighten up and let these people come out of the sewers in which we've forced them to live.
We have done it for native Americans. We have done it for blacks. We have done it for women. Just because there is not a tell tale color or physiological sign post does not mean that they are all making a choice. If just one is born that way, then all must be protected...just as if just one fetus is a human being then all must be protected. We need to stop picking and choosing who deserves universal protection based on our own view of the world. Who among us truly knows God's plan? Who among us truly knows? Until we are 100% certain which cannot occur until we have returned to God's good grace, we should all seek to er on the side of abundant charity and good will, instead of condemnation and ostrecization.
I don’t agree. The particular location I refer to had abundant places and venues where gays could meet in anoymity. Instead, they chose risky, sleazy places as though that added to the intrigue.
If you’ve ever seen gay parades in any of the major cities, they do not march responsibly for a cause. In fact, they perform acts of self-abuse that only highlight their self-loathing. I believe they do this because they hate themselves and their lifestyle.
OK, first choosing a risky place to meet over a secure place to meet on the surface is dumb. It is beyond me that people will do that except that perhaps they are getting some kind of thrill or adrenaline rush from flirting with danger.
Second, you are right. I have seen part of one of these parades in New York on two separate occassions. It’s completely over the top and to me, a disservice to the very goals they are trying to achieve.
I once had the opportunity to ask the famous Liberation Theologian Letty Russell, why young black men behaved so “boisterously” for lack of a better term. Her response was interesting. She said, “They are in a form of mourning. They are mourning for all the loss in their community both today and for generations.” Then I asked her, “Yeah but, why do they have to be so in your face with the hooting and hollering and all that?” She replied, “Perhaps they are testing their freedom. Perhaps they are stretching their arms out as wide as they can just to see if they really are free.”
Finally I asked her, “Well how long does this ‘mourning’ go on?” She replied, “All mourning takes as long as it takes.”
I was stupified by these answers. Ms. Russell spent many years as a lone white christian woman serving the South Bronx in the early 1970’s. To me she has walked the path of a saint. She changed my view that day. I don’t pretend to understand the life of a black man or the generations of African Americans in this country but it gave me the sense that perhaps, beneath this bravado and overly confident exterior is an incredible sorrow that has lasted for a very long time and passed from generation to generation.
Perhaps the same is true at these Gay Pride Parades. Perhaps all this “in your face” bravado and provocateurism is a deep sorrow, pain and humiliation, lonliness and deprivation that only a person walking that path would understand. Perhaps they are in mourning...
Beyond that suggestion, I have no argument with your commments.
Perhaps now we are getting to the fundamental of the thing. Everything eventually must be pushed aside for faggotry. No more weapons systems, who needs them, we're not going to fight anyone anyway, we can't even identify the enemy. No more battleships, but we'll keep the cruisers. Probably should get rid of that gray paint too.
Can't believe you would ask such a question. Read St. Thomas Aquinas to understand the decades of intense thought that developed the principles of Natural Law which evolved through centuries.
Every aspect of Natural Law is based on reason. "Divine Rights" defy reason. Progressive, post-modern German thought reeks with distortion, atheism and moral relativism. Progressives have tried to undo all Classical thinking connected to Natural Law and God's Laws--the basis of our legal system.
Progressive, illogical thought is promoted by the Andrew Sullivans whose idea of philosophical thought probably took him less than a month of reflection. I find his thinking very shallow from what I've read and full of misinformation and lies and statistics that are as flawed as climategate.
I find the Pope's encyclicals on Love/Lust, Selfish vs. Selfless Love to be much more profound, well thought out, and a reflection on Truth and morality and all founded in Natural Law.
To think that man has no control over behavior means that there could be no moral code. It defies even having a civil society. Think of the Fall of Rome and all the orgies as to what happens when there is no sexual morality--incest, homosexuality, pederasty, polygamy, child sacrifice, adultery etc.
Homosexual behavior destroys the dignity of the human body and demeans women/men relationships. It separates men and women instead of uniting them. No equality existed in predominate homosexual societies and all appointments, advances in army, etc., was based on sexual favors. There is also physical destruction of the body by the unnatural acts also--that is another matter, but it is obvious proof that it can not be classified as natural.
Twin studies have proven homosexuality is not genetic or hormonal or whatever insipid logic tries to refute basic biology. It should not be possible to have identical twins be straight and homosexual which has been found in numerous studies. Science only needs one example, btw, to prove a theory false.
That some children suffer physical deformities is a fact, but it is abnormal. The problem comes when homosexuals try to say that behavior is equal to race, a civil right to sodomy (a costly, destructive, act to societies) or some such idiocy. Totally a lie and based on "feelings" and progressive thought.
Who was that married politician that just got caught soliciting a boy--who cried on national tv and said that he was molested at six by a 12 year old neighbor and since that time had this powerful unnatural desire for boys??? Just ONE example of learned behavior. It abounds.
What are the statistics of male homosexuality....over 70% are molested and even that is probably a low figure. Every culture (Greeks, Nazis, pre-WWII Japan, Afghans, tribes, etc.) who have endorsed and celebrated homosexuality have an initiation for boys into the lifestyle. That alone proves that it is learned and should make all civilized society reject all promotion of it.
Study Aristotle on the "habituation of virtues". His wisdom is obvious and habits are explained, and, yes, they are learned as is all behavior that is habituated. Sexuality has always had tremendous power over mankind, no denying that, and culture has always defined the preferred "object" of that desire. It is learned, but natural instinct can not be obliterated. It is so obvious that sex has been designed for procreation--natural law.
All behaviors and fetishes are caused by their external environment. (Unnatural environment that created Tango had left his "partner" for a female when one was available). The formative years--the first seven--determine the type of person you become. Things become intrinsic at around seven as does the age of reason. I'm not saying that all influence ends at 7, just that a lot of hard-wiring is in place.
Instincts do exist at birth but how we deal with them and all aspects of life are learned. Behaviors that are not reinforced in children, die. Taboos are either taught or not. Instincts do exist but how they deal with them is learned. Morality is learned. People can be defined to a culture by how they sound, customs, acts, etc....all learned.
All the collective experiences in the early years of a child will determine their worldview, their behavior, their ideas--only a major trauma will be able to jar that perspective--but then even that is learned. I have studied in depth serial killers. These people as young children were all severely abused by the adult/s caring for them.
When mothers do not mother, severe emotional problems do occur...children learn they are either worthy of love or not, it is as simple of that. They have high self esteem, or no self esteem, all determined by the behavior of their caretaker in the first few years of life. They learn to trust people, or not, or sometimes. They learn they are powerful or are useless. Damaged children can not be "reprogramed" as been proven by orphanage studies, and a myriad other. That is why, some inmates can never be reformed because they are hard wired--behaviors are habituated in formative years.
Children denied a loving father, will fixate on men--they have an emotional void that nature will require they fill. This may not result in homosexuality, although it could, and certainly determines or undermines relationships with males. Girls could end up marrying men looking for father figures. This has been proven.
Yes, homosexuality is passed on, not necessarily by another homosexual, I am not saying that. But if a child's first sexual experience is homosexual (and homosexuals abuse children at a 120 to 8 ratio ), than there is a greater chance for that male to be homosexual. Also, if they are confused about their sexual identity in the formative years, by parents that emasculate the boys, or promote and define them in feminine ways, or lacking a positive male role model or a loving maternal one, abnormality will occur. How could it not?
Parents, by the way, promote behaviors unintentionally all the time. They lack training in Child Development and have poor parenting techniques. Plus the lies put out by progressives that strangers are just as good as mothers for caring for an infant. Or that there is no difference between women and men caring for young.
Parenting techniques create defiant kids, loving kids, obedient kids, respectful kids, etc. It is never an accident to how a child acts or thinks, I guarantee it. You promote their thinking by how you treat them. When you allow others power over your children they help define who your children are and how they think. Are they depressive? Happy? Shy? It is all learned, taught or modeled.
http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4/brain
The above article basically proves that experience changes the architecture of the brain and habituation as Aristotle talked about, can be scientifically documented.
1. I have read the doctors of the church. I did nothing else for three solid years at one of the best institutions for these studies in America. From Augustine to St. Paul to Reinhold Niebuhr to John of the Cross. In the end, my faith was the same. I saw arguments that seemed irrefutable simply turned over centuries later. Each reasoned and well crafted argument from the Transubstantiation to the Trial of Copernicus bowled me over with eloquence and reason. Some stood the test of time. Some did not. The only thing I found in all of this was that the things which were irrefutable seemed to be the things which when redacted, scholars seemed to agree, Christ said himself...and there are precious few of those. Other than that, true church scholarship in all its different forms is conjecture and totally up for grabs...it's just that these conversations take centuries to play out...and with the luxury of monastic time, the arguments are rich tapestries of the written word.
2. I find it remarkable that you believe that homosexuality automatically means ‘man has no control over behavior’ yet heterosexuality means ‘natural order’. There is no conclusive evidence anywhere that this is true. God herself would have to confirm that for you. Just as there is no conclusive proof that a fetus is not a fully formed human being. We just don't know despite the fact that some people like to throw the word proof around. Yet, when it comes to a fetus, most of us would want to er on the side of caution and consider all such life, if in doubt, human...and support that possibility. But when it comes to a homosexual the knee jerk reaction is to blame the individual and to ostracize or the more condescending ‘love the sinner hate the sin’ crap. The inconsistent logic of that is the same as being pro-life regarding birth and pro-capital punishment. You cannot support one group when in doubt and condemn another while doubt still remains. And despite your tossing around the word proof like an old sweater...proof, 100% pure positive proof of what causes homosexuality and whether it is a natural occurrence does not yet exist. Without it, we should er on the side of the possibility that God may have created homosexuality along with the rocks, flowers, trees, tsunamis and Jerry Lewis. As I learned in those studies many years ago from a well recognized bible scholar, “Our’s is an ironic God.” Our job is to live with it in a way that would meet with God's approval as Christ did with the prostitutes (behavioral), fisher men, tax collectors and indigents (also behavioral).
3. Can you explain specifically how homosexuality destroys the dignity of the human body? I know homosexuals and I know beer drinkers and I gotta tell you, the prima facie evidence is that beer destroys the dignity of the human body except for those who like that 50lbs of belly hanging over their trousers.
4. Homosexuality does not drive men and women apart. Heterosexual men and women will continue being attracted to each other as they have for centuries. They will build families and they will destroy families just as they have for centuries. It wasn't homosexuality that kept Ben Franklin away from his wife Debra for over seven years. It wasn't homosexuality that made knights all over Europe leave their wives and children for adventure in the Middle East for the better part of decades. Homosexuality will break up marriages where one of the partners or both are lying to the other about their true disposition. Obviously, if they are gay, they didn't “learn” the behavior in their straight relationship. So, maybe it was there when they took their vows but they were trying to suppress it because they believed it was behavioral and not natural. As a result, the blew up a perfectly good family and destroyed their spouse's best chance at a happy life...leaving her 40 and alone...I know one such marriage and it was all built on the behavioral supposition. That kind of personal dishonesty is so much more damaging than just accepting your ‘natural’ condition before any bachelor parties are planned. So much for trying to force behavioral discipline down the throat of nature.
5. Regarding twins and refuting biology, it was thought until the 19th century that it was impossible for a black swan to exist. Yet, in the 1800’s one was found in Australia. Since then, they have been found on nearly all continents. All things are possible if God makes them so. We now know that even identical twins are not identical. There are exceptions to every rule. Our understanding of universal is limited by our own remedial knowledge of God's creation. 500 years ago, we believed we were curing patience with blood letting and leaches. We still lop off the breasts of women who develop cancer. Are we really so advanced that we can speak with such adamant authority about the natural ways of the universe, even as dark matter and super colliders are expanding knowledge on an hourly basis? I would take a less authoritarian tact. These black and white arguments most often sound downright silly given 100 years of reflection.
6. Using the politician example and his confession that his being molested by another boy made him a victim, really is beneath you and your argument. It actually made me chuckle, kind of like when John Dillinger was asked why he robbed banks and he replied “That's where the money is.” If this politician did these things and if he blamed it on a 12 year old boy, pity him for being so pathetic he is grasping to become a victim when in fact he is a law breaking perpetrator. Don't use him as statistical evidence. It really does weaken the argument.
7. I have some news for you, homosexual or heterosexual, every society that has sex as a part of its ahem, intercourse...has an initiation process for both boys and girls into the lifestyle. At some point, the vast majority of girls and young women lose their virginity. That is how boys and girls become sexually adult. When it happens with a prom dress and a tuxedo, we wax nostalgic, but when it happens between a young man and a younger man, its somehow akin to vampirism. Why craft sentences whose subtext is so laced with deviance when the equivalent process is held up as a “rite of passage”...that isn't even remotely intellectually objective.
8. I would submit to you that one facet of sex is designed for procreation...that is obvious. However, the most participated in sexual behaviors in the world do not create babies and in fact, are not used for any procreative reason whatsoever. Recent studies of teens are showing they would rather have oral sex than actual intercourse. Given that, it makes you wonder if the whole damned race is unnatural...
9. I would agree with all your comments regarding the preponderance of effect that child rearing can have on an adult’s behavior. And yet, I know people who have had model families and upbringing only to turn out an exception to your rules. You said earlier that just one exception disproves a theory. I disagree so I will give you and your theories more license. What I submit to you is that even with the child psychology in order as I believe your final paragraphs are, nature finds a way to produce a homosexual even when everything is done “correctly”. That in itself should give us pause and make us consider that no matter how much we raise some cats with dogs, they are still going to meow, not like water, prefer to eat fish, be solitary instead of pack like and pursue birds. Now, is that learned behavior? Or is it nature?
“they don’t ever hit on straight guys because it’s pointless”
No, they hit on young teenagers, or take trips overseas to molest children in boy brothels.
“Is it different if the act is indecent straight or gay?”
You don’t see how different it is?
Really?
Naah, nobody could miss that.
I can’t argue with that.
You obviously do not believe in moral absolutes; you couldn't find the truth of one plus one; and worse, you must be a progressive! O Hail, Obama! (Please tell me I am wrong.)
Can you believe in anything if you state that "Catholic scholarship in all its different forms is conjecture"? My, my, then you must really abhor the stuff coming out of Andrew Sullivan's mouth and the ideas of Planned Parenthood trying to instill the pleasures of sex to ten year olds. Oh wait! They defy Natural Law and celebrate moral relativism. Oh, the wisdom of progressives and deviants, like Kinsey, must really inspire you to find "truth" and "reason"--well, I mean the "right" kind of reason which can't be based on Natural Law. (Can that be possible?)
Such liberation to encourage children to explore the most intimate part of self and treat sex like a commodity--like a piece of candy to give to whomever. Oh what fun!!!! Nothing like a good sex romp with someone who could care less about any aspect of your personality and never want to take on any responsibility for that "romp" and be willing to kill a human being if one would happen to be produced by such an inconsequential little act. Oh what an ordered society we would have. (BTW, babies are innocent of any crimes, unlike killers--Is there no difference?.)
Certainly there would be no loss of self esteem as you give multiple partners a piece of yourself--unlike the mean, repressed Catholics who dare to preach to children that their bodies are the temple of God. Respect for your body does not mean defiling it with acts that destroy it. I know you have heard of the seven deadly sins, so do you honestly think a beer belly is a good thing? I would probably get kicked off this site if I described why homosexual acts destroy the dignity of man. You know why, although your lack of moral standards prevent you from acknowledging the facts about orifices and fecal matter. You need to rationalize it as not a behavior choice--no free will there! Prostitution is demeaning, also, because you use the body as a commodity--to sell like a worthless plastic toy. I can not explain in this space, how dignity of man, when reduced to animal acts, does not allow man to claim higher moral status than a dog. The Pope has thoroughly writen about this subject which should convince any "logical" person to the validity and need for control and morality. The geniuses in the modern world and the Founders of the greatest experiment in the history of human interaction understood that happiness could not be attained without virtue. Think about that one for a few years and then look back to the wisdom of Aristotle--on the habituation of virtue, etc.
1. Why do you think serial killers are immoral? (Hint: They learned the behavior from cruel/immoral caregiver/s)
2. Why would a 4 year old engage in sex acts? (Hint: They learned the behavior by being abused by sexually immoral adults)
3. How come all men were homosexuals in the Spartan army? (Hint: Babies were killed if they were not perfect, then they were taken away from their mothers at a tender age and initiated into sexual "joys" by an older mentor.)
4. Do NAMBLA members really believe they "love" the little boys they molest or could it be just lust, per chance? (Didn't that Duke homosexual selling his little black adopted son for sex, wasn't that just sharing some love with his progressive pals?) I'm sure the little boy felt so loved and desired! Certainly that behavior has NO effect on his future behavior and none on his sexual life.
5. Homosexuality excludes the opposite sex. How can that unite the sexes, when all it would do is separate them? (Hint: In all societies that adopted/promoted homosexuality, women were nothing more than slaves/breeders. Men stayed with men. Women stayed with the women. They were kept separate, except for occasional breeding. Integration didn't happen--after all, they enjoyed the same endeavors. Young boys were forced into sexual slavery to older men, but" of course, it was sanctioned and the boys "desired" it. (That makes it natural, doesn't it???) Then, I think homosexuality is also idolatry, which also makes some very interesting, logical arguments.
6. Why are gays behind all the hate crime legislation when it denies people freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion? (Hint: They can not win the debate and have to shut down the truth.)
7. Why are men and women designed differently? (Hint: there truly is a natural reason and a correct use of the body.)
8. Did Pavlov prove anything? Can behaviors be manipulated? (Hint: Can language be taught? Can logical thinking be taught? Can human feelings be manipulated? and controlled by adults?)
9. Can you learn to do such an unnatural thing as kill yourself? To be a little jihadist? Is that a learned behavior? How could anyone go against the most powerful instinct in the human body--the one to survive--and do such an unnatural act? (Hint: It is learned behavior.)
Still, it was really interesting to see the shards of ideas stringed in a sequence coming out of your mind. It was exciting actually. These things float around in our heads and we try to string them together and yet there are so many anecdotal pieces of information that it would take longer than we have here to put together what could be a whole book on the topic.
Of course, reading into it, I can see where I think you are going on all these thoughts and in many cases, I am in agreement. Some of the things you put forth are downright ludicrous and some are nearly universal truths. I won't argue them point for point because you leaped across history and back in lightning speed and there is no way to preserve nuance and depth by replicating the feat.
One thing I would observe which is consistent through everything you have said in both of these posts is the certainty of the universalness of many of your assumed truths. I look at life as supreme irony. As a Catholic, I bring my faith to a church which on one hand says we should respect the human body as a temple yet on the other spent a good part of the 15th century illuminating city squares across Europe with more than the occasional human torch.
All of life is irony.
According to Matthew, Jesus said:
“A Prophet is Not Without Honor Except in His Own Home Town and His Own House” Matt 13-57
We live in a world where those who should love, support and believe in us the most are often are harshest critics and the very people who would seek to undo our success. Jesus recognized this. His own brothers and sisters did not believe him according to the scripture.
If your own siblings and/or townspeople don't recognize your outstanding qualities, who will? That in itself gives me cause to believe that even that which we take for granted was once in doubt or may well be in the future...and when in doubt, we should tread lightly in the judgment of others.
Jesus is also purported to say:
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured unto you. And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, Let me cast out the mote out of your eye; and lo, the beam is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye.”
Matt 7:1-5
I believe one of us or both is in for a real awakening after this life ends. I accept the fact that it may well at least be me. I would like to go into that with as much compassion for others (even those different from myself), so that if I fail to uphold all that God wanted me to uphold, at least I will believe in my heart that I have tried to treat others as I would have wanted to be treated if I were in their shoes. So, I chose to tread lightly. What does amaze me is how heavy the shoes are of many of those who profess to stand on the “conservative” side of these particular issues.
Sorry I am all over the map, but I do not have the time to edit my writing or I would never be able to post anything. Granted, if these were papers submitted for my college classes, I would have done poorly—and I am sure I have plenty of spelling and grammar errors, also.
I do not judge other people. I leave that to God. My expertise is in child development and the way children learn and I have little tolerance for people who try to destroy the innocence of childhood. I have even less respect for feminist ideology which is responsible for the deaths of millions of babies and the destruction of emotionally healthy children and contributed greatly to the disintegration of the family unit.
I am an imperfect Catholic (like everyone else), but think that Christian thought combined with Western Civilization, esp. as evolved through the Catholic Saints, have given us the most perfect blueprint for happiness, ever in the history of the earth.
I do believe in the freedom of association and the writings of St. Paul:
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[a]will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil.
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.
everything that does not come from faith is sin.
This is my all time favorite:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
So, a kid is a boyscout, attends church grows up, joins the Army and the C.I.C. says to him ‘’ it’s your night in the barrel, son. Straight outa the RAT party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.