Light, bright, gay (and violent) II
If democracy doesn’t fall your way, try anarchy. That seems to be the message developing among some gay marriage supporters around the country. Below, Harrison posts about an elderly woman assaulted in Palm Springs by demonstrators protesting the passage of Prop 8. There have been more incidents across the nation, including criminal attacks on people and property.
Vandals spray-painted Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, which served as an official collection point for the petitions to get Proposition 8 on the Golden State ballot.
On Nov. 8, a group calling itself Bash Back stormed a Sunday service at Mt. Hope, a 4,000-member mega-church near Lansing, Michigan. Demonstrators marched outside the church then invaded the sanctuary, shouting pro-gay slogans, throwing leaflets, and pulling a fire alarm. Here’s that story from the Detroit Free Press and from WorldNetDaily.
Strangely, Bash Back has released a photograph of its members brandishing bludgeons and wearing pink keffiyah that cover their faces. Two points on this. First, if you’re “out and proud,” why cover your face? (Oh, I know! Because you plan to trespass on private property and commit criminal acts.)
Second, you can cover your face with anything…why choose head garb favored by terrorists?
The Mormon church donated $20 million to help pass California’s Proposition 8, the most hotly contested traditional marriage initiative in the land. Yesterday, an estimated 10,000 people in New York City marched outside the Mormon Temple, shouting slogans such as “Church of Latter Day Hate” and calling for the church to lose its tax-exempt status.
“This is an outrage,” said Prison Fellowship director Chuck Colson in a Nov. 13 commentary on the gay response to Election Day. “What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs.”
I’m still waiting for a splashy repudiation of pro-gay-marriage thuggery. I checked some gay-friendly websites — The Human Rights Campaign, The Advocate, Equality California, and Lambda — hoping to see a bold and highly visible condemnation.
Couldn’t find one.
At the Lambda site, that’s especially ironic since one of its major homepage links, “AntiViolence,” provides a way for homosexuals to report incidents of anti-gay violence. Maybe Lambda should post a second link for reporting violence aimed in the other direction.
You know…in the name of equality.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top286 Comments to “Light, bright, gay (and violent) II”
Wow, that small minority sure does move around the country quickly.
Report comment to moderator
There’s a fundamental difference between what happened in Lansing and what happened in New York City (at least as the events are described here).
Calling for legal change and engaging in non-violent protest—even loud, pointed, and potentially offensive protest—are (or at least were) methods that are central to our democracy.
Trespassing and assault, on the other hand, are just stupid and immature ways of trying to get your point across.
This post comes dangerously close to conflating the two responses.
Report comment to moderator
No, Pecksniff, “loud, pointed, and potentially offensive protest” are NOT “central to our democracy.” Visible protest, sure, but not the rest of it.
Report comment to moderator
It seems that the conservative Christians are outraged that gay people are standing up for themselves. How dare we exercise our Constitutional rights to march and protest and speak out against injustice and inequality.
But then, considering that conservative Christians consider us to be the scum of the earth, I’m not surprised at the furious reaction.
Why doesn’t Lynn talk about the gay-bashing and the acts of violence that the “Yes on 8″ people (and others) have done toward gay people? Why doesn’t Lynn talk about the desecration of the Jewish Synagogue by the “Yes on 8″ people? What about the “Yes on 8″ people who picketed the private homes of gay people and shouted unspeakable things at them and carried signs that would make Rev. Phelps happy?
Report comment to moderator
“Outraged”? “Furious reaction”?
The only people those words describe are the angry homosexuals. I’ve seen nothing that even approaches that here. Lynn’s post seemed, if anything, rather bemused at their childishness and hypocrisy. Hardly furious.
Report comment to moderator
#4 is what is known as tu quoque. As such, it may safely be ignored.
The Grand Examples of Tolerance are showing themselves for what they really are: spoiled children.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not surprised by the acts of violence, considering that homosexuals think they are better than everyone else, have an intense hatred of religion, and would generally prefer that all Christians die.
Report comment to moderator
#6 Stubob,
Here’s a funny cartoon illustrating “tu quoque.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Punch-Tu_Quoque_1904.jpg
The only question is whether we can change the caption to make it apply to Anlir and his comments. (Anlir is the guy with the big hat here.)
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
But then, considering that conservative Christians consider us to be the scum of the earth
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from this campaign, it’s that homosexual activists are the ones who consider conservative Christians to be “the scum of the earth.” Yet, I have never encountered a single Christian either in real life, or on the internet, who would ever agree with the sentiment that homosexually inclined people are “the scum of the earth.” No doubt, there are some somewhere who would, but they must be few and far between because I don’t know anyone who’s ever met one. Certainly no one on this site has expressed this view, but Anlir ascribes it to us anyway. Apparently, some homosexual activists engage in some serious projecting of their own feelings onto their opponents.
Report comment to moderator
#7 I’m a homosexual, and I think anti-pro-prop-8 violence is really dumb.
Happy now?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
I’m a homosexual…
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the percentage of non-Christians posting on this website who are homosexual seems extraordinarily high? I wonder why that is.
Report comment to moderator
It’s the conservative Christians and the Mormons who spearheaded the campaign to declare gays as second-class citizens. It was a pure, unadulterated “hate” campaign. For them to now be shocked that the tables have been turned on them is the height of arrogance, hypocrisy, and stupidity. They thought gay people would go quietly. Well we aren’t.
Report comment to moderator
#11 It’s just you – living as you do in a world where all gays are in the closet, you are no doubt surprised by the number of people that actually are gay.
Report comment to moderator
Well then Anlir. I suppose if Homosexuals are justified in their violence then Pro-life advocates are also justified in their violence toward those who would abort babies?
Sauce for the Gander is good for the Goose too…
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
It was a pure, unadulterated “hate” campaign.
No matter how often you repeat this, it doesn’t make it so. The nature of marriage is a worldview issue; it’s disingenuous to imply that it’s based on personal animosity. If the failure of a society to sanction “gay marriage” is evidence of “hate,” then every society in history has hated homosexuals. This is ridiculous. Even some homosexuals supported Yes on Prop 8.
For them to now be shocked that the tables have been turned on them is the height of arrogance, hypocrisy, and stupidity.
I don’t know that anyone is really shocked at the juvenile violent reactions. There have been plenty of indications prior to this that this would be the reaction.
They thought gay people would go quietly. Well we aren’t.
No, no one thought this. We were all aware that this issue wasn’t going to go away because of a ballot proposition.
Report comment to moderator
The amount of pure, unadulterated hate that wells within homosexuals is noteworthy. Christians should be afraid, very afraid, about where that hate will drive them next.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
It’s just you – living as you do in a world where all gays are in the closet, you are no doubt surprised by the number of people that actually are gay.
Huh? Why would you presume that in all gays are in the closet in “my world?” What do you know about “my world?”
Anyway, I’ve heard some high estimates as to what percentage of the population is homosexual, but I’ve never heard anyone claim that it’s approximately 80 percent, which is what it would have to be if the numbers on this board are representative of the general population. It’s clearly not me, here, who has a distorted perception of reality.
Report comment to moderator
#16 Yes be terrified Christians – Boo! Isn’t sin and the devil SCARY?! Now where is all my pure, unadulterated hate? I must have misplaced it… darn
Well just because you’re paranoid Graceland doesn’t mean I’m not out to get you! (How was that?)
On a lighter note, Senator Stevens is now behind in the vote count:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/stevens_slips_i.html
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man,
As I said on the other anti-gay thread today, I’m opposed to violence. I prefer a more “Gandhi-like” response. But I’m all in favor of marching, protesting, picketing, chanting, non-violent resistance, civil disobedience, and all sorts of creative ways of getting the message across.
One must also remember that conservative Christians (among others) have sown the seeds of anti-gay hate in this country, which created the conditions that allowed violence and even death to be visited upon gay people. All I can say is your reap what you sow.
Report comment to moderator
#17 Well then I’ll have to give your theory more thought … hmmmm … 80% you say? And that was the non-Christians? Wow – gee I never noticed that! Yes there must be a reason then. Gays apparently just LOVE WMB! XOXOXO – but no one knows why …. I bet it’s the same reason that Tammy Faye Baker was so popular!!
Report comment to moderator
p.s. Do you use a lot of mascara, Ree? (Just askin’)
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
Sorry to confuse, but I’m just playing a game. I thought it would be fun to make silly statements like Anlir. Although I’ll admit, it needs some work. I’m just not as good of a strawman-maker.
Report comment to moderator
This is lame:
The amount of pure, unadulterated hate that wells within homosexuals is noteworthy. Christians should be afraid, very afraid, about where that hate will drive them next.
How lame is it?
The amount of pure, unadulterated hate that wells within evangelicals is noteworthy. Gays should be afraid, very afraid, about where that hate will drive them next.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe and Spinoza,
Aside from the fact that I don’t actually believe any of those statements I made earlier, why do such worn-out generalizations strike a nerve with you when they demonize homosexuals, but not when they demonize Christians?
Anlir gets a free pass from our left-wingers when he brings out his usual strawman arguments. Why are you jumping on my back?
Report comment to moderator
Whenever ANYone disrespects a minority, an opponent, a class of people enough to make them non-human it is the beginning of genocide. Or should I say religicide or orientaticide?
Those who commit acts of violence have overstepped the bounds of democracy and morality. “If you live by the sword you will die by the sword” whoever you are.
Report comment to moderator
David L and tj, yesterday you were on my case for generalizing about Christians and for taking a single remark about the same incident here as a general labeling of homosexuals.
You can hurl tu quoque’s at me until you are blue in the face, but how about encouraging your fellow Christians to communicate in a better fashion. You are very quick to get on my case. You are very slow to apply the same standards to your own group.
I’m not surprised by the acts of violence, considering that homosexuals think they are better than everyone else, have an intense hatred of religion, and would generally prefer that all Christians die.
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the percentage of non-Christians posting on this website who are homosexual seems extraordinarily high? I wonder why that is?
I am a person who regularly posts on this web site. At the age of 64, and about to celebrate my 43rd wedding anniversary, I am quite certain of my sexual orientation. So?
Here is the thing I find striking about the conversations on this web site. Conservative Christians here point out that homosexuals in America are for the most part not “persecuted”–that is, they are seldom stoned or hung or deported or shot, etc. Homosexuals are of course frequently told they are sinners (and worse, but I haven’t stored a detailed inventory of insults I have read on this blog site over four years of participation).
To the Christians, this is “no matter.”
As a secular person, and not a religious believer, I would point out that Christians in America are not really persecuted. They are generally not hung on crosses, or stoned, or shot.
Yet there is generally a general air of whining, and feeling sorry for themselves, and complaining about how badly Christians are treated in America, etc.
I would put the general level of self-pity and complaining between the Christians on worldmagblog and the homosexuals on worldmagblog at just about the same level.
The flavor of each is somewhat different. Each group can’t taste the experience the other group has, so they dismiss it as imaginary or not real.
It’s like an argument comparing two different varieties of very cheap liquor. Perhaps a terrible beer vs. a terrible wine.
One group can’t taste the awful beer, so they say, “What are you complaing about?”
The other group can’t taste the awful wine, so they say, “What are you complaining about?”
So far this type of exchange has perhaps reached 10,000 comments. Yet no one seems to have any idea why they continue to repeat themselves over and over.
Report comment to moderator
What conservative Christians and Mormons did in California was throw themselves headlong into a political campaign. They pushed for a ballot initiative that took away the civil and legal rights of their fellow citizens. Now they’re trying to hide behind the walls of their church and claim an exemption from being protested, picketed, and so forth.
Not. gonna. work.
This time they went too far. And now the backlash is coming.
Report comment to moderator
There is a fundamental disconnect as to the view of what marriage is. That leads to the different takes on it’s legal status. Honest and decent people can take either side of the debate.
Invasions of private property, particularly in an armed state, are wrong – and dangerous, both to the those lawfully on the property and those invading it – and such actions are wrong.
I condemn the Phelps crowd just as strongly as I codemn the pro-gay trespassers. Both sets are equally wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
This, like almost every statement you type here, is patently false to any objective observer:
“…a ballot initiative that took away the civil and legal rights of their fellow citizens.”
You are seriously unhinged. It’s like you’re living in a comic book, where you’re the hero fighting against some Gotham of evil cartoonish supervillains. You even talk like it.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza writes:
#7 I’m a homosexual, and I think anti-pro-prop-8 violence is really dumb. Happy now?
Happier, yes
Report comment to moderator
#24 Ah – you were being sarcastic? Well whatever point you were trying to make in so doing completely escapes me – perhaps that’s why I mistakenly thought you were sincere.
Anlir gets a free pass from our left-wingers when he brings out his usual strawman arguments. Why are you jumping on my back?
There are scores of posters beating up on Anlir constantly – I don’t think he needs more. Your inept use of sarcasm, however, could use some attention.
Report comment to moderator
#30 Yes, well jus’ call me the gay moral majority – we don’t have any reporters headlining us with “Many Gays Not Reacting Violently to Prop 8 Decision”
Wonder why that is …
Report comment to moderator
“What conservative Christians and Mormons did in California was throw themselves headlong into a political campaign. They pushed for a ballot initiative that took away the civil and legal rights of their fellow citizens.”
The California Supreme court trampled on the rights of California citizens to preserve the definiton of marriage that has always obtained.
No one has ever had the right to marry whomever they please. Marriage laws in the US have always constrained marriage to two people of complementary sexes, sufficient age, not already married, and not too closely related. Those laws apply uniformly to all people, regardless of their preferred sexual behavior. There is no inequality. California allows gay couples full rights through civil unions. The California court case that overturned a voter initiative was decided on the specious argument that by not allowing those unions to be called “marriages” somehow harm was being done, for the first time asserting a constitutional right to define a word.
Christians and Mormons are not the aggressors here. The second ballot initiative sought to place the power to decide back in the hands of citizens after a renegade court, unsatisfied with the outcome of the democratic process, forced their social agenda through inventing nonexistent rights. The people spoke again, and now some people, who still have all the rights thy want, save the right to use a word in a way it was never used before, are rioting in the streets. This thuggish behavior, typical of brown shirted Germans and black shirted italians of a previous generation cannot be toelrated in a country that wants to preserve its liberty.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
I agree the sarcasm could use some work, though I thought the point was quite clear. Sometimes I just feel like responding to all of Anlir’s inane statements about Christians with an equally inane statement about homosexuals.
To be honest, I’d prefer this forum were free of inane comments, but that doesn’t seem to be possible. Best I can do is keep the inanity balanced
Report comment to moderator
#34 “Best I can do is keep the inanity balanced
”
I’d say yer workin’ on the wrong side then!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I’m very glad that you support peaceful protest. However, it would further if you would denounce violent protest instead of defending it. Or seeming to. To wit:
One must also remember that conservative Christians (among others) have sown the seeds of anti-gay hate in this country, which created the conditions that allowed violence and even death to be visited upon gay people. All I can say is your reap what you sow.
If we reap what we sow, should I not also warn pro-choice people that they will reap what they sow since they’ve not only sown the seeds of anti-child hate, but actively murdered babies? The death count for that is…. well, lets just say there’s no real comparison to the numbers of dead babies and dead gay people. I don’t think there’s any less value to the individuals lives, mind you. I decry any taking of anyone’s life unless prescribed by law. All of us are worth of redemption in God’s eyes.
But if you prescribe violence and anarchy to support your position, then you can also fall by it…
Report comment to moderator
Mormon activism against gay marriage will only haunt Mitt Romney for years to come.
As for me, watching that bully hector and harass that sweet old granny, one thing came to mind. In the mid 80s men like the pro-sodomy marriage activists were the harmless guys you had no problem letting your girlfriend go shopping with.
Maybe you didnt appreciate their lifestyle preference, but you would never fear they’d be all up in arms out in the street.
Report comment to moderator
Contrary to Ken’s assertion, the bottom line is that gay people had the right to marry in California, and it was taken away from them. Marriage is a fundamental right, as affirmed by the California and US Supreme Court. It was the conservative Christians and Mormons (mainly) who went after the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens.
How would y’all like it if we had a ballot initiative that takes away the right of marriage from conservative Christians and Mormons? How would you like it if we put your rights up for a vote?
The ballot initiative was an abuse of the process in California. It was never intended to be used to take away people’s rights. It could have been used against blacks and Asians, and would have passed overwhelmingly at one time. It would have been wrong to have done it then and it’s wrong to do it now.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
While I agree with your stance regarding same-sex marriage, I think you are comparing two different things in your argument.
Marriage is currently defined as a union between a man and woman. Sex has nothing to do with it. While most marriages center around romantic love, that is not part of the definition as far as the state is concerned. That is why a single man and a single woman who are good friends (and nothing more) have the right to get married and receive the accompanying benefits.
To compare same sex marriage to race-related marriages is unfair. To deny blacks the “right” to marry would be to deny them what already exists as the definition of marriage…the union between a man and a woman.
To deny two men from marrying (whether they are homosexual or heterosexual) is to stay in keeping with the definition of marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #37
In the mid 80s men like the pro-sodomy marriage activists were the harmless guys you had no problem letting your girlfriend go shopping with.
First of all, that’s such an idiotic stereotype. I don’t take girlfriends shopping. I run the football contest on Worldmag.
Folks were perfectly happy when gays kept their mouths shut and accepted their second-class status. But when gay people started asking for equality and their legal rights as American citizens, suddenly they’re a “raging mob”.
Well, you ain’t seen nothing yet. We are never giving up the fight for our freedom.
Report comment to moderator
As a follow up to 39,
This is why it would be SO much easier if marriage was released from the government of the State. Make it a union governed by the church.
And then let any two people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, family status file for a civil union and grant them all the same benefits.
Report comment to moderator
This time they went too far. And now the backlash is coming.
There you go again, explaining away violence. Every time people get to vote on gay marriage they vote it down. Talk tough all you like.
The hypocrisy of these thugs is disgusting. And, as a side note, I’ll point out that Blacks in California voted 70% in favor of Prop 8. Hispanics voted for it in similar numbers. Are they “haters?” Well, no, because only whites can be haters. Particularly Christians and, for this issue only, Mormons.
What about Muslims? Now, there’s a group of people who really are filled with hate. How do you suppose they voted on Prop 8? Go demonstrate to them, you thugs, instead of abusing the very tolerance you accuse Christians of lacking. Perhaps some Christian doctor will take care of you when the Muslims have finished.
Report comment to moderator
Aside from the fact that I don’t actually believe any of those statements I made earlier, why do such worn-out generalizations strike a nerve with you when they demonize homosexuals, but not when they demonize Christians?
They bother me when they demonize both.
Report comment to moderator
“How would y’all like it if we had a ballot initiative that takes away the right of marriage from conservative Christians and Mormons? How would you like it if we put your rights up for a vote?”
Go for it through the same legislative voter process. Just dont riot in the streets when it doesnt pass.
Report comment to moderator
I’d like to quote Anlir from The “GOP Airs Jeremiah Wright Ad” thread:
BY Anlir 11.04.08 AT 12:11 AM
The scariest thing for many of us is that if Obama wins, the conservative Christians, who have become quite radicalized, will resort to violence. We’ll have our own Christian Taliban in America.
So, Anlir – How ’bout that gay activist taliban here in America?
Report comment to moderator
Re: #41
That would be a common-sense solution to the matter, wouldn’t it?
*****
Re: #42
Yes, but the vote is getting closer each time. Basically, only 3% more need to be persuaded. That’s doable in a few years.
History is not on the side of those who would deny others equality and freedom.
Remember, it was the Christian doctors in California who went to court to try and deny medical care to gay people. The doctor’s lost, by the way.
Report comment to moderator
“Well, you ain’t seen nothing yet. We are never giving up the fight for our freedom.”
ROFL
I just spent 5 minutes trying to find a text ROFLCOPTER cause this was so deserving. All i could find was a .gif though :\
Report comment to moderator
Yes, but the vote is getting closer each time. Basically, only 3% more need to be persuaded. That’s doable in a few years.
Anlir is exactly right about this.
All of those who think that same-sex marriage will ruin society need to be planning how they will cope when society is ruined.
Same sex marriage will be allowed in every state, likely in the next 10-15 years. The conservative base needs to learn that there are worse things than same-sex marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
It’s frustrating responding to you because unless I respond within an hour or so after you’ve posted, you tend to stop visiting the thread, and my responses, apparently, go unread. Nevertheless, here I go again.
Homosexuals are of course frequently told they are sinners
The insignificant little detail you left out here is that Christians who say this make no distinction between the sin of homosexual sex and our own sins, whatever they may be. It’s not as if our message is, “Too bad you guys are disgusting sinners instead of righteous Christians, like we are,” as you seem to imply.
Homosexuals (who are identified by their behavior, not their “orientation”) are sinners, just like the rest of us. What makes their particular sin exceptional is the push to force society to accept their sin as morally and socially acceptable.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko,
That was in response to those who were urging people to buy guns and ammunition and using apocalyptic language about the possibility of Obama being elected.
I should note that I have, several times now, said that I’m opposed to violence and want gays to use “Gandhi-like” tactics to gain their freedom and rights.
There is also one other huge difference: conservative Christians and Mormons (among others) are trying to take away rights from other citizens. Gay people are fighting for their freedom and equal rights under the law.
Report comment to moderator
This is a really dumb topic post and the comment discussion is even dumber. Everyone (including me) who comments here should be ashamed of themselves.
Lynn, do you have a monthly quota of homosexual topics you have to meet?
Report comment to moderator
Graceland,
All of those who think that same-sex marriage will ruin society need to be planning how they will cope when society is ruined.
Our society was pretty far down the road to ruin before the homosexual agenda gained steam, and I don’t think anyone will be surprised if it continues down that road and “gay marriage” becomes the law of the land. It’s not necessarily inevitable, though. God may intervene and grant us repentance sooner rather than later.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
There is also one other huge difference: conservative Christians and Mormons (among others) are trying to take away rights from other citizens.
When has our society, or any other, ever recognized a “right” to marry whomever one chooses, without limit? And if such a “right” exists, from where does it originate, and why has it never been recognized?
Report comment to moderator
Random Name,
Everyone (including me) who comments here should be ashamed of themselves,
I often feel ashamed of myself for many things, but commenting in this thread isn’t one of them.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
I sure hope gay marriage is never the law of the land! I’d hate to trade my perfectly good wife for a dude!
Report comment to moderator
#41 This is why it would be SO much easier if marriage was released from the government of the State. Make it a union governed by the church.
State intrusion into the institution of marriage is a recent development, but dull Christians are stupefied into thinking that God requires them to get permission from the state to get married.
A “license” as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, is “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.” Why should it be illegal to marry without the state’s permission? Why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted in Genesis 2:18-24?
When you marry with a marriage license, you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your spouse; and 3. the State. Therefore, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. Look at China. That State dictates how many children parents may have. It won’t be long before States in America will do the same thing, and they’ll have the contract, that couples signed into, to enforce it!
Report comment to moderator
Random Name writes:
Do you have a monthly quota of homosexual topics you have to meet?”
Yes. And I keep trying to meet them but I can’t seem to find out where they hang out.
Report comment to moderator
Like millions, I have no dog in the Gay vs. Christian fight. Like millions, I’m a cat person.
I wince at the constant strident rhetoric that diminishes both sides.
I’m fatigued of hearing the same arguments over again.
I wish I could vote: neither, go away, or grow up.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza writes:
we don’t have any reporters headlining us with “Many Gays Not Reacting Violently to Prop 8 Decision” Wonder why that is …
Same reason we don’t have any reporters running such headlines as “Most pro-lifers not shooting abortionists.” Stories are always in the extremes.
Report comment to moderator
Not sure why there was a need for two WMB topics on the same subject (can you guys not edit to combine?). Responses are typical.
Violent protest in a democratic society is wrong, no matter who is doing it. Moreover it is counterproductive. Peaceful protest, including those aimed at the Mormon Church which used its money to directly inject itself into a political campaign however, are legitimate. Lynn there are some prominent gays who are saying just that. Start with Andrew Sullivan.
For me I am disappointed that some of my group have turned to violence and in so doing met every stereotype that many of the folks here have of us.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t fool yourselves. The gay left is very violent besides being insane and genetically mutated. Their weak wristed act is just a trick to lure you into a state of trust and then – wham bam thank you Sam, the next thing you know you are facing the back side of a queer eye for the straight guy sofa so fast it will make your head swim. The violet act could takes years of therapy to set right or you might find yourself reduced to being a gay man for the rest of your life. Drill and I bought guns for times like these
Report comment to moderator
Don’t fool yourselves.
The gay left is very violent besides being insane and genetically mutated.
Their weak wristed act is just a trick to lure you into a state of trust and then – wham bam thank you Sam, the next thing you know you are facing the back side of a queer eye for the straight guy sofa so fast it will make your head swim.
Post 61 was so good, I thought everyone should read it twice. Those who appreciate such posts will get double the enjoyment.
Those who are a bit appalled will get twice the rue.
I did this once a long time ago, and got a few encouraging results. So I will do this again.
If you are a Christian reader of worldmagblog and are distressed by the kind of comments posted in a thread such as this, please write me by email. You don’t need to approve of homosexuality. I’m certainly not expecting you to approve of gay marriage. I think there are a few people who are distressed by the kind of comments posted here and haven’t even read this far, but perhaps there will once again be at least one or two people who will say this is not what I endorse as Christian communication.
I will not reveal names of anyone who emails me. If I quote, it will be very carefully. It is not my goal to embarass anyone. But I would like to think there are people who want to take a higher road than this discussion takes. I appreciate that Lynn read my post and responded with a light-hearted joke, but I think she can do better than this.
Report comment to moderator
Random
Gay threads on WMB invariably bring out the crazy. Easy to see why there are not one, not two, but three today. Must do something to buck up the base, after all.
Report comment to moderator
I appreciate that Lynn read my post and responded with a light-hearted joke, but I think she can do better than this.
I reported her comment as “defensive”.
Report comment to moderator
Re ooops. I think you are responding to someone else because I don’t remember making those comments. However I can still respond to this part of your answer to someone else.
Homosexuals (who are identified by their behavior, not their “orientation”) are sinners, just like the rest of us. What makes their particular sin exceptional is the push to force society to accept their sin as morally and socially acceptable.
I would note just because you have moral objections to homosexual behavior doesn’t mean that you get to define this phenomenon by that component of it that you find sinful.
Homosexuality is defined by its orientation, not behavior. A homosexual who is or tries to remain chaste or even live a heterosexual lifestyle, is still a homosexual.
Report comment to moderator
What we’ve got are two diametrically opposing viewpoints of how America should operate:
Conservative Christians who are claiming that in order to freely practice their religion they need to take away the civil and legal rights of their fellow citizens.
Gay people (and others) who are claiming that the Constitutional protections, rights and freedoms should apply to all citizens equally.
As George Bush said several times, you can’t hold back the desire for freedom.
Report comment to moderator
“First of all, that’s such an idiotic stereotype. I don’t take girlfriends shopping. I run the football contest on Worldmag.”
I agree with Anlir. It is an idiotic stereotype. I am certainly not gay, and I really have little desire to participate in the football contest. But I went shopping with my wife in Atlanta just last weekend. What’s football and shopping got to do with it?
Report comment to moderator
The Log Cabin Republicans have a neat perspective on this issue. Now there’s a story for yall!
Report comment to moderator
If they get the right to marry will they then be lined up to adopt kids?
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner;
I am married according to the State of California, and my husband and I have 2 beautiful adopted daughters. Will the next proposition be to take them away from us?
Report comment to moderator
#66 Anlir,
We also have two opposing views of the role of the courts and the vote of the puplic. The Same-Sex marriage proponents have immediately gone back to the court to try and overturn what a majority of folks in CA have voted for . . . the second time if I’m not mistaken.
In every case, Calif., Mass., Conn., the advancement of the Same-Sex cause has been moved along by a number of people less than the fingers on one hand. It is no longer “We the People” but “We the few judges.”
Make the case to the State legislatures and get the laws rewritten.
2nd point. I’m currently working temporarily alongside a gay gentleman from San Diego who says he didn’t need “Gay Marriage” in CA. He has all the rights he needs, visitation, and so forth. What civil and legal rights are being “taken away?”
Report comment to moderator
“If they get the right to marry will they then be lined up to adopt kids?”
In most instances the cart is already before the horse. Gay singles, gay couples, unmarried heterosexual couples and heterosexual singles are already permitted to adopt children.
Report comment to moderator
David L and tj, yesterday you were on my case for generalizing about Christians and for taking a single remark about the same incident here as a general labeling of homosexuals.
You can hurl tu quoque’s at me until you are blue in the face, but how about encouraging your fellow Christians to communicate in a better fashion. You are very quick to get on my case. You are very slow to apply the same standards to your own group.
Random, this thread was not posted until 2:22 pm. I have been on the road today, driving for 6+ hours. It would be very difficult for me to post on such a thread under such circumstances. As a general rule, I usually do not post on homosexuality threads as the discussion usually degenerates faster than any other and is not generally profitable — and that goes for both sides, if it makes you feel any better. The only reason I even bothered to read the comments on this thread was to see if anyone repudiated the violence of the groups Lynn mentioned in the post. Instead, one of the first posts was apparently about how such groups are “standing up for themselves” and “exercising their Constitutional rights.” Utter rubbish. At least Spinoza had the dignity to condemn the nonsense of these groups.
Yesterday’s post by you was a shot across the bow early in a Whirled Views thread. I generally read Whirled views because it is a lighter, friendlier thread. Sometimes you even make friends on such threads. Cameron and I took Chas and his wife out for dinner last Tuesday, and they had us over for peach pie for dessert afterward. This is despite the fact that Chas and I do not agree on everything. Imagine that! And yet he does not find it necessary to engage in mocking over-generalizations in order to garner attention from others. Nor does he whine when others disagree with him.
But, if it makes you feel any better: Christians should watch the tone of their speech to others, should refrain from generalities and simplistic labeling, and should endeavor to use their God-given intelligence and not sink to the level of committing logical fallacies like the tu quoque argument, the genetic fallacy, and the strawman fallacy that Random displayed yesterday.
Of course, you understand that this is simply a red herring with regard to your comments from yesterday. But that is another matter.
Report comment to moderator
Who was that fleeing naked young man and what did Jesus actually say about homosexuality?
Report comment to moderator
#63 – Precisely – which is why the trampling of a styrofoam cross is reported here as assault and violence against old ladies by militant homosexuals coming to a neighborhood near you.
Oh, the outrage!
Report comment to moderator
#74 Arcadia
I believe it is generally accepted among Bible scholars that the young man in Mark 14:51-52 was John Mark, also accepted to be the writer of the book of Mark and the same John Mark found in Acts and some of Paul’s Epistles.
51. And a young man followed him, (Jesus and the mob) with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. Andy they seized him, (52) but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.
In terms of what Jesus said, nothing specifically but rather by implication, the following
Matthew 19:4-6 “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? (Jesus is quoting from Gen. 2:24 there) So they are no longer two but one flesh. (The application follows then . . .) What therefore God has joined together (not just the two people, but the whole institution of marriage) let not man separate.
The Gospel of Mark repeats the same thing in Mark 10:6-9
Report comment to moderator
Folks were perfectly happy when gays kept their mouths shut
And we’d be perfectly happy if they continued to do so.
Report comment to moderator
#63 TJ
Thank you for your post. I understand about the long travel and other activities going on, and I am taking your post as one that reaches out in a positive way.
This is a complicated collection of people, talking to each other at various purposes and cross-purposes. I’m not sure talking to each other online is a good way for people to to try and communicate with each other, a process that is difficult even when people share the same basic values and perceptions, and enormously so when they have different views of reality. I’m blithering, but not negatively, so I will stop before I am too far behind.
Report comment to moderator
styrofoam crosses?
“Gay threads on WMB invariably bring out the crazy. Easy to see why there are not one, not two, but three today. Must do something to buck up the base, after all. “
Indeed. What a predictable and easily manipulated bunch.
Report comment to moderator
The same (#77) goes for Lumpy.
Report comment to moderator
#63 – Precisely – which is why the trampling of a styrofoam cross is reported here as assault and violence against old ladies by militant homosexuals coming to a neighborhood near you. Oh, the outrage!
Spinoza,
Did you watch the full video linked to Harrison’s post? Replace the cross-carrying elderly lady with a elderly lesbian carrying a No on 8 sign and see whether you wouldn’t consider it an “assault.” The woman was shielding her head as she fled, for goodness sake.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t recall seeing this kind of outrage from the evangelical base when two Christian dudes murdered a college student in Wyoming.
In fact, evangelicals opposed the Matthew Shepard Act that would have provided federal jurisdiction for crimes in which gay people were targeted for being gay.
Report comment to moderator
For supporters of traditional marriage (or evangelicals), it’s “damned if we do, damned if we don’t.” If we lose in a democratic election, “the people have spoken.” If we win an election (see Prop 8), riots and other violence ensue. How very predictable.
And yes, the homosexuals (and their supporters, i.e. Lumpy) have indeed infiltrated this evangelical Christian blog of late. I’m glad someone else has noticed.
Report comment to moderator
The sooner that Christians stop asking the State for permission to marry, the sooner this becomes a non-issue for them.
…we need to ask ourselves, “If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license – who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. (Pastor Matt Trewhella)
Report comment to moderator
Evan I’m not sure if it’s fair to call the murderers of M. Shepard “Christian,” except that they were “Christian” in the broad nominal sense that many/most folks are Christian. In this sense, M. Shepard himself may have been a “Christian.” The two were not church going, “born again” orthodox, or devout. I haven’t looked into that the religion of the two perpetrators in detail. They seemed to be quintessential “hoodlums”; one of them had bisexual experiences, though he self defines as straight and his orientation seems to be predominately heterosexual.
As I’ve noted before, beyond the 3-4% or so of the population that self defines itself as “gay” or “gay or bisexual” a surprisingly high number of “straight” people have had homosexual experiences even if their orientation is predominately heterosexual and they self define as such. If you add all of the Aaron McKinneys (the one who murdered Shepard and who had homosexual experiences) into the “gay or bi box,” that box indeed is at least 10%, most of whom are predominately heterosexual, live their lives as such and define and understand themselves as “straight” and “normal.”
Report comment to moderator
#78: RN, thank you for the reasonableness of your response this evening. I would tend to agree: internet discourse has a tendency of spinning out of control. Comment on an emotional issue such as this, and the results tend to be even more explosive. I have always expressed dismay that this medium allows for irresponsible anonymity (and this goes for all sides) — folks will say things to one another on a blog that they would almost never say to one another in real life.
Except maybe if they are in a crowd yelling and screaming in support/protest of Prop 8.
Chas’ wife cooks me and the missus a peach pie. Ivan the Terrible and I have shared lunch. We’ve taken in another reader of this blog (a college student) as a boarder. I’ve offered to buy Jon Rowe a beer if he ever makes it to Louisville, and the same offer is extended to you. But for the sake of human decency, let’s both agree to leave the hasty generalizations and strawmen behind. It’s rather unbecoming, regardless of where the varmints come from. They are better fodder for your rabbit rifle!
Report comment to moderator
Evan, most of us already believe that if you beat someone to death and hang them on a fence you should get death. You are the one who wants to let them off easy if the victim is straight.
Report comment to moderator
A homosexual who is or tries to remain chaste or even live a heterosexual lifestyle, is still a homosexual.
No, Jon, this is absolutely untrue. One might as well call a person who is occasionally tempted to steal (but has never done so) a thief, or a person who has never lied (but has been tempted to do so) a liar.
The difference, of course, is that I see homosexual activity as a sin and you do not. But unless you see homosexuality as an actively good thing, you will not condemn anyone who has ever struggled with homosexual desire with the label “homosexual.” It’s not just inaccurate, it is condemning and unkind, even if you don’t mean it to be. I personally don’t even like the term “heterosexual” because it suggests two equal alternatives. But basically there are humans who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or have little to no sexual desire; and there are people who are “miswired” to be attracted to those of their own gender.
Just as we call people who are tempted to murder–and actually do so–murderers, so we call people who are tempted to commit homosexuality–and actually do so homosexuals. (And I know, Anlir and others will jump down my throat for “equating” murder and homosexuality. My intent was to choose a sin that most people have not committed, and thus lying or some other such sin doesn’t work as a comparison.)
On what possible basis does a person who is tempted to commit a sin…or even to do an action that is NOT a sin…but has never done so, labeled by that action? (A person who wants to photograph and has never shot a picture isn’t a photographer, so leave out sin and this still doesn’t make sense.) Jon, you’re smarter than this.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Doesn’t Jesus say something along the lines that if you think about certain sins, it is the equivalent of committing them?
You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Matthew 5:27-30
That’s the biblical justification I might offer for the assertion. However, I would again note, you don’t get to define this phenomenon by that aspect of it that you find morally objectionable.
A homosexual will tell you that they are 100% homosexual 100% of the time, that it is an orientation, not a behavior and that they could live their entire lives as celibate human beings and still be “homosexual.”
It’s okay to argue over definitions. One thing I’ve discovered researching the Founding & religion/the Christian Nation question is that the conclusions often depend on how one defines a concept, and “Christianity” itself is something that folks can’t necessarily agree on how to properly define. Are Mormons “Christian”? Are Jehovah’s Witnesses “Christian”? Is Christianity Triune by nature? Or can Arians and Socinians also merit the label “Christian”? These kinds of thorny issues led Madison and company to argue, however we define Christianity, government, for sure is the one party that has *no business doing the defining* thus religion is wholly exempt from government’s cognizance.
You are right that I see homosexuality as a positive good. Since I don’t see homosexuality as sinful I see no good reason adopt the strict stance that you do equating it with theft or murder, that you have to “commit” a homosexual act to become a homosexual. Rather, I would assert this is as absurd as stating you have to “commit” a heterosexual act to become a heterosexual. That a Christian couple who loses their virginity on their wedding night are neither heterosexual nor homosexual but choose to become heterosexual that night.
Report comment to moderator
Though I do think you make an apt point Cheryl that if you want to establish homosexuality as a sin that one does you are going to have to eliminate such things as “straight” and “heterosexual” from our language. Consider a Christian fellow who indeed does have what I would call the “homosexual orientation,” and because he can’t help it, has somewhat feminine mannerisms. He lives his entire life in chastity. He does not have sex with women and he never will. Is it fair or honest to call this person “heterosexual” or “straight”? If he needs a term with dignity, he should just identify as “chaste” as an orientation/identity.
If someone were in such a position and didn’t feel comfortable identifying as a heterosexual/straight, I’d have no problem with the “chaste” identity to give this person some “dignity” wiggle room as it were.
Report comment to moderator
In watching 69 year old Phyllis Burgess be assaulted in Palm Springs on Youtube one eye opening thought came to mind. As I watched the angry men yank her cross away and stomp on it and wave signs and hands in her face yelling violently, I pictured a similar scene occuring in front of Lots home when the angels came to visit him.
The mob in front of Lots home were protesting at the door for Lot to send the angels out to them to do all sorts of evil things to them. Their hearts were as far from God as they could get. It seems the same was true in front of Palm Springs City Hall too.
I guess we really are heading into the end times it would appear.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 89
IMPOSSIBLE!
Regarding Charles Russell (Jehovah’s Witness founder) he hadn’t even been born when Madison died in 1836
Now for Joseph Smith (founder of Mormons) His church wasn’t publicly until 1838 that was two years after James Madison died.
Jon, your connection in any sort of ‘clever’ way be made regarding Madison, the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
James Madison: March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836 - President 4th President USA
Charles T. Russell Born: 16 February 1852 Died: 31 October 1916 Jehovah’s Witness founder
Joseph Smith, Jr.: December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844 Founder Latter Day Day (Mormons) Church publicly revealed in 1838
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
What an uncharitable reading of my argument. Yes, the Mormons & the JWs didn’t exist when Madison was around. But Arians (who believed Jesus a divine but created being, subordinate to God the Father), and Socinians, (who believed Jesus 100% man but on a divine mission) not only DID exist, but Madison most likely was one of them (an Arian I believe). The question back then was are Socinians, Arians, “Christians” or are only orthodox Trinitarians “Christians”?
In today’s version of this theological dispute the question is: Are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses “Christian”? It all depends on how one defines “Christian”? If it’s orthodox Trinitarianism that defines Christianity then not only are Arians, Socinians (hence America’s key Founders) not “Christians” but Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses fail the “Christian” test along these same lines.
Report comment to moderator
Lets suppose the initiative was defeated and a group supporting the gay marriage ban decided to put on a show for the press protesting the results of the vote in front of city hall. Then lets suppose an elderly gay couple decided to walk between the protestors and the camera’s holding hands and holding up a copy of their newly acquired marriage certificate.
Lets suppose the gay couple was then accosted by the protestors, their certificate torn from their hands, and then ripped to shreds and stomped on by the protestors right in front of their faces allthewhile being verbally accosted with hate filled tones.
This would have been considered a hate crime, it would have dominated the headlines and watercooler discussion for days and somewhere either in California or Washington DC some type of reactive legislation would have been discussed in an emergency session.
Or what if it was an elderly muslim man who carried a copy of the Koran to counterprotest the gay protestors. Would they have ripped the Koran from his hands as well and stomped on it? I doubt it.
It would appear that tolerance only need be pursued by conservative minded christians who dare to speak up publicly on the days issues. Apparently for everyone else, tolerance is N/A (not applicable).
Report comment to moderator
I would note Victoria that what the Mormons believe is closer to what the key FFs believed than your orthodox Christianity is. The Mormons purposely incorporated some of the heterodox teachings of America’s key Founders because they looked to the American Founding for inspiration. Mormons are not orthodox Trinitarians, America’s key Founders were not orthodox Trinitarians. Mormons added another holy book. America’s key Founders thought the Old and New Testaments, only partially inspired. Jefferson believed God a flesh and bone being; Mormons believe the same. The idea of American Indians being the lost tribes of Israel also dates back to the American Founding. The idea of “Christian restorationism” is also something Mormons and the key FFs have in common (they believed a proper “restoration” means getting rid of orthodox Trinitarian doctrines).
Report comment to moderator
Jon: This thread is about gays assaulting old women, not whether or not a particular sect is “Christian” or not. Whether or not Mormons are born-again matters not in this debate, because these folks are allunited in our effort to preserve traditional marriage between one man and one woman (the way it’s always been, for long before James Madison or Joseph Smith were born — both of whom were born of heterosexual couples, I might add).
Report comment to moderator
My liberal friends,
You guys crack me up with the dark comments about WHY I post a particular thread. Must feed the base. Must stir the pot. Must divert attention from the REAL evil (the VRWC and conservative Christians.)
Actually, I posted the thread because it’s in the news. Type in the word “backlash” (all by itself) on Google News and you’ll 2,225 hits. It’s news, people, news.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #71
The courts are there to protect the minority from unjust rule by the majority. It has been the courts that have struck blows for equality through rulings like Brown v Board of Ed. and Loving v
Virginia.
*****
Re: #83
And again I must point out that no one has “infiltrated” this site. As Lynn Vincent and her fellow editors have repeatedly affirmed, all are welcome on this blog. This site is not for the exclusive use of conservative Christians. I realize that some conservative Christians cannot handle being in the company of gays and other non-conservative Christians, and will therefore be angry or uncomfortable on Worldmag. The only thing I can say is “get over it”.
*****
Re: #88
and there are people who are “miswired” to be attracted to those of their own gender.
Sadly, conservative Christians still view gays as “defective”. So it’s no surprise they don’t want us to have civil and legal rights. Thankfully, we live under a Constitution and not the Bible. Freedom and equality will win out over the tyranny of the religious right.
Report comment to moderator
And again I must point out that I agree that all are welcome, and that this site is not exclusively for conservative Christians (how boring that would be). I have many, many gay and atheist friends in my personal life, so I have no need to “get over” anything in my life. Now it’s YOUR TURN, Anlir-dear.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, we’re ALL defective, as a result of Adam and Eve doing “their own thing” (as the homosexual community in the world wants to do). Homos and bis can certainly have civil and legal rights, but that doesn’t include the right to marry.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 93
YOU WRITE:
“What an uncharitable reading of my argument. Yes, the Mormons & the JWs didn’t exist when Madison was around.”
No Jon, it wasn’t uncharitable, it was setting the record straight – there was no reason for you to bring up this faulty information, but since you did, I called you on it. I told you the last time you pulled this regarding Adams and Jefferson that if I saw you do it again, I would bring it to YOUR ATTENTION, and thats just what I’ve done.
Don’t expect me to be charitable with YOUR faulty reasoning due to dates, and slipping JW’s and Mormons into the mix when they didn’t even exist during the time of Madison. If you want a ‘boo hoo’ party look for it elsewhere, this isn’t the first time you have played the victim, due to your inaccurate dates or remarks made to substantiate your beliefs.
I rarely read your posts, which I have little time to respond to —— If I have the time, I will do it again soon, as you’ve been doing this thinking no one knows either the dates and the history of what you are trying to suggest, OR they aren’t able to check your supposed facts.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 95
Please don’t bother ‘trying’ to enlighten me regarding the Mormons or the JW’s, I’ve spent years studying their cults – If there is one thing you are bluffing, it is in regards to those two cults, and the beliefs of true Believers. You make enough mistakes regarding the Founding Fathers without putting your foot through history with a thud, regarding, history of religion and the cults.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – 4
Anlir writes:
“It seems that the conservative Christians are outraged that gay people are standing up for themselves. How dare we exercise our Constitutional rights to march and protest and speak out against injustice and inequality.”
HOLD on there Anllir – there is no one either homosexual, or straight that has any right to stomp into a church shouting and pulling fire alarms – there is no law which allows anyone, homosexuals or otherwise to “spray -paint” a Church -
If you are unable to understand your Constitutional rights, I would advise you to get a copy, read them carefully, and then give TIME to understanding what yours or anyone else’s rights will be when you are apprehended for such a crime. If you honestly believe it’s a Constitutional right to do such things, you are unlearned.
Report comment to moderator
Allow me to interject my 2 cents on this issue. What Anlir and people like him don’t understand about this issue is that this is also an issue of freedom to Christians. It is not about “denying” gays their “Constiutional rights” (marriage, by the way, is one issue the Constitution is silent about,) but about protecting ours. See, this is the way things typically work with the gay agenda: 1. Normalize homosexuality (i.e., suppress any evidence that it is a disorder, claim that it is “normal” and “healthy”) 2. Push for legal recognition of same sex relationships through mandatory “domestic partner” benefits laws. 3. Push for legal “civil unions”. 4. Claim that “civil unions” are not enough and push for “gay marriage.” 5. Claim that since gay “marriage” is now legal, that the schools must combat “homophobia” and teach homosexuality as a way of life and decry “bigots.” Say that parents have no legal right to determine what their children are taught and take children from parents for “abuse” that will not relent or that continue teaching their children traditional morals. 6. Pass “hate crimes” legislation to combat crimes against gays. 7. Claim that “hate speech” is a crime and prosecute anyone who speaks against or even demonstrates that they do not unreservedly accept homosexuality. 8. Lock up people for said “hate speech.” This is not a hypothetical. This is already happening in other countries, like Sweden, Canada, and Britain. The simple fact is, the tactics of homosexual activists, looking at history, are eerily similar to the activism of Communist students during Mao’s “Cultural Revolution.” Thousands died during those years. I would also remind Anlir that once upon a time, homosexuals claimed that being accepted as normal would be enough for them. Then they claimed civil unions would be enough. Now they’re demanding marriage. Point is, they will not be satisfied by anything less than the eradication of anyone who will not toe their line, be it through indoctrination, imprisonment or execution. Christians are waking up to the fact that the homosexual crusade puts their rights in jeopardy. And we will fight for our rights, Anlir. The day may come when Christians are told because of our “intolerance” that we are now criminals. And I for one will have no problem taking up arms when that happens. Your “backlash” is happening because there was a backlash against gay marriage, not because people hate homosexuality. What people hate is how homosexual activism labels anyone who will not agree with everything they say about homosexuality a bigot. Even people who treat homosexuals as human beings and respect them as equals are targeted if they won’t toe the ideological line. And that is the true bigotry here. I am tired of it, and I am far from the only American that is.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – 50
YOU WRITE, POST 50 – in response to Klasko’s POST
“Klasko, That was in response to those who were urging people to buy guns and ammunition and using apocalyptic language about the possibility of Obama being elected.
Anir – sorry pal, there isn’t ONE SINGLE WORD in that post “guns and ammunition” — I checked it out several times, this shows that you make it up as you go along. The link is below, your post 56, check out “guns and ammunition” those words don’t exist on that thread.
Pa. GOP airs Wright ad
Report comment to moderator
Barracuda
You by no means are NOT the only one who belives what you posted. There are millions who agree with you!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – I went back over and reread the thread from which I quoted you. NOWHERE in the context of the thread was there any mention whatsoever about “those who were urging people to buy guns and ammunition”
This is not the first time that you have expressed paranoia as a gay person about what we “radical” Christians might do if we don’t get our way. Your greatest fear is that it will all be directed toward homosexuals.
I want to suggest to you that it’s not the true Christians in this country that we need to be worried about resorting to violence. Look who’s resorting to violent temper tantrums in this case.
The calm response to Obama’s election on the part of Christians has belied your paranoid comments, but the gay activist response was more in line with what you were fearing from us.
Anlir – I’m not going to paint you with the broad brush that you use on Christians and lump you into the same category as the gay activists we’ve been talking about here, but I would ask you for the same courtesy here on the blog. But as vociferously as you would like to hear Christians condemn inappropriate acts done in the name of Christ, I’d like to see your vigorous condemnation of the acts that homosexuals commit that paint every one of you in a bad light.
Anlir, from my time of interaction with you here on the blog, I think that you and I could sit down and have a cup of coffee or a beer together and we could be cordial and even friendly with each other, and I know that we could disagree and still be friends. But it hurts when you lump us all into the same category and make inflamatory remarks about us as a whole. You never acknowledge that there are radical fringes among the Christians, just as there are evidently radical fringes among homosexuals. I don’t consider you to be one of them, but I have to wonder if you don’t deep down approve of what they do to further the agenda even though you don’t participate.
Most Christians I know do not approve of violence on the part of Christians in furthering political agendas, nor do we particularly like the inflamatory rhetoric that comes off the keyboards of certain Christian posters on this blog.
For the rest of the posters on this blog:
The election is over. The referenda have all been voted upon and decided. It’s time to put away the inflamatory rhetoric.
I will ask each one of you – What are YOU doing to make our blogging community a better place?
I exhort you all to live in peace with one another insofar as it depends upon you.
Report comment to moderator
101: I stand by my position that it was NOT my intention to assert the Mormons & Jehovah’s Witnessed existed during the Founding era with Madison, rather that they believe in theological heresies that are relevant to the issue of “what is Christianity” that was a great concern of Madison’s and the other FFs. I clarified that the heresies were not Mormonism and JWism in Madisons day but rather such things as Arianism & Socinianism which Madison et al. disproportionately tended to believe. I’ve made no historical error on the FFs & religion that you’ve ever called me on. And I think most readers here know that I know enough about the history of the Founding & religion that I was NOT trying to assert that Mormons & JWs existed during the Founding era.
You are refuted.
Report comment to moderator
#104 Barrracuda wrote, Your “backlash” is happening because there was a backlash against gay marriage, not because people hate homosexuality.
Is it, you don’t hate ‘homosexuality’ or, you don’t hate ‘homosexuals’? Nonchristians cannot separate the act from the actor, but if you’re a Christian, you should make the distinction even though nonchristians cannot accept it.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
Sorry about directing my post to you. It was really a response to a post from Random Name. I’m not sure why I thought it was from you. Anyway, you said,
I would note just because you have moral objections to homosexual behavior doesn’t mean that you get to define this phenomenon by that component of it that you find sinful.
Homosexuality is defined by its orientation, not behavior. A homosexual who is or tries to remain chaste or even live a heterosexual lifestyle, is still a homosexual.
As much as society would like to, we can’t define sin away by labeling it something else. Just because the currently popular view is that “homosexual” describes a category of person as opposed to an inclination toward a specific sin, it doesn’t make the definition correct. The definition is the very thing that’s in dispute, and just because you have moral objections to the Biblical view of homosexuality doesn’t mean you get to define this phenomenon for Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Ree
Fine then we’ll just have to agree to disagree just like those who argue “Mormonism is Christian” v. “Mormonism is not Christian” must agree to disagree because the answer depends on certain disputed premises. I disagree that homosexuality is sin. And constitutionally democratic or republican society is not predicated on the idea that the Bible or orthodox religious concepts define our definitions or understandings of various concepts and phenomena.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
I would also note that I’m not trying to “define” the phenomena of sexual orientation for Christians. I’m being very careful not to treat on your premise that all voluntarily chosen homosexual acts are sinful. However, I still posit the notion of “homosexuality” as an orientation and “homosexual” as a noun, nonetheless and consistent with your premise that all voluntarily homosexual acts are sinful.
Report comment to moderator
Should read: “I’m being very careful not to tread….”
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 108
Your game is lacking, not only in substance but your continued fumbling – both of which you blew by using cults as your source, —– and now back peddling your tricycle making your argument even more ridiculous — if that’s possible.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Believe what you want. If I made an error that blatant, I’d admit it. I seriously doubt any reader here is so stupid to think that I was trying to argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons existed during Madison’s day.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 115
Of course I believe what I wish – LOL
It’s stupid to use analogies which don’t fit your point. If this is all you had to use as an example, you’ve shown yourself to have little at your disposal to illustrate your point.
Those kind of “thorny issues” LOL, those issues didn’t exist for Madison, nor did they cause him to even ‘think’ of them. JW’S and Mormons weren’t even in Madison’s thought process, they were not the so called “THORN” – When an individual wants to make a point, they use EXAMPLES which exist for the time in which the event took place, — they don’t hop scotch ahead to a time that hadn’t taken place to make a point in regards to someone’s issue,…… in this case Madison.
When you present your arguments in this way, you lose credibility, no matter how you struggle to regain your composure, you’re unwilling to accept the fact you didn’t check your facts before ‘trying’ to make a point with faulty examples -
Report comment to moderator
And constitutionally democratic or republican society is not predicated on the idea that the Bible or orthodox religious concepts define our definitions or understandings of various concepts and phenomena.
But the specific constitutional republic under which we live is predicated on the notion of transcendent moral standards to which we’re bound that can be found in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Ree
Nope: Those transcendent moral standards are based on nature/reason. Now, it’s possible for you to argue that such a standard holds homosexuality “unnatural” but it equally holds contraception between married couples to be “unnatural.” It you hold contraception between married couples to be acceptable in a natural sense you lose the gounds in that “transcendent moral standards” to hold homosexuality “unnatural” and thus unacceptable.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You are being extremely dense and you are lucky that I am an extremely patient person. You said:
“It’s stupid to use analogies which don’t fit your point.”
But the analogies DID fit my point. Arianism holds Jesus was a divine but created being, separate from and subordinate to God the Father. Socinianism holds Jesus was not God at all, 100% man, but on a divine mission. And America’s Founders not only argued that these heresies properly could be called “Christian” but themselves believed in these heresies. Madison, though there is some uncertainty, because he hid in a “religious closet” most of his life, likely believed in the Arian heresy because he appealed to the notorious Arian divine Samuel Clarke (not John Witherspoon) for theological authority when asked to put his theological cards on the table. (See Madison’s letter to Frederic Beasley dated November 20, 1825.)
And Arianism and Socinianism, anyone who is not DIMWITTED can see, are related to Jehovah’s Witnessism and Mormonism in the sense that they are “heresies” that reject “orthodox Trinitarian Christian” standards! Indeed Jehovah’s Witnessism is a FORM of the Arian heresy.
AND, I should add, along with Clarke, John Milton, Isaac Newton, and John Locke believed or likely believed in the Arian heresy NOT orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, which according to YOUR standards, Victoria, makes them, like the Mormons and JWs, believers in a “cult” like false theological system that presented itself under the auspices of Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Let me clarify one more thing about what Ree asserted:
“But the specific constitutional republic under which we live is predicated on the notion of transcendent moral standards to which we’re bound that can be found in the Bible.”
Yes, I think Founders like Jefferson, J. Adams, Washington, Franklin, Madison, Wilson, etc. would hold those standards could be found “within” the Bible. But again, would note that according to their thought, reason/nature is the ultimate standard and only those parts of the Bible that meet the reason/nature smell test qualify in terms of the “transcendent moral standards” upon which American republican government is predicated.
Report comment to moderator
Granted, the standards were also considered self-evident based on nature, but which of the founders didn’t respect the Biblical standards of morality? Even Thomas Jefferson liked the Bible when he cut out all the supernatural stuff.
Anyway, we already had this discussion in two other threads? You ignored my first response to you and only responded to it when I got into a discussion with you on another thread and linked you to it. Then you stopped responding to me on that thread, too. I don’t even remember which thread I posted my last response on, but I just happen to have the response saved elsewhere. Since it was a fairly long response and I didn’t type it all in one sitting, I saved it as an e-mail draft to make sure I didn’t lose it. I guess I’ll just go ahead and post it here.
Take scripture away and on nature alone grounds, you lose: Homosexuality and contraception rise and fall together on naturalness grounds.
You’re right that Christians regard Scripture as authoritative, but Paul’s references to homosexual acts in Romans aren’t “thus saith the Lord” type references, but rather he speaks of homosexual acts as self-evidently depraved. The book of Romans is written to an audience that wouldn’t necessarily even be familiar with Old Testament references to homosexuality, but he doesn’t feel the need to prove that homosexuality is depraved–it’s just assumed.
From a secular godless evolutionary perspective, one could make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural in a positive sense, but from the worldview of the Founding Fathers who presupposed a transcendent moral law based on a moral God, homosexuality would be regarded as self-evidently unnatural in a negative sense. Not only this, but marriage would certainly have been self-evidently regarded as involving a man and a woman.
And if you want to make some logical leaps to argue that the Declaration’s theory of nature is against same sex marriage, one could just as easily make logical leaps that the broad rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness actually argue in favor of gay marriage. I typically don’t make those arguments but shy away from discussing sexual issues and the DOI altogether.
I don’t blame you for shying away from this argument, because I think you know that it’s bogus. There’s no question that the Fathers would not have proposed the reordering of society on the basis of depraved sexual practices.
(And given that such seniors, at least the women, are infertile, it makes for a close analogy to homosexuality.
This carries the presupposition that procreation is the only purpose of marriage. Man and woman complete one another in the marriage relationship through more than just procreation.
For many of the Founders it had nothing to do with their “nature of reality.” They were completely unaware of the existence of “homosexuals” as a noun — a person who can only flourish in same gender relationships. I don’t agree with the idea that the modern notion of “homosexual person” is a social construct of the 20th Century. Plato and the other ancient philosophers seemed well aware of the concept of a “homosexual person”; but the Founders (as most folks throughout history) seemed unaware of this understanding in Plato’s Symposium.
This begs the question in regard to whether or not homosexuals “flourish” when they indulge their sexual desires.
However, their sense of race and blacks’ proper positions in American society would be considered “racist” by any 20th century understanding of the concept.
Oh please–not voting for Obama is considered racist by 20th century standards. Anyway, that’s a poor analogy because ideas about how and whether free blacks could and should integrate into society were about practical issues, not the state of nature.
The Constitution, as originally written, holds that our ownership of this land by conquest is just, that Indians are savages, that blacks may be enslaved, that women have no fit role in government, and that the (little-remembered) restriction of suffrage to men of property by state governments is valid.
This is how we justify dismissing the Constitution–because it holds to some outmoded, unpopular ideas? Then why keep up the pretense? Why not just be honest and admit that we have no regard whatsoever for the principles upon which our nation was founded?
Report comment to moderator
I posted my response before I saw that you addressed it in your next post to me.
Also, it’s more than just their Christological heresies that make Mormons and JWs cultic.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
I couldn’t care less about your patience, LOL
Drop it Jon, you blew it, you can’t bluff your way through every thread, this last one is a ‘tooting hoot’ – Your adventure into many of these discussions here on the blog should embarrass you, but obviously you continue to blither about in hopes you can redeem some credibility.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Again, think what you want. Let me remind you that YOU are the one whose is blogging anonymously, not me.
Report comment to moderator
Re 122,
Good, then deal with what I have written on these threads:
“This carries the presupposition that procreation is the only purpose of marriage. Man and woman complete one another in the marriage relationship through more than just procreation.”
Procreation is *the* anchor in the naturalistic case against homosexuality, take that away and you remove the naturalistic, “self evident” floor from which you might condemn homosexual acts.
And yes, homosexuals DO flourish in long term homosexual relationships. I wish you could see that.
Report comment to moderator
“Man and woman complete one another in the marriage relationship through more than just procreation.”
And I would assert that man and man and woman and woman “complete” one another in that “more than procreation” sense in homosexual marriages. I would turn to Plato’s Symposium as authority; he seemed to understand this. Quoting Saul Bellow’s Ravelstein where he sums up what is taught there:
“Looking for love, falling in love, you were pinning for the other half you had lost, as Aristophanes had said. Only it wasn’t Aristophanes at all, but Plato in a speech attributed to Aristophanes. In the beginning men and women were round like the sun and the moon, they were both male and female and had two sets of sexual organs. In some cases both the organs were male. [My emphasis] So the myth went. These were proud, self-sufficient beings. They defied the Olympian Gods who punished them by splitting them in half. This is the mutilation mankind suffered. So that generation after generation we week the missing half, longing to be whole again.” Ravelstein, P. 24.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
Good, then deal with what I have written on these threads:
I have addressed every one of your arguments, and I continue to do so. You’re the one who abandons the discussions when a few hours lag between responses.
The only thing I was referring to in #122 was that you had already acknowledged that the Founding Fathers did believe in Biblical morality before I posted that point. Of course, you then undercut that by gratuitously claiming that they would have rejected Biblical morality that didn’t meet the “reason/nature smell test,” but you provided no evidence that they considered any portion of Biblical morality to not meet this so-called smell test.
Procreation is *the* anchor in the naturalistic case against homosexuality, take that away and you remove the naturalistic, “self evident” floor from which you might condemn homosexual acts.
Right, and I suppose it never occurred to anyone prior to the twentieth century that there are circumstances in which some heterosexual couples don’t procreate which is why it never occurred to them that homosexuality was also “natural” a/k/a good. Sure.
The argument from nature regarding sexuality and marriage is about much more than just procreation. It’s about the created order, and the nature of humanity, and the nature of men and women. This is certainly something the founding fathers would have affirmed. Unlike you and other supporters of homosexual marriage, they weren’t moral relativists. This is the crux of the issue, despite all your intellectual gymnastics.
Report comment to moderator
“I have addressed every one of your arguments, and I continue to do so. You’re the one who abandons the discussions when a few hours lag between responses.”
Just asserting it doesn’t make it so.
Of course, you then undercut that by gratuitously claiming that they would have rejected Biblical morality that didn’t meet the “reason/nature smell test,” but you provided no evidence that they considered any portion of Biblical morality to not meet this so-called smell test.
You don’t think I could do this? Try this:
“To which I may now add, that the[re are] several Things in the old Testament impossible to be given by divine Inspiration,…”
Ben Franklin, To John Calder, Augt. 21. 1784.
Rowe: Procreation is *the* anchor in the naturalistic case against homosexuality, take that away and you remove the naturalistic, “self evident” floor from which you might condemn homosexual acts.
Ree: Right, and I suppose it never occurred to anyone prior to the twentieth century that there are circumstances in which some heterosexual couples don’t procreate which is why it never occurred to them that homosexuality was also “natural” a/k/a good. Sure.
Show me the naturalistic arguments from the Founding era which a) posit non-procreative heterosexual sex is “natural” and consequently “acceptable” and that homosexual sex remains “unnatural” and hence wrong. I’ll give you a hint: They don’t exist. The Founding Fathers rarely if ever discussed these sexual issues.
The argument from nature regarding sexuality and marriage is about much more than just procreation. It’s about the created order, and the nature of humanity, and the nature of men and women. This is certainly something the founding fathers would have affirmed. Unlike you and other supporters of homosexual marriage, they weren’t moral relativists. This is the crux of the issue, despite all your intellectual gymnastics.
Nope, you are the one who wants to have your cake and eat it too, in an intellectual, philosophical sense. There are only 2 places to turn re condemnation of homosexuality along “transcendent moral standards” lines. One is the Bible, which the FFs did NOT turn to when establishing the basis for transcendent standards that undergird republican government. The other is “nature/reason” which holds homosexuality “unnatural” strictly because it is non-procreative, along the same grounds as contracepted heterosexual sex. If you unmoore “nature” from strict procreation, you are left with the following from one Andrew Sullivan:
For others, the symbology is simply about the notion of “complementarity,” the way in which each sex is invited in the act of sexual congress — even when they are sterile — to perceive the mystery of the other; when the two sexes are the same, in contrast, the act becomes one of mere narcissism and self-indulgence, a higher form of masturbation. For others still, the symbolism is simply about Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve, and the essentially dual, male-female center of the natural world. Denying this is to offend the complementary dualism of the universe.
But all these arguments are arguments for the centrality of heterosexual sexual acts in nature, not their exclusiveness. It is surely possible to concur with these sentiments, even to laud their beauty and truth, while also conceding that it is nevertheless also true that nature seems to have provided a spontaneous and mysterious contrast that could conceivably be understood to complement — even dramatize — the central male-female order. In many species and almost all human cultures, there are some who seem to find their destiny in a similar but different sexual and emotional union. They do this not by subverting their own nature, or indeed human nature, but by fulfilling it in a way that doesn’t deny heterosexual primacy, but rather honors it by its rare and distinct otherness. As albinos remind us of the brilliance of color; as redheads offer a startling contrast to the blandness of their peers; as genius teaches us, by contrast, the virtue of moderation; as the disabled person reveals to us in negative form the beauty of the fully functioning human body; so the homosexual person might be seen as a natural foil to the heterosexual norm, a variation that does not eclipse the theme, but resonates with it. Extinguishing — or prohibiting — homosexuality is, from this point of view, not a virtuous necessitys, but the real crime against nature, a refusal to accept the pied beauty of God’s creation, a denial of the way in which the other need not threaten, but may actually give depth and contrast to the self.
This is the alternative argument embedded in the Church’s recent grappling with natural law, that is just as consonant with the spirit of natural law as the Church’s current position. It is more consonant with what actually occurs in nature; seeks an end to every form of natural life; and upholds the dignity of each human person. It is so obvious an alternative to the Church’s current stance that it is hard to imagine the forces of avoidance that have kept it so firmly at bay for so long.
http://tinyurl.com/6myug8
Again, I would note that Sullivan’s argument doesn’t work if one 1) looks to the Bible for proof texts, or 2) accepts “Nature” as strictly tied to procreation. But the moment one accepts that there can be “natural,” purposefully non-procreative sex between males & females, one LOSES the “Nature” grounds for arguing against homosexuality from a strict logical, rational perspective.
Of course, if one wants to abandon logic and reason as the standard for understanding “nature,”…go for it.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding Phyllis Burgess, the 69 year old lady in Palm Springs who carried her cross into the middle of a bunch of angry protestors and was visciously attacked, I am just curious if anyone else thought they were watching a modern day reflection of the account of Lot when he was barricaded in his home with Gods angels surrounded by angry gay men.
The hearts of the men protesting in Palm Springs seem as far from God as the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. I have attached the link, see for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VziklUbtHAE&feature=related
Report comment to moderator
#104 Barracuda
is an almost perfect example of what I said earlier about the similarity between the panicky self-pity Christians accuse homosexuals of holding and the panicky self-pity I accuse Christians of holding.
Fact: in the past, and currently in the present in some locations of the world (but for the most part, except for occasional isolated acts of violence, not in the United States), homosexuals have been persecuted in various ways and at times put to death.
Example: in colonial America under Puritans and others. In Islamic and some African countries today. Ambiguously, in Nigeria, where there seems to be some sort of weird bond between the Christians and Muslims to go after homosexuals, though it’s very difficult to understand anything about what is going on in Nigeria. [Placing hand over mouth so I am not attacked for slandering Nigeria and Nigerians of any faith. Also, I do not want to get any more spam email fron Nigeria than I already do.]
Fact: in the past, and currently in the present in some locations of the world, Christians have been persecuted in various ways, put to death, and prevented from practicing their faith.
Examples: hard to find in American history, but certainly under all of Communism. In many countries, Islamic and others, such as India, Nepal, etc. Christians are discouraged from prosetylizing, which they consider a “basic human right.”
Each groups projects abuses from other times and places to the future of America.
The Christians here feel it is something like a basic right of conscience and freedom of speech to describe homosexuals as [fill in the blanks, you've read all the terms used]. They feel offended and insulted by any attempts to criticize them for doing so, and oppressed by any efforts to stop them from doing so.
The homosexuals (and friends and relatives of them such as I) are offended by assertions and language used on this web site. Some Christians are also, so they just tend to stay away, leaving the field for the anti-homosexual wing of the conservative Christians to carry on in peace.
The editors of this web site (I think I have been here through three, culminating in Lynn) continually proclaim they wish a “civil conversation” on this topic. Lynn seems nice enough, and has always spoken kindly to me, but this is balderdash. It hasn’t happened in four years, and it won’t happen in the next four years.
So here are my predictions of what WILL happen.
By the end of this century, humans will destroy themselves (pessimistic prediction) or civilization will merely collapse to the level of barbarity portrayed in Mad Max [optimistic prediction], or the stuff predicted in the Book of Revelation-s-s-s-s-s-s and the “Left Behind” novels and the so-called Rapture will make it all moot ["whack job" version, using a term trademarked and copyright by llama]. By the way, is Barak Osama the Anti[whatever]?
Speaking of another whacko prediction, if the Mayan Calendar cultists are correct, this will happen as soon as 2012. Well, as I will be 68 by then, I will have had a good run, but I am sad thinking about my granddaughter and her two mommies.
Two last points:
a) If I am correct about civilization collapsing, there’s a whole lot of stuff ahead in the line to do it before homosexuality.
b) There is no resolution to this argument. Fortunately, we live in a country where [at least since the "Civil" War] we more often solve conflicts at the ballot box and in the courtroom than we do on the battlefield, though we do have a violent streak in us, that’s for sure. In any case, it is a battle; discussion is a waste of time, there will be winners and there will be losers, pick your sides and your leaders. Go Sarah! You go, girl! Excuse me. You go, mature, pro-life, conservative woman!
Every Democrat in America is hoping, no [dare I say it?]…praying that the Republicans nominate Palin for President for the next election. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
One more prediction. The next post after this one will be a really stupid post, making it quite unlike all the posts up to now.
Report comment to moderator
All right, let’s get Random’s predicted stupid post over with, so anyone else can go ahead and post.
Report comment to moderator
I take issue with this article. With a little searching Lynn you could have told the truth about Bash Back! This group is a gay anarchist group thats protest at the Lansing church had nothing to do with Prop 8, and instead had to do with the church itself. The link to the Detroit Freep press did not connect their protest to prop 8 either. The group is not supported by the mainstream gay rights movement. You can find notice of that in Between the Lines, Michigan’s GLBT newspaper. So for you to leave out facts and not properly research is sad.
http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=32938
Report comment to moderator
P.S. Lynn as a out and proud gay man I would love to meet with you, so you can fulfill your quota.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
You don’t think I could do this? Try this:
“To which I may now add, that the[re are] several Things in the old Testament impossible to be given by divine Inspiration,…”
Ben Franklin, To John Calder, Augt. 21. 1784.
Are you kidding? I never claimed that all the founders considered the Bible infallible; in fact, I already acknowledged that Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe in the supernatural portions of the Bible. Your quote proves that Ben Franklin didn’t consider all of Scripture inspired–it says nothing about Biblical morality.
Show me the naturalistic arguments from the Founding era which a) posit non-procreative heterosexual sex is “natural” and consequently “acceptable” and that homosexual sex remains “unnatural” and hence wrong. I’ll give you a hint: They don’t exist. The Founding Fathers rarely if ever discussed these sexual issues.
No kidding they didn’t. These weren’t pressing issues of the day–there was certainly no movement to normalize and sanction sexual immorality of any kind. As John Adams famously said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Nope, you are the one who wants to have your cake and eat it too, in an intellectual, philosophical sense. There are only 2 places to turn re condemnation of homosexuality along “transcendent moral standards” lines. One is the Bible, which the FFs did NOT turn to when establishing the basis for transcendent standards that undergird republican government. The other is “nature/reason” which holds homosexuality “unnatural” strictly because it is non-procreative, along the same grounds as contracepted heterosexual sex.
Again, although they may not have prooftexted from the Bible, they certainly considered it the moral guide for our nation.
John Quincy Adams, “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the word of God or by the strong arm of man: either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”
Andrew Sullivan’s argument cleverly cites Biblical texts, while invoking non-Christian ideas such as a dualistic and harmonious universe. It completely denies Biblical notions about sinful human nature–ideas that our nation’s founders fully acknowledged even in the very structure of our government. Even Sullivan doesn’t deny the inherently complementary nature of male and female, and he does well to cite the argument that homosexual sex is innately narcissistic, but he then tries to refute it by creating an argument based on a thoroughly non-Christian view of nature.
The founding fathers were not all orthodox Christians, but despite all your obfuscating, our nation and our government were certainly based on an essentially Christian worldview.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, your post was both clever and noble. I applaud you.
However, I still consider the Garden of Eden and myth and refuse to believe in it. My mind is closed on the subject.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
With all due respect, so what?
Also, once again. I believe in evil. I consider genocide and individual murder and torture and theft to be evil. I consider many actions of commission and omission to be harmful and to be avoided if we can.
I don’t consider the term “sin” as providing much help in helping figure out what is right and wrong. Sin represents something I don’t like which I offer as the Word of God because saying it that way makes it more impressive and is more likely to persuade people to do what I want.
I don’t know that homosexuality is a wonderful thing. It’s an odd phenomenon of the animal world, including humans, who are animals with brains that are too big for our own good. But all heterosexuals and all homosexuals are individuals, and as such, are a mixture of good and bad, and just as we evaluate people of different races and languages and religious beliefs as individuals worthy of certain rights unless they have committed a bad deed that makes it justified to deprive them of those rights, people should not be punished for their sexual behavior unless it is clearly harmful (rape, abuse of children, etc.)
Homosexual sexual behavior is a fairly rare cause of abortion, by the way.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name,
I responded to your charge a week or so ago that sin is just a word we use to describe something we don’t like, but you never replied, so I don’t know whether you saw my post. I’d like to respond with some substance again, but it would take a little time to do so, and my husband is waiting for me, so I don’t have time right now. Perhaps I’ll get a chance tomorrow. If so, I’d appreciate it if you’d at least acknowledge that you read what I wrote.
Report comment to moderator
“Examples: hard to find in American history, but certainly under all of Communism. In many countries, Islamic and others, such as India, Nepal, etc. Christians are discouraged from proselytizing, which they consider a “basic human right.””
I have news for you: Most Americans consider that basic human right. It’s called freedom of religion and free speech and it’s #1 on the Bill of Rights for a reason. Now granted, I don’t consider it a right to get in people’s face about my faith. However, even though I’m annoyed when Mormon missionaries or Jehovah’s Witnesses show up at my door and try to convert me to “true Christianity”, I don’t think I should have the right to shoot them or have them locked up either. When you have a society that tries to forcibly tell people what they can and cannot believe, you get Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. Homosexual tactics seek to outlaw and disenfranchise people of faith and their views. While they may consider it tit for tat, I’m sorry, but I’m not going to lie down for it.
Report comment to moderator
Re the FFs and biblical morality, particularly re sex, I’d agree that the FFs who were not orthodox Christians and/or didn’t believe the Bible infallible appreciated its moral teachings, esp. those of Jesus. I have found one quotation from J. Adams endorsing biblical sexual morality. But with the others there is nothing there. Jefferson and Franklin both appreciated the Bible’s moral teachings but never discussed it re sexual matters. They both rejected much of the Old Testament and Jefferson rejected everything Paul had to say (whom Jefferson regarded as the first corrupter of Christianity). They were much more likely to cite things such as the Golden Rule or the notion that God wants man to “be just and good.”
You have to read my argument very carefully: I’m obviously not trying to make a pro same sex marriage Founding, because obviously it wasn’t. I’m simply noting, accurately and unanswered thus far, that there are only two moral “trumps” that condemn homosexuality along the “transcendent moral order” lines; one is proof texting from an infallible Bible (something the key FFs didn’t do) and secondly is the nature/reason standard which holds homosexuality unnatural and thus wrong along the SAME GROUNDS that holds all contracepted sex between married couples unnatural and thus wrong.
You were the one who brought up gay marriage as violating “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” something by the way, the FFs did NOT address, however they felt about the issue. I’m simply noting if you are going to apply the “laws of nature and nature’s God” to sex issues, it condemns things that many married Christians (certainly many Protestants) do in bed both for pleasure and to limit the size of their families. And when you try to get an self-serving “out” under the this, it’s obvious and apparent to anyone who doesn’t support your agenda and even to most folks who do.
Report comment to moderator
Some incredible back and forths on gay marriage posted here, but why is no one focusing on the violent response of the protestors in front of Palm Springs City Hall who ripped a smiling old 69 year old ladys cross from her hands, trampled on it, and then surrounded her like a bunch of angry barking dogs screaming at her and putting their arms and hands and signs one inch from her face.
That is a hate crime if I ever saw one!
Where is there any love or tolerance in the way the gay marriage supporters attacked that woman?
The people voted and they need to accept that it is not just a handful of closed minded christians that disagree with the idea of gay married couples and therefore need to stop behaving like angry children who did not get their way.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz,
A number of people have commented on the this awful occurrence in their comments, but how much more is there to say about it?
The people voted and they need to accept that it is not just a handful of closed minded christians that disagree with the idea of gay married couples and therefore need to stop behaving like angry children who did not get their way.
That would be nice, but don’t expect it to happen that way.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
I think my responses show that I understand your argument perfectly well, and that I’ve refuted quite thoroughly. I know you think that the assertions you’ve made about the “two options” are the indisputable last word, but that doesn’t make it so. I’ve refuted many of your assertions about the founding fathers, and each time you’ve been forced to concede my point, but you still keep grasping onto your main assertion about the ramifications of the argument from nature. I refuted that argument, and you couldn’t refute me, so you tried to trump that with Andrew Sullivan’s response. I then pointed out that Andrew Sullivan is operating under different worldview assumptions about the state of nature than the founding fathers would have been. The founders couldn’t be expected to have specifically addressed issues about sexual morality because these weren’t disputed issues in their day, but my view on sexuality is the one that’s consistent with their own explicitly stated Christian worldview assumptions.
The complementary nature of men and women is part of the created order, and traditional marriage is the covenant relationship within which the sexual union is to be expressed. When the founders talk about self-evident truths, this is about as self-evident as it gets. The issue of the morality or lack thereof of contraception within the marital relationship is far less clear, but I’m convinced that the argument (based on Christian premises) for the use of contraceptives to limit family size (not to render a couple sterile) is stronger than the argument for unlimited births, although I respect the view of those who differ on this, as well.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name,
With all due respect, so what?
I assume this is your response to me pointing out that Christians don’t single out homosexuals as worse sinners than others. The “so what,” is that your post implied otherwise.
Also, once again. I believe in evil. I consider genocide and individual murder and torture and theft to be evil. I consider many actions of commission and omission to be harmful and to be avoided if we can.
And yet, without a transcendent standard, the concepts of good and evil are incoherent, and you won’t get far trying to defend an incoherent worldview. I know you’ve been confronted with this by others, though, so I won’t say any more than that about it.
I don’t consider the term “sin” as providing much help in helping figure out what is right and wrong. Sin represents something I don’t like which I offer as the Word of God because saying it that way makes it more impressive and is more likely to persuade people to do what I want.
What I pointed out the last time I responded to you saying this was that prior to God converting me, I liked sexual sin very much. Like you, I rejected the concept of sin because I rejected the idea that people were morally accountable to a supreme being. A number of people tried to convince me that God is, and that He died to reconcile me to Himself, but I was as dismissive of them as you are. Back then, around twenty-five years ago, I was even defending homosexuality to those who condemned it, because it was consistent with my belief that sex between consenting adults was a morally neutral choice. That’s why I was quite taken off guard when God quite unexpectedly broke into my world and showed me myself for what I was–a rebellious sinner who wasn’t getting anywhere making up my own personal morality as I went along.
The reason I mentioned this is because it flies in the face of your assertion that sin is just a word for behavior we don’t like and that the Bible is just something we evoke to give our opinions more authority. Until I was converted, I liked my sin very much, thank you. God changed my heart and my mind, so that I agreed with Him on the matter. And in retrospect, it was quite clear to me how pathetic and unfulfilling my life of rebellion had been.
I don’t know that homosexuality is a wonderful thing. It’s an odd phenomenon of the animal world, including humans, who are animals with brains that are too big for our own good. But all heterosexuals and all homosexuals are individuals, and as such, are a mixture of good and bad, and just as we evaluate people of different races and languages and religious beliefs as individuals worthy of certain rights unless they have committed a bad deed that makes it justified to deprive them of those rights, people should not be punished for their sexual behavior unless it is clearly harmful (rape, abuse of children, etc.)
I don’t know of anyone trying to deprive people with homosexual inclinations of any God-given rights, but since you reject the notion of a transcendent Creator who imbues his highest creation with specific rights based upon His image imprinted upon them, your appeal to “rights” is just another incoherent notion. What rights do you propose that Christians want to take away from homosexuals, and what is the source of those rights?
Homosexual sexual behavior is a fairly rare cause of abortion, by the way.
That, it is. Again, homosexuals are not solely responsible for our nation’s depravity. We share the blame.
Report comment to moderator
“I think my responses show that I understand your argument perfectly well, and that I’ve refuted quite thoroughly.”
Again, just saying it doesn’t make it so. There is nothing about my two options that are “the last word” in an “opinion” sense. Rather, it’s logic as in 2+4 = 4. You can either 1) invoke a handful of prooftexts in the Bible about homosexual relations (something the Founders did not do). Or 2) a natural law theory that holds same sex relations “unnatural” along the sames grounds as contraception between married couples (and the Founders did invoke “Nature” as the final trump but never specifically tied it to this strict procreative theory of nature & sexuality).
The “Nature alone” (or “Nature” as trump) case that anathematizes homosexual relations is dependent upon the male fits female, penis fits vagina, sperm fertilizes egg, chain of logic. Break one part of the logical chain and the whole thing falls apart. And then you have to, by logical necessity, abandon nature and look for some other grounds (i.e., the Bible alone as the infallible authority, something which America’s Founders/the Declaration of Independence does not invoke) if you want to hold homosexual relations “unnatural” and hence wrong.
If you rely on “nature” or “self-evident truths” and unmoore it from strict procreative purposes, there is no logical reason to exclude homosexual couples from “Nature,” other than to invoke some broad, amorphous “Christian worldview.” But specifically the “Christian worldview” case against homosexual relations ties back to prooftexting an infallible Bible, something we both agree the Founding Fathers did not do. There is, it seems to me, no such thing as “the Bible” broadly interpreted in a “worldview” sense. Or if you want to go there, simply snip those few prooftexts that argue against homosexual relations and viola, you have a pro-homosexual Bible, a pro-homosexual “Christian worldview.”
“The issue of the morality or lack thereof of contraception within the marital relationship is far less clear,…”
On biblical, prooftexting grounds, you might be right; I agree it’s “less than clear” that the Bible alone forbids contraception within married relationships (though I understand some folks disagree and hold the Bible alone DOES forbid this). But on naturalistic grounds (i.e., self evident truths, the “laws of nature and nature’s God”) it is entirely clear: The case against homosexuality also holds contracepted heterosexual sex to be EQUALLY unnatural and hence wrong. The STRICT “complementarity” case FOR MF couples and against SS couples holds: 1) Men = women; 2) penis fits vagina; 3) sperm fertilizes egg, just like hand fits glove. Remove or purposefully Frustrate ANY one of those 3 elements, and you, by logical necessity, frustrate ALL of those elements.
Eliminate any one of those elements and you are left with the notion that natural sex = pair bonded couples who love one another, form meaningful attachments and have sex to cement such relations. Homosexual relations perfectly fit within that naturalistic understanding of sexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz – 140
One of the reasons this subject TOPIC POST has been discarded is because Jon Rowe wants to once again change the subject to his favorite ‘Founding Fathers’ – this includes the same four or five who were not strong Believers, and that would include Jefferson. This has happened over and over again, so when the subject of homosexulity is the focuse TOPIC, its thrown over for another endless posting by Jon on his favorite hobby.
The poor older woman was surrounded by mean spirited young men who were angry, and yes it does remind me of the story of Lot and the men from the city outside the door trying to get into Lot’s home – The older lady was very brave, her patience while being interviewed was amazing -
Report comment to moderator
145: Actually Victoria, I usually post on the homosexual issue and the FF issue separately. My conclusions on the FF issue, thus far, haven’t touched or tried to justify sexual orientation issues. For instance, I have concluded that the key FFs’ theological beliefs are somewhat analogous to what you would term the “cults” — the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons. [In the sense that their JWs, Mormons are non-Trinitarian heretics like America's key Founders.] But if you look at where those two groups stand on the homosexual/SSM marriage issue, they are squarely on your side (the JWs avoid politics; the Mormons on the other hand financed your Prop. 8 in Cali.).
What brought these two issues and the debate between Ree & I together, if I remember correctly, is I noted Prop. 8 was precisely the type of “mob rule” democracy which America’s Founders railed against, that all three branches of Cali’s republican government lined up on the pro-gay marriage side.
I was content to leave it at that. But Ree countered that the SSM issue was part of that “transcendent natural order” which America’s Founders invoked as indispensable for republican government. I replied with a post or two which Ree later replied to but I didn’t read because I might not have been “checking.” Ree then encouraged me continue this debate with him/her and pointed me to his/her replies that I might not have read.
I agree with much of what Ree has written and think that he/she writes and reasons quite well. And I don’t hold it against him/her for dragging me into this debate. The only point I am trying to make is that America’s Founders discussed homosexuality and how it relates to the “laws of nature and nature’s God” [defined as what man discovers from reason alone observing nature] about as much as they discussed how contraception between married couples relates thereto. If one “exempts” the procreation issue from that “transcendent natural order” issue of “self-evident truths” to which America’s Founders appealed, one could just as easily exempt the issue of homosexuality. I’m not going to further repeat my above argument on how the two issues [contraception and homosexuality] are interconnected in a naturalistic sense.
Report comment to moderator
Pardon me, this should have read:
If one “exempts” the CONTRACEPTION issue from that “transcendent natural order” issue of “self-evident truths” to which America’s Founders appealed, one could just as easily exempt the issue of homosexuality.
Procreation is relevant; it’s not just contraception, btw. It’s also oral sex between married hetero couples (after all genitalia wasn’t designed for mouth) masturbation and other issues as well. All of these things violate the “transcendent moral order” along the same naturalistic (but not necessarily biblical) grounds that homosexuality does.
Personally I optimistically think that God/Nature are more “generous” than that.
Report comment to moderator
Ree, thank you for your courteous response. I think our exchange has reached the point that Lynn hopes for as a courteous and reasonable discussion. At this point we are stuck. You don’t convince me by pulling the God card; I don’t convince you by saying that “sexual sin” does not fall into same level as violence and oppression.
Occasionally, with some effort, people at wmb reach this level of reasonable exchange, as I guess Lynn hopes for. The general tenor of communication in these threads remains awful.
Again, I advocate civil union and stronger separation of church and state, replacing “marriage” with contract. I presume that you won’t accept civil union, as most here won’t. I think the horse is out of the barn; gay marriage is eventually accepted in our society just as racial integration was accepted and female emancipation and other “unthinkable” and “unnatural” things are now accepted, such as a woman coming close to being our Vice President.
I think none of those are too far; other things, such as genetic modification of our genome are too far for me. For better or worse, whether evolution is true or a myth, humans have begun evolving ourselves. As a child I read a lot of science fiction; as an adult, I find it coming true; not only in moon landings and the Internet, but also in social changes; my extended family of two mommies and two dads and a little girl who at four years old calls me on a cell phone is a science fiction family; I love them and embrace them nonetheless. I am part of the problem as our civilization rushes into an unrecognizable future.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, the idea that contraception and homosexual sex are two sides of the same coin, sexual activity disconnected from reproduction, sounds good, and possibly has some level of validity. (One could argue that ideal sexual activity does not deliberately prohibit the birth of offspring.) But ultimately it fails, at least partly because humans (unlike animals) never have limited sexual activity to fertility. We don’t limit to fertile times of the month, or even fertile years of life; thus, it isn’t an automatic stretch to choose to limit fertility during fertile times of the month, and still choose to have sex.
Homosexual sex clearly goes against any “obvious” intended purpose for sex, even if fertility is eliminated; plus it is considered innately and theologically wrong by nearly every culture and people group. Arguments that some animals do it too are pretty meaningless; some animals eat their young. Many male animals kill the offspring of another male. Animal monogamy is fairly rare. Clearly where homosexuality exists in nature, it is an aberration, and so it is, even more so, in human society, where the idea of morality rears its head and rejects these other “norms” or aberrations of animal reproduction and sexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I don’t mean to sound like a broken record so I’ll repeat the argument from someone who makes it more articulately than I do, someone who actually believes in the metaphysics behind it. [My own personal opinion, I think you know, is that sex unmoored from procreation is just great and I don't believe the biblical condemnations against homosexuality are divinely inspired either.]
Homosexual sex clearly goes against any “obvious” intended purpose for sex,…
I would assert it’s every bit as “obvious” if one looks at “intended natural purposes” for sex along the same lines that contraception is equally forbidden.
Ed Feser writes:
Since it’s the natural law theory example that critics of the theory always get the most worked up over, let’s look at sex. One way to understand the traditional natural law view of the matter is this. If you consider the sexual drives that human beings have, then it is blindingly obvious that if those drives have any natural purpose at all – if they were, say, designed with a certain end in view – then that purpose is to get people to use their sexual organs. And if you consider the sexual organs themselves, then it is also blindingly obvious that if they were designed with any purpose in mind, then that purpose is procreation. More specifically, the purpose of a penis – again, if you assume that it was indeed designed with a purpose in mind – is quite obviously to deposit semen into a vagina (and also, of course, to urinate). That’s what it’s for, if indeed it is for anything, and whether or not it can be used for other purposes. You can use a corkscrew for all sorts of things – cleaning your fingernails, say – and you might for some reason even have a compulsion to use it only to clean your fingernails. The fact remains that what a corkscrew is for is opening bottles. And the purpose of sexual organs, if they have one, isn’t any more mysterious than that of corkscrews.
[...]
We can note further that given the way human beings are constructed – no built-in plugs or sheathes, no ejaculatory on/off switch etc. – it is very difficult to use a penis in a way that accords with its apparent natural purpose (i.e. depositing semen into a vagina) without also having children, and lots of them. The Pill just doesn’t grow on trees, nor is a supply naturally issued with every penis or vagina at birth. So, it follows that if sexual drives and organs were designed for a certain purpose, then that purpose was pretty clearly not just occasional procreation, but fairly steady procreation. Whoever designed them clearly wanted people to have lots of sexual intercourse, and to have it precisely so that they’d have lots of children.
[...]
It must also be emphasized that, contrary to another common misunderstanding, “unnatural” in the context of the view I’m describing does not mean “using something other than for its natural purpose.” It means “using it in a manner contrary to its natural purpose.” To borrow an example from Michael Levin, there is nothing unnatural about merely tapping out a little song on your teeth, even if that’s not what teeth are for. But there is something unnatural about painting little pictures on your teeth and then refusing ever to eat again lest the pictures be rubbed off, or pulling them out so as to make a necklace out of them. The former sort of act does not frustrate the natural end of teeth, but the latter acts do. And part of the idea in the traditional natural law understanding of the sexual act is that ejaculating into a Kleenex, or a condom, or into any bodily orifice other than a vagina, doesn’t just involve using an organ other than for its natural purpose (which is not necessarily “unnatural”) but that it uses it in a manner contrary to its natural purpose. For the “aim” or point of arousal and ejaculation, if they have an aim or point at all, is to get semen into a vagina, and the acts just described frustrate that aim.
This is the inevitable place that “homosexuality violates natural design/purposes” gets you, if you follow the argument to its logical conclusion.
Report comment to moderator
And again for equal time let me reproduce a response to Feser arguing for a pro-gay version of Nature, which of course, folks will just write off as not compatible with the “Christian worldview” of nature.
But again, wait. If there is not one common Human, but rather two forms of humans, why not more? Who’s to say that we should not in fact be speaking, not of Man and Woman, but of Heterosexual Man and Heterosexual Woman, in order to distinguish them from those other forms, Gay Man and Lesbian?
Perhaps the essence of Gay Man is different from that of Heterosexual Man, and the essence of Lesbian different from that of Heterosexual Woman, just as the essence of Man differs from that of Woman. If so–and Feser has given us absolutely no reason why it might not be so–then it stands to reason that Gay Man and Lesbian–as well as those naughty organs, Gay Penis and Lesbian Clitoris–have been designed by their Creator toward rather different ends than Heterosexual Man and Heterosexual Woman. Who can say? Perhaps Feser can read the Mind of God, or perhaps the Pope can, but I cannot, and anyway I’m trying to proceed on the basis of reason rather than revelation.
If Gay Man and Lesbian are Forms of their own, then natural law tells us that the moral thing for gays and lesbians to do is to strive to realize their essence qua Gays and Lesbians. The immoral thing for them to do would be to frustrate that realization. BTW, that applies to straights as well–including, I will assume, Feser. It is immoral for Feser or anyone else to deliberately frustrate the ability of gays and lesbians to realize their essence as Gays and Lesbians.
Report comment to moderator
From my posting days at our daily newspapers website I often saw how good posts on sensitive topics would get buried under back and forth rants and raves. It became such a regular pattern that eventually I concluded it wasn’t by accident and that certain people would try to bury good posts that made good points so that the average reader would be less likely to see the posts. I cannot say that is the case here, you would need to do a study of patterns of posting to see if my theory holds true here. But as a check, lets see what happens when I say this:
Her name is Phyllis Burgess, she is 69 years old. She decided to launch a counter protest to those standing before cityhall in Palm Springs upset over the recent California Proposition 8 decision denying gay marriage. From the video that you can see on Youtube, when Phyllis started her counter protest, the crowd transformed into a mob and accosted the lady surrounding her and tearing her cross from her hands, throwing it on the ground, and stomping on it.
It is the most viscious act of hate I have seen on a newsreel against a christian. If that is not the definition of a hate crime against her then I don’t know what is. Even as she was swarmed and attacked by the angry men, she blew kisses to them and smiled and assured them that she loved them and that God loved them.
I hope those men will one day be able to respond to those that disagree with them without hate, but without Christ, that is most unlikely for their hearts are like those of the men written about in the days of Lot. As far from God as they can get.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz,
I’m not sure how you want people to respond. Lynn posted the video, and we’ve seen it, and it is exactly as you said. It’s awful, and the fact that these people haven’t been charged with a hate crime is another piece of evidence that the politically manipulative “hate crimes” is designed for a specific purpose, and protecting Christians ain’t it. All of the Christians here would love to see the perpetrators in that video repent and turn to Christ.
You strike me as a bit paranoid, though, when you say that people are trying to bury this topic. It’s right there in to OP for everyone to see, but I don’t know what else there is to say about it that hasn’t been said.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
We can note further that given the way human beings are constructed – no built-in plugs or sheathes, no ejaculatory on/off switch etc. – it is very difficult to use a penis in a way that accords with its apparent natural purpose (i.e. depositing semen into a vagina) without also having children, and lots of them.
Human beings are constructed so that women are fertile for a limited period of time each month and for a limited period in their life. Apparently there is a built-in control to the number of children we’re to have, after all. Yet, no one suggests that it’s wrong for a married couple to have sex during these infertile periods.
It must also be emphasized that, contrary to another common misunderstanding, “unnatural” in the context of the view I’m describing does not mean “using something other than for its natural purpose.” It means “using it in a manner contrary to its natural purpose.” To borrow an example from Michael Levin, there is nothing unnatural about merely tapping out a little song on your teeth, even if that’s not what teeth are for. But there is something unnatural about painting little pictures on your teeth and then refusing ever to eat again lest the pictures be rubbed off, or pulling them out so as to make a necklace out of them. The former sort of act does not frustrate the natural end of teeth, but the latter acts do.
Using contraception at certain times to limit family size and space out children is, in a sense, analagous to his “tapping out a little song on your teeth,” as opposed to refusing to use their teeth for their natural purpose or pulling out your teeth. An analagy to the latter would be to be permanently sterilized without ever parenting a child, and I would agree that this is not God’s intention and it’s wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Ree
Feser already answers your claim in what I reproduced above:
And part of the idea in the traditional natural law understanding of the sexual act is that ejaculating into a Kleenex, or a condom, or into any bodily orifice other than a vagina, doesn’t just involve using an organ other than for its natural purpose (which is not necessarily “unnatural”) but that it uses it in a manner contrary to its natural purpose. For the “aim” or point of arousal and ejaculation, if they have an aim or point at all, is to get semen into a vagina, and the acts just described frustrate that aim.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, I’m a her.
Report comment to moderator
Let me also note that if you want to limit the size of your family, you can do so without having unnatural (contracepted) sex: Either use the rhythm method or stop having sex.
Report comment to moderator
156: I thought so.
Speaking of “Christian worldviews” this blog has done a number of good posts on chastity noting how this used to be more valued in the Christendom.
My personal opinion is that chastity isn’t a good idea, especially for young men; it’s a bit like telling birds they ought not fly. However, obviously that’s not a “Christian” conclusion but my own observation human nature.
I’ve listened to a guy named Roy Masters, whose Christology is Arian, so arguably he’s not a “real Christian.” But he said something about his sex life with his wife that jumped out on me. He’s been married to his wife for over 50 years and they have five children (and many grandchildren); he hasn’t had sex with his wife in over 35 years (he stopped when he was in his mid 40s) and he trumpets that as an accomplishment; resisting temptation and all that. That struck me as authentically traditionally Christian, with its strict discipline and resistance to temptation, sacrificing the “self” for the greater good of one’s faith.
Report comment to moderator
Something else to point out:
Human beings are constructed so that women are fertile for a limited period of time each month and for a limited period in their life. Apparently there is a built-in control to the number of children we’re to have, after all. Yet, no one suggests that it’s wrong for a married couple to have sex during these infertile periods.
1) critics of the natural law theory point out that natural theologians come dangerously close to contradiction when they suggest it’s okay for post menopausal women to have sex. The natural theologians reply by saying that sex is still procreative in form and things like using condoms or couitus interruptus with post menopausal women is still wrong;
2) As per my observation of Roy Masters above, I indeed have seen some natural theologians argue that precisely because women become infertile at a particular period in their lives it is “natural” for them to stop having sex.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
The problem with the “stop having sex” argument is that it in fact isn’t Christian. The apostle Paul says to stop only by mutual consent, for prayer. He doesn’t say stop when fertility ends. I would say that if it becomes physically impossible for one partner, probably choosing to cease rather than going on medication (if both spouses agree) is the safer medical route. But Christianity is not opposed to post-menopausal married sex.
The quote from Feser is simply silly. Any gender “gradations” (other than true medical conditions) is medically and logically ridiculous. We are male and female. We have lesser and greater sexual desires (sometimes varying with age); some of us are chaste. Some have inappropriate desires, and some fulfill them. None of that addresses the basic maleness and femaleness of how we are created, and what the Creator tells us that means.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Cheryl, though let me note that the quote which you refer to as “silly” (I think you refer to 151) is actually from Dr. Dave Mazel, whom I should have cited. I offered it as a counter to Feser’s natural law argument. Feser is on your side (although from an Aristotelean/Aquinas perspective popular among devout Roman Catholics) and would probably term his argument as “silly” as well.
Though I personally don’t find it silly; I don’t see anything wrong or silly with recognizing the “natural essence” of gays and lesbians. But I don’t have those passages of the Bible on my conscience.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You say that Feser answered my claim, but I pointed out the inconsistency in his argument. Tapping out a tune on one’s teeth (a silly example, leading to a silly discussion, I might add) frustrates the purpose of the teeth for the moment that it’s being done. It would be difficult to tap out a tune while chewing on a Big Mac, wouldn’t you say?
Also, the rhythm or natural family planning methods of contraception are still contraceptive–they’re about enjoying the pleasure of sex while seeking to avoid conception. And as Cheryl pointed out, stopping sex altogether with one’s partner is an unbiblical idea as well, because it tends to lead to temptation, and sexual sin.
The “Christian” paradigm from which you keep arguing is decidedly Roman Catholic–not the paradigm of the Founding Fathers. Even your working definition of chastity is Roman Catholic, and the state of permanent abstinence as an ideal, with marriage and sex as some kind of concession to concupiscence is rejected by Protestants on Biblical grounds . Within a Protestant (i.e., Biblical) paradigm, sex within the marital relationship is as chaste as virginity is for the single person, and only a small percentage of specifically gifted individuals are called to remain permanently single.
I don’t see anything wrong or silly with recognizing the “natural essence” of gays and lesbians.
This begs the question as to whether homosexual inclinations are part of the essential nature of those who experience them.
Report comment to moderator
Good posts on this thread, Ree.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Cheryl.
Report comment to moderator
Ree:
I agree with you that you well represent the current Sola Scriptura Protestant point of view. Though, I know of some folks (both evangelical AND Roman Catholic) who would note this view WAS dominant in orthodox Protestantism until recently.
The view that Feser puts forth may perfectly parallel what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, but he/they would note, accurately, that it’s reason/nature alone that reaches these conclusions, not ecclesiastical assertions.
And the FFs DID, for the most part, engage in such naturalistic reasoning more so than biblical prooftexting. Even someone like Witherspoon; I could show you quotations of his where you would think it’s Thomas Aquinas or John Locke writing. Though the FFs naturalism was more Lockean/Enlightenment influenced than it was Aristotle-Thomistic. They cited Aristotle far more often than they cited Thomas (whom they rarely if ever cited). And they cited Locke, who in turn cited Richard Hooker, the Anglican heir (or Anglican version of) Aristotle-Thomism, more than anyone else.
And with John Locke, likewise you deal with a half full half empty theologian (half the things he posited were not authentically biblical or Christian).
My point is if you are dealing in nature/reason alone, the man/women paradigm that excludes homosexuality invariably (by logical necessity) demands all heterosexual sex be procreative. Man fits women, like penis fits vagina like sperm fits egg. If you can argue it’s “fine” to deliberately frustrate nature’s purpose of sperm fitting egg or penis fitting vagina in some contexts, I could just as easily argue it’s fine for man to fit man or woman to fit woman in some contexts.
I think the point about the FFs & the Bible is I asserted (and I think you agreed) they were influenced by biblical morality in a general sense but weren’t biblical prooftexters and thought the Bible only partially inspired.
We could by way of experiment, go and look in Jefferson’s Bible and see how much of the sexual teachings made it in (I know he discounted virtually everything Paul did, thinking him one of the first corrupters of Jesus). But if it’s okay for man’s reason to “snip” some of those pages out, personally would do what Ian McKellan does whenever he travels to Hotels (rip out those nasty parts of Leviticus in Gideon’s Bible).
Even I am influenced by a “biblical worldview”; the Golden Rule is just great. The Muslims look at us and see Christianity as pro-homosexual; after all Christian Churches are marrying same sex couples.
Report comment to moderator
“This begs the question as to whether homosexual inclinations are part of the essential nature of those who experience them.”
And I would argue, yes, if you observe human nature you see homosexuals flourishing ONLY in same sex relationships and NOT flourishing in heterosexual relations. Of course if you think the handful of passages in the Bible that condemn homosexual relations are the absolute infallible Word of God, I understand how you would NEVER concede this. The Nature alone argument against homosexuality by logical necessity leads to Feser’s conclusions. ANYTHING else is not logically airtight or does not stem from an internally coherent argument, but a mere moral assertion.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t want to draw this discussion too far out; though I am always up for a long term dialog on these matters. I would note that the FFs were simply influenced by a Protestant/Biblical worldview; rather their worldview was a synthesis in which biblical Christianity was one element. There was also an Enlightenment element and a noble-pagan Greco-Roman element.
I can show you quotations of Jefferson terming himself an “Epicurean”; I can show stuff from Locke that seems to contradict a Christian worldview; we could discuss George Washington’s favorite play “Cato” which glorifies suicide, and again seems to contradict a Christian worldview. “Christian worldview” it seems to me, is a broad term; and unless it boils down to biblical prooftexting, it can indeed justify or be made compatible with homosexual relations; see the openly gay “Christian” bishops in the Episcopal Church and those “Christian” churches that perform same sex marriages.
Report comment to moderator
Should have read: “I would note that the FFs wereN’T simply influenced by a Protestant/Biblical worldview;”
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
Though, I know of some folks (both evangelical AND Roman Catholic) who would note this view WAS dominant in orthodox Protestantism until recently.
That’s correct, but in principle, Protestantism, unlike Roman Catholicism, does not believe in binding the conscience with rules not found in Scripture. Protestantism also holds to the notion of semper reformanda so that our understanding of the faith can be reformed based on sound Scriptural exegesis. Prior to the twentieth century, I’m unaware of any theologian questioning the the extremely tendentious Roman Catholic interpretation of “the sin of Onan.” On this basis, contraception was considered unacceptable.
My point is if you are dealing in nature/reason alone, the man/women paradigm that excludes homosexuality invariably (by logical necessity) demands all heterosexual sex be procreative.
The problem with your argument is that it seems to equivocate on the world “natural” by using it to mean merely “naturalistic” (i.e., purely physical). This isn’t a valid definition in the context of natural law, and I think you know this. My arguments is consistent and coherent when nature we understand nature as revelational, and not just a series of physical processes.
The Muslims look at us and see Christianity as pro-homosexual; after all Christian Churches are marrying same sex couples.
The Muslim world seems to believe everything associated with the US is Christian. That doesn’t make it a valid, or even a reasonable, assumption. Not even everything that occurs in a church is Christian.
As an aside, I wonder why it is that secular liberal Americans buy into the idea that everything liberal churches practice must be validly Christian, simply because so-called Christian churches practice it, but they won’t even consider the possibility that terrorism is a valid expression if Islam, even though lots of Muslims practice it. Something to ponder.
if you observe human nature you see homosexuals flourishing ONLY in same sex relationships and NOT flourishing in heterosexual relations.
Question begging assertion upon question begging assertion. Most likely both our definition of “flourishing” and what we would regard as evidence of a flourishing human being would be at odds.
I can show you quotations of Jefferson terming himself an “Epicurean”; I can show stuff from Locke that seems to contradict a Christian worldview;
I wouldn’t dispute that the Founders were not thoroughly consistent and coherent in their worldview. I’m just arguing that their most basic assumptions were Christian.
“Christian worldview” it seems to me, is a broad term
Broad, but not completely elastic.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz – 52
BINGO it happens often – A completely different TOPIC is brought in, and off it goes, no matter how much a few try to keep it from going off the tracks.
Report comment to moderator
Rowe: “if you observe human nature you see homosexuals flourishing ONLY in same sex relationships and NOT flourishing in heterosexual relations.”
Ree: “Question begging assertion upon question begging assertion. Most likely both our definition of ‘flourishing’ and what we would regard as evidence of a flourishing human being would be at odds.”
Rowe: Most arguments ultimately boil down to unproven and unprovable premises. And I think we’ve just hit upon ours.
The problem with your argument is that it seems to equivocate on the world “natural” by using it to mean merely “naturalistic” (i.e., purely physical). This isn’t a valid definition in the context of natural law, and I think you know this. My arguments is consistent and coherent when nature we understand nature as revelational, and not just a series of physical processes.
Yes and no. This argument is a complicated one and not everything has been laid out on the table; suffice it to say, the Thomistic case that I’ve put forth (parroting Ed Feser) most certainly is NOT purely physical; indeed it needs God to bind it in a moral/ought sense. But, its contexts are still what man’s reason observes from God’s revelation in Nature, not (or not necessarily) the Bible. As John Adams put it:
“To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason.”
– John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson’s, “The Founders on Religion,” p. 132.
And indeed, the problem I have with the traditional natural law is that it is too physical too biological. You need to reduce human beings to their biological processes/functions to exclude homosexuality from “Nature” that is discoverable from reason alone.
A more “revelatory” view of nature (see Plato’s) includes homosexuality within its ambit:
I don’t own a copy of Plato’s Symposium (which by the way is one big defense of homosexual love), so let me instead quote Saul Bellow’s Ravelstein where he sums up what is taught there:
“Looking for love, falling in love, you were pinning for the other half you had lost, as Aristophanes had said. Only it wasn’t Aristophanes at all, but Plato in a speech attributed to Aristophanes. In the beginning men and women were round like the sun and the moon, they were both male and female and had two sets of sexual organs. In some cases both the organs were male. [My emphasis] So the myth went. These were proud, self-sufficient beings. They defied the Olympian Gods who punished them by splitting them in half. This is the mutilation mankind suffered. So that generation after generation we week the missing half, longing to be whole again.” Ravelstein, P. 24.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria and Chalzz,
How many posts would you consider sufficient to cover a topic? I’ll never understand why some people get so up in arms about a side discussion on a thread, even after the main topic has been exhausted. If you and others want to continue a discussion about anything else here, no one is stopping you. Please, just skip over the posts that don’t interest you, but leave others to do the same.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
Thomistic case that I’ve put forth (parroting Ed Feser) most certainly is NOT purely physical; indeed it needs God to bind it in a moral/ought sense.
Yes, but when I refute their argument based on its own premises, that’s when you begin equivocating and insisting that only procreative sex is consistent with “nature” (i.e., the physical function of the sex organs.)
“To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason.”
And this is exactly the position I’m taking into account when I say that “gay marriage” is contrary to the principles held by the Founding Fathers. You, though, claim that it would be consistent with their principles by ignoring the Founders presupposition of a God who possesses the specific attributes proclaimed in Scripture.
A more “revelatory” view of nature (see Plato’s) includes homosexuality within its ambit:
Plato’s reasoning is based on a mythology that neither you, nor I, nor the Founders would give any credence to. His view certainly isn’t based on any definition of reason or nature that you would ever try to defend.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, but when I refute their argument based on its own premises, that’s when you begin equivocating and insisting that only procreative sex is consistent with “nature” (i.e., the physical function of the sex organs.)
LOL because you haven’t refuted it; you do your best “answer” it, and your answers aren’t entirely unconvincing. But I seriously doubt you believe that were Ed Feser to show up on these threads he couldn’t knock the pig pong ball back in your court. If you truly “refuted” his argument, he couldn’t.
So far you’ve offered no convincing or internally coherent understanding of “Nature” apart from something that connects itself to the Bible (which really isn’t “Nature” but shorthand for what’s found in the Bible) that justifies the point for which you argue: That contracepted sex between married husbands and wives is sometimes “natural” or fine, but homosexuality is “unnatural.”
And this is exactly the position I’m taking into account when I say that “gay marriage” is contrary to the principles held by the Founding Fathers. You, though, claim that it would be consistent with their principles by ignoring the Founders presupposition of a God who possesses the specific attributes proclaimed in Scripture.
Re the Founders’ God presupposition: The God of the American Founding, doctrinally, partially inspired the Bible and man’s reason was the ultimate device for understanding His attributes. They believe He chiefly revealed Himself through “Nature” not the Bible. Look at John Adams’ quote, he’s not saying look to the Bible for God’s will but discover it by looking to Nature and using your reason alone.
Their reason told them parts of the Bible were “reasonable” and thus true, parts weren’t. Particularly, they stressed His “wisdom” “power” “goodness” and especially “benevolence” and tended to ignore or disbelieve in His wrathful or jealous nature.
The FFs never addressed the gay issue anymore than they addressed Darwin’s theory of evolution. Personally I think Howard Dean’s understanding of the Christian God who created gays qua gays is far more “benevolent” than yours. But there is nothing in the Founders’ method of discovering God’s attributes that weds them to the biblical prooftexts against homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Ree
What is Whirled Views for?
Report comment to moderator
Plato’s reasoning is based on a mythology that neither you, nor I, nor the Founders would give any credence to. His view certainly isn’t based on any definition of reason or nature that you would ever try to defend.
It’s called a metaphysical metaphor. The key Founders weren’t big fans of Plato (they blamed his reasoning for the “fabrication” of the Trinity which they thought absurd and irrational); they loved Aristotle. And they never, to my knowledge, dealt with that part of Plato’s Symposium. However, I wouldn’t be so quick to assert they’d dismiss it all as “mythology.”
As Adams wrote:
“????? was the Goddess of honesty, Justice, Decency, and right; the Wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles, deliberations and Counsells. She commanded all Mortals to pray to Jupiter, for all lawful Benefits and Blessings.
“Now, is not this, (so far forth) the Essence of Christian devotion? Is not this Christian Piety? Is it not an Acknonowledgement [sic] of the existence of a Supream Being? of his universal Providence? of a righteous Administration of the Government of the Universe? And what can Jews, Christians, or Mahometans do more?
“…Moses says, Genesis. I. 27. [”]God created man in his own image.” What then is the difference between Cleanthes and Moses? Are not the Being and Attributes of the Supream Being: The Resemblance, the Image the Shadow of God in the Intelligence, and the moral qualities of Man, and the Lawfulness and duty of Prayer, as clear[l]y asserted by Cleanthes as by Moses? And did not the Chaldeans, the Egyptians the Persians the Indians, the Chinese, believe all this, as well as the Jews and Greeks?…I believe Cleanthes to be as good a Christian as Priestley.”
– Adams to Jefferson, Oct. 4, 1813
Report comment to moderator
The “??????” are Greek letters for Juno that didn’t translate to the website. I have other quotations of Adams where he notes “religion and morality” necessary for republican government was found in pagan Ancient Greece and Rome.
Report comment to moderator
If you are at all interested in my view of nature or human nature as it relates to all this, I think that non-procreative sex is just great, that an observation of human nature reveals the male/female order central (obviously because they, historically have been charged with reproducing the species) but also holds a place at the table for homosexually oriented folks and the way they express their love. Romantic love, pair bonding, companionship and sex in and of themselves are “good things.” And given I DON’T believe non-procreative sex is unnatural in a “bad” sense, the traditional natural law, obviously, doesn’t stand in my way. Finally I don’t believe that embracing homosexually oriented folks and their love violates the centrality of the male/female order. I think that homosexual relationships complement heterosexual relationships and the desire of homosexuals to marry is a compliment to the institution.
Report comment to moderator
Now that the article has fallen to the back pages of the website, it will be interesting to see if the thread continues. (and yes, I am paranoid, everyone is definitely out to get me????
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I’ve seen Jon Rowe get chased of Whirled Views for trying to carry on heavy discussions like this one when the thread is, apparently, meant for light ones. This isn’t even a discussion board where readers can start their own threads, so it’s not as if we could do that. Please help me understand how this discussion on this thread is harming you.
Report comment to moderator
That should read “chased off,” not “chased of.” Sorry about that.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz,
It’ll continue until at least one of the two of us decides there’s nothing more to say. So what’s your point?
Report comment to moderator
JonRowe,
I haven’t even read your latest responses, so don’t take my lack of a response to them to mean that I’m necessarily done. I’ll get back to it later today.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
This discussion (which I’m still more or less following) is at least tangentially connected to the topic. Sometimes after a topic is played out, people will go on to use that space to discuss something totally unrelated, and if no one else is continuing the original topic, so what?
Report comment to moderator
Ree
You write: “Please help me understand how this discussion on this thread is harming you.”
Over the top in dramatics! LOL
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Yes, that’s how I see it, too. I really don’t understand this reaction? Thanks for confirming it for me.
Report comment to moderator
JonRowe,
These words of praise for the Greek philosophers by the Founding Fathers are not unlike the words of some of the church fathers. In fact, I’ve little doubt that the founders who made these kinds of comments were well read in the writings of the church fathers. But even though some church fathers praised these Greeks as pious pagans who would probably be saved by God’s grace, they did not consider their teachings equal to Christianity. They condemned their polytheistic beliefs and regarded them as a moral hindrance, and I think it’s a fair assumption, based on what the founders had to say about Christianity and the Bible, that they would agree with the church fathers on this point, as well.
In regard to your personal views on the issue, they’ve been apparent throughout the discussion.
Report comment to moderator
I have no idea why I put a question mark after my statement to Cheryl that read, “I really don’t understand this reaction.” Oh well.
Report comment to moderator
It would appear Ree that John is done using you to accomplish his agenda. He is posting like crazy elsewhere now. I’ll try to give him the benefit of the doubt that he just has not looked back here for this thread but be known that John has been accused in the past of going off on tangents to deter from the points of the articles and posts that are written here when they don’t fit his worldview. You may have only served to fuel his fire.
I give you an A for effort though, you did a good job of expressing your cause. Like a puppy dog that has run away though, he may eventually come back to you.
Report comment to moderator
“It would appear Ree that John is done using you to accomplish his agenda.”
Who is John? I am “Jon.”
“Like a puppy dog that has run away though, he may eventually come back to you.”
<a href=”“>Woof! [Actual pic of my doggie Louie]
Ree distinctly reminds me of someone with whom I engaged in a long debate over 5 years ago, except Ree seems calmer.
When I go onto these fora, I’m trying to avoid giving into feeling of “oh I have to get the last word in,” and replace it with “what can I offer to the discussion that is valuable?” and “what is the person with whom I am debating offering of value?” Once it ceases to be such an “enlightened” discussion, I’ll either bail or start getting extremely sarcastic.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops. That link didn’t go through. Here is the puppy:
http://tinyurl.com/5fpbh2
Report comment to moderator
How do you react to the Founders like Adams praising Hinduism as teaching “Christian principles”?
Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]? “God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning, without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence, resulting from his eternal designs. — Search not the Essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You adore his Power, his Wisdom and his Goodness, in his Works.”
– John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 192
You have not given a proper rendition of this letter. Those words which are in bold are not upper case in Adams letter, further more your spelling of phylosophy is not correct, in the original letter it is spelled correctly. When you added – “a Hindu Treatise]? ” – that is non existent in the original letter from Adams to Jefferson. Your attempt at misspelling for whatever reason of “Shast[r]a ” is also not correct, misleading the reader.
Your rendition of the letter below:
Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]? “God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning, without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence, resulting from his eternal designs. — Search not the Essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You adore his Power, his Wisdom and his Goodness, in his Works.”
– John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.
Below is the correct copy of the letter from Adams to Jefferson.
Where is to be found theology more orthodox, or philosophy more profound, than in the introduction to the Shasta? “God is one, creator of all, universal sphere, without beginning, without end. God governs all the creation by a general providence, resulting from his eternal designs. Search not the essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough, that, day by day and night by night, you adore his power, his wisdom, and his goodness, in his works.
Within the same paragraph, however earlier before your QUOTE is another QUOTE which I have posted below:
Now we come to the last paragraph of Adams letter to Jefferson, which is revealing:
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
How do you react to the Founders like Adams praising Hinduism as teaching “Christian principles”?
I don’t know what significance you expect me to attach to it. He seems to be praising one short portion of a Hindu writing, not Hinduism, per se, and the portion he’s praising could sound fairly Christian if we attributed Christian meaning instead of Hindu meaning into the words.
Anyway, if you’re under the impression that I would defend all the beliefs and assumptions of the Founding Fathers, then let me just correct you on that point right now. They were far too influenced by so-called “Enlightenment” ideas about human autonomy than I could ever be comfortable with. I’ve only been arguing that their notion of the moral law as revealed by nature is consistent with Christian principles, not secular ones, and that “gay marriage” is thoroughly inconsistent with the principles on which our country was founded.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz,
Jon’s agenda, as far as I’ve been able to tell from this thread and others on which I’ve seen him post, is to challenge Christian claims and assumptions about the foundations of our country. You may deem it best to ignore him and let his challenges go unanswered, and that’s certainly your prerogative, but I consider his interpretation of the evidence wrong, and I prefer to respond to him by revealing the flaws in his arguments.
Report comment to moderator
“I’ve only been arguing that their notion of the moral law as revealed by nature is consistent with Christian principles,…”
I would agree thus far except I think “Christian principles” defines a lot broader than you would have it define.
“not secular ones,”
What are “secular principles”?
and that “gay marriage” is thoroughly inconsistent with the principles on which our country was founded.
I usually DON’T invoke the FFs to justify gay marriage because the issue is too complicated. Sufficed to say, I don’t see anything about the gay marriage that contradicts the principles of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence or even the idea that the population of the US are a religious and moral people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being who governs the affairs of man and rewards good and punishes evil. In short, I feel the same about homosexuality and Founding principles as YOU feel about contraception between marriage couples and Founding principles.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I’m merely following the letter as it is reproduced in the Cappon edition of the Jefferson/Adams letters (which is the authoritative edition). See here:
http://tinyurl.com/6ra6n3
Re the Bible as the best book quote, if you read the context you see Adams states that reason (not scripture) is supreme and that the Bible is his favorite book because it agrees with him and his philosophy which is the result of reason, not because the Bible is infallible. Do you want to go through those parts line by line?
Report comment to moderator
Jon
Lester J. Cappon is by no means the only individual who has ‘tried’ to reproduce the letters between Adams and Jefferson. There are other great men who have reproduced these letters.
As you know, I don’t click on any of your ‘tinyurl’s’ for all the obvious reasons.
As far as the quote Adams makes regarding the Bible – no Adams does not say anything about the Bible being infallible, anymore than others writing a letter would add that to their comments. Adams leaving out that particular thought (the Bible being infallible) has nothing to do with what HE DID WRITE, or what HE (Adams) BELIEVED and did not include in his letter to Jefferson.
Report comment to moderator
“As you know, I don’t click on any of your ‘tinyurl’s’ for all the obvious reasons.”
Yes, you are paranoid.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
I’m not paraonid about “tinyurl’s” I’m just smarter than to click on them, especially yours. Not everyone on the internet is lacking in judgment, or so inexperienced and naive. Anyone who is savvy on the internet KNOWS that by clicking a ‘tiny url’ could take you to ANY SITE, that’s not a wise thing to do – I doubt you need this explained and further – LOL
Report comment to moderator
No you really are paranoid. If I created a tiny url that took you to some for instance pornographic website or the like, I’d be banned from the site; that’s a one trick pony. As for safe sites, you should be able to judge for yourself whether what I sent you to is authentic.
Re Adams statements from that letter Dr. Gregg Frazer (who’d probably agree with Ree on the issue or morality & the Founding era; I know he’s fervently on your side on the gay marriage issue) analyzed it as follows:
he declares the Bible “the best book in the world,” but that doesn’t change the fact (as he has just asserted) that it does not supersede philosophy. Indeed, he says it is the best BECAUSE it contains more of HIS philosophy than any other — not because it is inspired or infallible — but because it agrees with him! Then, having established that the Bible does not supersede philosophy and having determined that it is the best book BECAUSE it “contains more of my little philosophy” than any other, he says that there are parts which he cannot reconcile to his philosophy — which means they’re wrong! They cannot supersede philosophy and what is best is HIS philosophy.
Re Adams being upset with Priestley: he was very critical of a PARTICULAR BOOK written by Priestley in this letter — but that doesn’t change the fact that he shared Priestley’s theology. Five months before this letter, he called Priestley “this learned, indefatigable, most excellent and extraordinary man” and said he thought Priestley had “one of the greatest” souls. He went on to bemoan his falling out with Priestley and to say that “no man was more capable or better disposed to answer” his “thousand, a million questions” than was Priestley. In the beginning of the letter we’ve been discussing, he also says about his personal problems with Priestley: “I forgive it all.”
So, he had some personal problems with Priestley and was sometimes critical of BOOKS by Priestley — but what KIND of books and WHY? He is critical of Priestley’s books which were anthologies of belief systems (”Doctrines of Heathen Philosophers, Compared With those of Revelation” and “Comparison of the Institutions of Moses With those of the Hindoos, and Other Ancient Nations”) because they were produced in haste (when Priestley was dying) and were, therefore, incomplete. He never expresses any disagreement with Priestley where theology is concerned. SO, when he says that the preamble to the laws of Zaleucus is “as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s” — that does, indeed carry significance.
It is significant because Adams considered Priestley’s version of Christianity (”primitive” or “true” “uncorrupted” Christianity) to be true Christianity. So, to say that something is “as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s” IS to say that it is equivalent to Christian teaching.
http://tinyurl.com/create.php
Report comment to moderator
Ooops. Let me do this again. This is what Frazer wrote re John Adams’ letter in question:
[John Adams] declares the Bible “the best book in the world,” but that doesn’t change the fact (as he has just asserted) that it does not supersede philosophy. Indeed, he says it is the best BECAUSE it contains more of HIS philosophy than any other — not because it is inspired or infallible — but because it agrees with him! Then, having established that the Bible does not supersede philosophy and having determined that it is the best book BECAUSE it “contains more of my little philosophy” than any other, he says that there are parts which he cannot reconcile to his philosophy — which means they’re wrong! They cannot supersede philosophy and what is best is HIS philosophy.
Re Adams being upset with Priestley: he was very critical of a PARTICULAR BOOK written by Priestley in this letter — but that doesn’t change the fact that he shared Priestley’s theology. Five months before this letter, he called Priestley “this learned, indefatigable, most excellent and extraordinary man” and said he thought Priestley had “one of the greatest” souls. He went on to bemoan his falling out with Priestley and to say that “no man was more capable or better disposed to answer” his “thousand, a million questions” than was Priestley. In the beginning of the letter we’ve been discussing, he also says about his personal problems with Priestley: “I forgive it all.”
So, he had some personal problems with Priestley and was sometimes critical of BOOKS by Priestley — but what KIND of books and WHY? He is critical of Priestley’s books which were anthologies of belief systems (”Doctrines of Heathen Philosophers, Compared With those of Revelation” and “Comparison of the Institutions of Moses With those of the Hindoos, and Other Ancient Nations”) because they were produced in haste (when Priestley was dying) and were, therefore, incomplete. He never expresses any disagreement with Priestley where theology is concerned. SO, when he says that the preamble to the laws of Zaleucus is “as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s” — that does, indeed carry significance.
It is significant because Adams considered Priestley’s version of Christianity (”primitive” or “true” “uncorrupted” Christianity) to be true Christianity. So, to say that something is “as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s” IS to say that it is equivalent to Christian teaching.
Report comment to moderator
And ooops again, here is the source of Dr. Frazer’s original writings:
http://tinyurl.com/5n6phv
Report comment to moderator
Jon
YOU WRITE: “No you really are paranoid. If I created a tiny url that took you to some for instance pornographic website or the like, I’d be banned from the site; that’s a one trick pony. As for safe sites, you should be able to judge for yourself whether what I sent you to is authentic.”
This has nothing to do with “pornographic” sites – you fall of the ledge when you use this one, anyone knows you would be kicked off a blog in sending someone to one – that’s not the point and you know it, playing ignorant of WHY, one doesn’t do the ‘tiny url’ thing doesn’t serve you well.
LOL, Jon – I don’t go to blogs, yours, or anyone elses – are you so inexperienced that you can’t figure this out? – There are two safe ways to check a URL, if you don’t know this I would suggest you check it out, educate yourself so you won’t have this problem in the future.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I have a blog, and I go to other people’s blogs, and I don’t understand why one would want to avoid them. Other than lack of interest in the topics discussed, what is the reason for not going to blogs other than this one?
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – if you can’t understand this, I would suggest you call your internet provider – they will give you the information.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Since we all seem to be befuddled here, why don’t you explain this to us instead of sending us all off to do independent research? What do you perceive to be the risk of visiting blogs and if blogs are somehow dangerous, why do read and post on this one?
Report comment to moderator
Ree
On many blogs, or MOST, when you visit them, some of your identity is known by clicking the LINK – Most people who blog don’t give out their entire names, etc,, nor do they give out email addresses. I only visit blogs which I consider to be safe – I don’t visit blogs of those who post on this site -
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
In short, I feel the same about homosexuality and Founding principles as YOU feel about contraception between marriage couples and Founding principles.
And I maintain that you could only say this by not understanding, or by dismissing, the founders’ concept of natural revelation. I’ve explained to you extensively why certain forms of contraception in certain circumstances are not inconsistent with a Christian view of natural revelation, and you have only succeeded in demonstrating that homosexual relationships might be consistent with a pagan view of nature.
What are “secular principles”?
I’m referring to secular humanism.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I haven’t visited any blogs from posters here, but I guess if I were interested enough, I probably would, and I probably wouldn’t be that concerned. Thanks for the response, though.
Report comment to moderator
Again Victoria:
You strike me as paranoid. I’m one of the few folks here who blogs non-anonymously. If I sent you to a bad URL my public name would be tarnished. And I AM, I would remind you, a low grade public intellectual who has published in various respectable outlets. In short: I am an extremely low risk persona here.
Ree:
Regarding a “pagan” view of nature. I would reiterate my point that the “worldview” of America’s Founders had a Christian, Enlightenment AND a noble pagan element to it. None of these groups, as they existed in the past, contemplated same sex marriages, though Plato’s thoughts certainly could be seen to justify it.
I again stress the affinity that many key Founders such as George Washington had for a “noble paganism.” They especially valued the pre-Caesar Roman republican period. George Washington’s hero was a man who committed suicide as a matter of principle. This is what I mean when I note their understanding of a “Christian worldview” was broader than the worldview to which you ascribe. Suicide is not same sex marriage. But both conflict with a traditional Christian worldview. That’s my analogy.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
YOU WRITE: “If I sent you to a bad URL my public name would be tarnished.”
Jon, you have tried to send me to your blog/blogs/myspace before, it hasn’t worked, I won’t LINK to them, that was BEFORE you started using ‘tinyurl’s’ – at that time it was EASY to check your LINK – your ‘tinyurl’s’ hide the IDENTITY of the site – Most people know the game, if you want to headline this as paranoid, GO FOR IT -
Report comment to moderator
“And I maintain that you could only say this by not understanding, or by dismissing, the founders’ concept of natural revelation.”
“Natural revelation” means either 1) what man discovers from his unaided reason observing nature. And this theory irrefutably concludes homosexual sex “unnatural” along the same grounds as all contraception. OR 2) what’s written in the Bible wherein only prooftexting weds us to the handful of anti-homosexual passages. And the key FFs weren’t prooftexters, but rather believed the Bible only partially inspired.
If man’s reason can “cut out” the “irrational” parts of the Bible (as the key FFs believed) I’d think they’d have no problem cutting out such narratives wherein Lot’s wife turns to salt or recalcitrant children are stoned to death. And as I noted with Jefferson, he dismissed EVERYTHING Paul had to say.
Adams and Franklin as well noted they believed the Bible only partially inspired but didn’t fully tell us which parts they thought were and which parts weren’t.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
YOU WRITE:
“If man’s reason can “cut out” the “irrational” parts of the Bible (as the key FFs believed) I’d think they’d have no problem cutting out such narratives wherein Lot’s wife turns to salt”
Sodom and Gomorrah Rediscovered
At the south end of the beautiful, yet barren Dead Sea area, there is a mountain known as Mt. Sodom. It is adjacent to this area that the city of Sodom was located. The Bible indicates that there were more than just the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah that were destroyed that day. So far, at least 5 cities have been discovered that were turned to ash and have sulfur balls strewn throughout them. The location of each of these was found by scrutinizing satellite maps of the area, locating geometric shapes, particularly square or rectangular areas. Visits to each location, with the subsequent finding of a city turned to ash and many sulfur balls (brimstone in the King James version of the Bible), provided confirmation.
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Regarding a “pagan” view of nature. I would reiterate my point that the “worldview” of America’s Founders had a Christian, Enlightenment AND a noble pagan element to it.
And I would reiterate mine that even many of the church fathers admired some pagan philosophers and devised their Christian theology based on pagan categories. The point is, even though I reject their pagan categories, their paganism was “baptized” and transformed into something else–something Christian. Admiring pagan philosophy, and even borrowing from it, doesn’t translate into adopting a pagan worldview.
None of these groups, as they existed in the past, contemplated same sex marriages, though Plato’s thoughts certainly could be seen to justify it.
And this is another good point, but it supports my argument, not yours. Even the pagans didn’t implement “same sex marriage,” despite the prevalence of homosexuality. To say that Plato’s thoughts could justify it is a stretch of his words, and the fact that he didn’t expressly justify anything like it is certainly much more significant that what someone could read into some more ambiguous words. So even if it were so that the Founding Fathers were more influenced by pagan philosophy than even the church fathers (and I’m not sure that they were), that still wouldn’t justify the idea that they would condone “same sex marriage.”
I again stress the affinity that many key Founders such as George Washington had for a “noble paganism.” They especially valued the pre-Caesar Roman republican period. George Washington’s hero was a man who committed suicide as a matter of principle. This is what I mean when I note their understanding of a “Christian worldview” was broader than the worldview to which you ascribe. Suicide is not same sex marriage. But both conflict with a traditional Christian worldview. That’s my analogy.
Except that even if the Founding Father’s loved these philosophers so much that they desired to create a society identical to theirs (which they didn’t), “same sex marriage” would not be part of it, so no matter how well you establish their admiration for them, you still haven’t made your case.
Also, I don’t know the story you’re referring to in regard to Washington’s hero, but even the Bible praises Samson for “committing suicide” for noble reasons.
“Natural revelation” means either 1) what man discovers from his unaided reason observing nature. And this theory irrefutably concludes homosexual sex “unnatural” along the same grounds as all contraception. OR 2) what’s written in the Bible wherein only prooftexting weds us to the handful of anti-homosexual passages. And the key FFs weren’t prooftexters, but rather believed the Bible only partially inspired.
For the record, one can’t reasonably reduce the inconsistency between homosexuality and a Biblical worldview to “a handful of anti-homosexual passages.” Homosexuality is inconsistent with a Biblical view of the world in it’s most basic principles. That handful of passages you refer are certainly a handy way to clinch the argument to those who would dishonestly or ignorantly try to reshape the Biblical worldview into some perverse disfigurement, but the Scriptural view of marriage and its consummation is also a type of the union between Christ and His church. Homosexual sex is innately perverse.
Anyway, natural revelation in a Christian context means that the observation of the natural world reveals things about the nature of its Creator, but the doctrine of sin (which the Founders most certainly held to) means that we also see a perversion of God’s image in nature. Homosexuality perverts the inherent goodness of sex as God designed it (a blessed covenant union of two innately different, but complementary sexes) as much as rape does.
Your repeated invocation of contracepted sex in marriage as being equivalent to homosexual sex based on a natural revelation argument is not sustainable, unless you stipulate deliberate and permanent frustration of conception within the marriage covenant, because nature also reveals that, although children are the blessed natural fruit of the sexual union, they are not its only outcome and purpose. A husband and wife are physically and spiritually united by the sex act itself, not just by the children they bear.
Report comment to moderator
that still wouldn’t justify the idea that they would condone “same sex marriage.”
This isn’t what I argue; I certainly DON’T argue they would condone SSM (because they didn’t); though to take the thought experiment further I’d argue the FFs didn’t get a fair hearing on the matter. For instance, as men of science, I think they would have embraced Darwin’s theory of evolution because virtually all scientists do today; however Newton and Bacron represented cutting edge science of their day. And they got no further.
Legal scholars discuss this as the difference between original expectation originalism and some other kind of originalism (as opposed to the notion of a “living Constitution” which believes you can cut out parts of the text of the Constitution). Original expectation originalism tries to get in their minds and asks how they expected these constitutional or declarational rules to apply to specific 18th Century facts and circumstances. Robert Locke summed up the dillema:
Crucial facts about what America was founded on are deliberately hushed up by both liberals and conservatives and admitted only by the non-respectable Left and the non-respectable Right. Namely, that this country was founded upon conquest, slavery, sexism, and class rule. The Constitution, as originally written, holds that our ownership of this land by conquest is just, that Indians are savages, that blacks may be enslaved, that women have no fit role in government, and that the (little-remembered) restriction of suffrage to men of property by state governments is valid.
I blogged more about it here: http://tinyurl.com/6jkwux
I would put sodomy laws into those 18th century practices that have been rightly consigned to the ashcan of history but were nonetheless accepted practices of the Founding era.
Look rather at their ideas/or broadly enunciated principles. I would concede the notion of “God” or “Providence” played a central part; however the content of “sound religion” was the existence of an overriding Providence who would ultimately reward good and punish evil. And this could be found in not just Christianity, but Deism, Unitarianism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Native American Spirituality, pagan Greco-Romanism, just about all world religions they came across. They did believe that Christianity had an edge over the other world religions because of the superiority of Jesus’ (not Paul’s!) moral teachings. But moral teachings are more than just about sex.
What you advocate, whether you admit it or not, is a particularly harsh uber-fundamentalist Christianity. You reveal this when you write:
“[B]ut the Scriptural view of marriage and its consummation is also a type of the union between Christ and His church. Homosexual sex is innately perverse…Homosexuality perverts the inherent goodness of sex as God designed it (a blessed covenant union of two innately different, but complementary sexes) as much as rape does.” [Bold mine.]
There is nothing in the historical record that weds the FFs to this harsh kind of Christianity. I don’t think they had a problem with it because your religion teaches the existence of an overriding Providence and future state of rewards and punishments, and consequently it kept people in line and made them more self-governable (as the theory goes). But so does Islam or Andrew Sullivan’s and Howard Dean’s cafeteria Christianity.
I know you think Sullivan’s/Dean’s “Christianity” to be perverted and false, but the key FFs perverted the Bible in their own way by conviently editing things out and reading things in that weren’t there.
Report comment to moderator
This should have read: “Look rather at their ideals” not “ideas.” Subtle but profound difference there. “All men are created equal” is an ideal. Slavery is a compromise with that ideal.
Likewise the broadly inclusive “civil religion” that believes Christianity, Unitarianism, Native American Spirituality, Islam, etc. all “sound religion” was an ideal of the key FFs. I can prove this with quotations from the historical record.
The state laws that favored traditional Protestant Christianity were compromises with those ideals.
Report comment to moderator
This isn’t what I argue; I certainly DON’T argue they would condone SSM (because they didn’t); though to take the thought experiment further I’d argue the FFs didn’t get a fair hearing on the matter. For instance, as men of science, I think they would have embraced Darwin’s theory of evolution because virtually all scientists do today; however Newton and Bacron represented cutting edge science of their day. And they got no further.
One might as well say that, if the Founders lived today, they’dl be postmoderists instead of modernists because “most intellectuals are,” or some such foolishness. First of all, there’s no legitimate warrant for just assuming that they would be persuaded by the zeitgeist of our age. One could just as easily (and just as incoherently) posit the hypothetical that they would influence the popular zeitgeist in another direction altogether. The Fathers lived in their own time, and they founded this nation on the principles they held to at that time.
Legal scholars discuss this as the difference between original expectation originalism and some other kind of originalism (as opposed to the notion of a “living Constitution” which believes you can cut out parts of the text of the Constitution). Original expectation originalism tries to get in their minds and asks how they expected these constitutional or declarational rules to apply to specific 18th Century facts and circumstances.
I’m aware of the debate, and the “living document” notion is just the typical postmodern idea that words are infinitely malleable, and that they can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. This, itself, was not a concept held by the Founders. As I said in an earlier response, when we take this tactic, we’re just giving lip service to the Constitution, but we have no interest in its actual meaning. I wish the “living document” people would just come out openly and say that the Constitution is just a piece of antiquity with no relevance to our contemporary world, but of course, that would be inconsistent with their utilitarian postmodern philosophy, so they obviously won’t do that.
Crucial facts about what America was founded on are deliberately hushed up by both liberals and conservatives and admitted only by the non-respectable Left and the non-respectable Right. Namely, that this country was founded upon conquest, slavery, sexism, and class rule. The Constitution, as originally written, holds that our ownership of this land by conquest is just, that Indians are savages, that blacks may be enslaved, that women have no fit role in government, and that the (little-remembered) restriction of suffrage to men of property by state governments is valid.
You’re repeating yourself a great deal in these posts–you already posted this earlier. Anyway, who disputes that this nation was founded upon conquest?
I would put sodomy laws into those 18th century practices that have been rightly consigned to the ashcan of history but were nonetheless accepted practices of the Founding era.
Yes, I’m sure you would. Of course, many of us don’t share your assumption that every change we’ve undergone has been in the direction of progress, and this is at the root of our dispute. If the assumption is that new popular ideas are, by definition, innately better than older popular ideas, then of course you don’t care about how the ideas of the Founders should be applied to contemporary society. But again, it’s too bad that people won’t just say it straight out that they want to abandon the Constitution and the ideals of the Founders.
Look rather at their ideas/or broadly enunciated principles. I would concede the notion of “God” or “Providence” played a central part; however the content of “sound religion” was the existence of an overriding Providence who would ultimately reward good and punish evil. And this could be found in not just Christianity, but Deism, Unitarianism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Native American Spirituality, pagan Greco-Romanism, just about all world religions they came across. They did believe that Christianity had an edge over the other world religions because of the superiority of Jesus’ (not Paul’s!) moral teachings. But moral teachings are more than just about sex.
They may have acknowledged a kind of lowest common denominator for religious ideals on which most people could agree and by which most societies were governed, but for most of them, their own beliefs were Christian at their core, and you’re misrepresenting the Christian element when you imply that their respect for Scripture was just the usual “Jesus was a good teacher,” drivel of today. In fact, the Old Testament was extremely influential in their design of our government. Just because Jefferson (one of the least religious of our Founders) wanted to edit the Bible into his own private image, this wasn’t the general consensus of the Fathers. Your view of history is as malleable as your view of Scripture. (I might just as well be talking to an apologist for Roman Catholicism, the way you do this.)
What you advocate, whether you admit it or not, is a particularly harsh uber-fundamentalist Christianity. You reveal this when you write:
“[B]ut the Scriptural view of marriage and its consummation is also a type of the union between Christ and His church. Homosexual sex is innately perverse…Homosexuality perverts the inherent goodness of sex as God designed it (a blessed covenant union of two innately different, but complementary sexes) as much as rape does.” [Bold mine.]
There is nothing in the historical record that weds the FFs to this harsh kind of Christianity.
Without the notion of a transcendent good, it sounds “harsh” to talk about a perversion of that good–in fact, it’s an incoherent concept. But the Founders did hold to a notion of a transcendent good, so they would also acknowledge the notion of the perversion of the good. This is why they weren’t multiculturalists and they could recognize some practices of some Indian tribes as “savage,” a notion you and your fellow postmoderns find offensive.
I know you think Sullivan’s/Dean’s “Christianity” to be perverted and false, but the key FFs perverted the Bible in their own way by conviently editing things out and reading things in that weren’t there.
Jefferson did, but this wasn’t the prevailing behavior of most of our Founders.
Report comment to moderator
I’m going to let some of your points go because I know I won’t make any further progress with you. However, there is still stuff that needs to be addressed.
They may have acknowledged a kind of lowest common denominator for religious ideals on which most people could agree and by which most societies were governed, but for most of them, their own beliefs were Christian at their core, and you’re misrepresenting the Christian element when you imply that their respect for Scripture was just the usual “Jesus was a good teacher,” drivel of today. In fact, the Old Testament was extremely influential in their design of our government. Just because Jefferson (one of the least religious of our Founders) wanted to edit the Bible into his own private image, this wasn’t the general consensus of the Fathers. Your view of history is as malleable as your view of Scripture. (I might just as well be talking to an apologist for Roman Catholicism, the way you do this.)
Jefferson’s religious creed was par for the course for the key Founding Fathers. Jefferson, J. Adams, Washington, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, Hamilton before the end of his life were all agreed on the basics of a personal religious creed. “Christian to the core” is debatable. There certainly was a “Christian” component, but it was too watered down for you (what I know of your understanding of “Christianity” to be) to consider it “real Christianity.” They did indeed hold Jesus to be a “great moral teacher” on some kind of divine mission, but not God the Son part of a Triune Godhead.
Without the notion of a transcendent good, it sounds “harsh” to talk about a perversion of that good–in fact, it’s an incoherent concept. But the Founders did hold to a notion of a transcendent good, so they would also acknowledge the notion of the perversion of the good.
They most certainly did believe in a transcendent good, but again, I’ll repeat myself (I know I’m doing a lot of that), they didn’t believe in prooftexting or looking chiefly to the Bible to find that good, but rather look to “nature/reason.” The Bible was meant to support the findings of reason, not the other way around; reason trumped. Much of the “good” they enunciated in broad generalities like man having an “unalienable right” to political liberty and pursuit of happiness, concepts by the way that are wholly alien to the Bible.
Finally, the Old Testament, it seems to me, spoke little to the form of government our Founders constructed. They certainly cited pagan republican Rome more often for the principles in the US Constitution and adopted pagan surnames not biblical ones which you would expect them to do were the Bible/Ancient Israel their prime source of inspiration.
Report comment to moderator
As you can see I’m much less passionate about trying to argue “the Founding” properly understood demands gay marriage. I’ve concluded this issue (SSM) like Darwin & science is a modern one that the FFs just didn’t have enough on to give a definitive answer.
Plus, I’m trying to build a reputation as a “fair” and “honest” broker of the Founding & history, not someone who gives a politicized reading. That said, I do have a passion in showing that the political theology of the American Founding was not “Christian” as evangelicals (or “the orthodox” — who also include Roman Catholics and capital O Orthodox Christians, the lowest common denominator among them) define their faith.
I’ve got to ask you a question: You really remind me of that person I debated 5 years ago (a woman). I spent enough time with her in the past and enough time with you on this thread that I deserve an honest answer: Are you her?
Report comment to moderator
Jefferson’s religious creed was par for the course for the key Founding Fathers. Jefferson, J. Adams, Washington, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, Hamilton before the end of his life were all agreed on the basics of a personal religious creed. “Christian to the core” is debatable. There certainly was a “Christian” component, but it was too watered down for you (what I know of your understanding of “Christianity” to be) to consider it “real Christianity.” They did indeed hold Jesus to be a “great moral teacher” on some kind of divine mission, but not God the Son part of a Triune Godhead.
I don’t know the headcount, but I know that some of them were theologically unorthodox. I still maintain that the presuppositions they held that would be relevant to this debate were fundamentally Christian, though. Earlier you tried to say that the Founders were closer to the Christian cults than they were to orthodox Christianity, but even if that’s true (and I don’t believe that it is), you’ve proven too much. Mormons were one of the leading backers of Prop 8 here in California.
As you can see I’m much less passionate about trying to argue “the Founding” properly understood demands gay marriage. I’ve concluded this issue (SSM) like Darwin & science is a modern one that the FFs just didn’t have enough on to give a definitive answer.
And your idea of “properly understood,” once again, begs the question that we’re disputing. Your so-called greater “knowledge” of science and human nature on which you base your opinions are rooted in secular humanist presuppositions, and my contention is that our nation wasn’t founded on secular humanist presuppositions. Whether or not our Founders would’ve shared your presuppositions or mine if they lived today is, indeed, an unanswerable question, but there’s no question that they founded our nation upon Judeo-Christian morality because that’s what they held to. It’s supremely arrogant to just assume that they would’ve considered our day more “enlightened,” and it’s extremely dishonest for today’s interpreters of the Constitution to operate from that assumption. But if I were to venture to speculate, I think it much more likely that, if they had been allowed to peer into the future and to see where their “Enlightenment” ideas would have led us, they would have been horrified!
I’ve got to ask you a question: You really remind me of that person I debated 5 years ago (a woman). I spent enough time with her in the past and enough time with you on this thread that I deserve an honest answer: Are you her?
I don’t know why you’d expect anything other than an honest answer to the question. If we were just rehashing an old debate, why wouldn’t I have mentioned it in the beginning? I didn’t debate you before, and I don’t think I even knew about this forum five years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and one more thing that occurred to me the other day that I meant to mention in my post. You mentioned several times that the Founders praised the fundamental moral system of many non-Christian religions, and you seemed to imply that this negated my assertion that they were fundamentally Christian in their own beliefs. Yet, President Bush has taken a pretty much identical stance to theirs, while still holding to traditional Judeo-Christian morality. It seems to me, in fact, that Bush is, overall, a pretty near contemporary counterpart to our nation’s Founders in his worldview, and that he possesses some of the same theological naivete that they appeared to possess. But like them, his fundamental moral sense is Christian, and therefore, he’s strongly pro-life and anti “gay marriage.”
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know why you’d expect anything other than an honest answer to the question. If we were just rehashing an old debate, why wouldn’t I have mentioned it in the beginning? I didn’t debate you before, and I don’t think I even knew about this forum five years ago.
You might not have mentioned in the beginning because you might not have wanted me to know you were her. I debated her daily for months; so we have some history but ended on good terms. The debates I had with her were vital battles — almost as important as what I learned in law school — in terms of honing my ability to debate/go back & forth on a few key issues including religion, morality and homosexuality.
It’s not quite rehashing an old debate because we have introduced some other issues that we didn’t touch upon in quite as much detail in part because I know far more about the Founding & religion.
In my 5 years since I’ve debated her, I’ve debate many folks who were both anonymous and non-anonymous and the personality/style of debate that you project is by far the closest to hers, nearly identical. Except you seem slightly calmer (which could easily be the effect of prozac or xanax).
I’m inclined to say you’d love her; however sometimes people with prickly personalities tend NOT to like folks with personalities too similar to their own. You’d certainly love one another’s arguments/way of reasoning, in the abstract sense.
Report comment to moderator
As to some other points you made, let me simply note that 1) I am a believer in gay equality and I do 2) support same sex marriage. Although as a libertarian, I think we should separate marriage and state, grant civil unions for any two people and leave the “marriage” question entirely up to private entities, like Churches.
I also have a passion for America’s Founding and religion and have concluded that America’s key Founders were not “Christians” (as you would define the term) and Founding era political theology was not “Christianity” (again, as you would define the term).
That said, when I argue on behalf of gay rights, I almost NEVER invoke “the Founding” as authority precisely because 1) the FFs didn’t believe in SSM, and 2) the culture of sexual morality was more traditionalist.
However, I do attack the idea that what the Founders thought America to be all about in principle demands hostility towards SSM. Again 1) America’s key Founders didn’t believe the Bible infallible. And 2) insofar as they appealed to “the laws of nature” for a transcendent moral order, such referred chiefly to what man discovered thru reason (not necessarily what’s written in the Bible, though they did believe that reason and revelation mostly agreed, but not always). And they noted man’s reason was in a constant state of “discovery” and should be willing to cast off the old clothes of superstition. As Jefferson put it:
[L]aws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
http://tinyurl.com/59e86h
Finally, one reason why I do NOT simply appeal to the American Founding as “moral authority” on the SSM issue, besides from the fact that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, is America practices frozen in late 18th Century context cannot take the moral highground. You wrote, tellingly:
But if I were to venture to speculate, I think it much more likely that, if they had been allowed to peer into the future and to see where their “Enlightenment” ideas would have led us, they would have been horrified!
Well, let them be horrified because what they countenanced in 18th Century context was far more horrific than what we countenance today. This is why I repeated that paragraph from Robert Locke and will do so a third time:
Crucial facts about what America was founded on are deliberately hushed up by both liberals and conservatives and admitted only by the non-respectable Left and the non-respectable Right. Namely, that this country was founded upon conquest, slavery, sexism, and class rule. The Constitution, as originally written, holds that our ownership of this land by conquest is just, that Indians are savages, that blacks may be enslaved, that women have no fit role in government, and that the (little-remembered) restriction of suffrage to men of property by state governments is valid.
If THAT’S what America’s Founding is all about, modern notions of the “living Constitution” can take the moral highground. The only way OUT of this moral dilemma is to concede that America was founded according to its ideals, not compromises with those ideals, and willingly cast aside things like slavery, sexism, class rule, state established churches and sodomy laws as “compromises” with the ideals of liberty & equality that America’s Founders delivered to us.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
From a legal perspective, I simply don’t understand those who would argue that marriage isn’t the business of the state, but civil unions between two people are. Contracts can be the business of the state, but there’s no reason they need to be restricted to two people. The two-and-only-two idea is marriage, and that’s one man and one woman. So, if states shouldn’t be involved in marriage, they also shouldn’t be involved in civil unions as such, but merely in contract law, no matter how many people are involved.
Report comment to moderator
If THAT’S what America’s Founding is all about, modern notions of the “living Constitution” can take the moral highground. The only way OUT of this moral dilemma is to concede that America was founded according to its ideals, not compromises with those ideals, and willingly cast aside things like slavery, sexism, class rule, state established churches and sodomy laws as “compromises” with the ideals of liberty & equality that America’s Founders delivered to us.
Your understanding of the ideals of the Founders would have them reducing morality to little more than some facile reading of the “Golden Rule.” The failure to acknowledge the moral lawgiver renders the very concept of morality incoherent, and that’s why “moral” can be defined as whatever is currently in fashion among the “liberal” elites, and this is presumed to be a result of “the progress of the human mind.” The Founders did hold to a naive logical positivism, but they recognized the centrality of Christian morality in the making of a good and just society. Take away the Judeo-Christian foundations, and you’ve completely undermined what the Founding Fathers intended to create, and it’s unconscionable to try to claim them as your allies.
however sometimes people with prickly personalities tend NOT to like folks with personalities too similar to their own.
Gee, thanks–you’re nice too.
Report comment to moderator
Well my meticulous study of the “public religious” foundation of America demonstrates they believed in an overriding Providence who will ultimately reward good and punish evil, that His will was chiefly ascertainable by reason, that Jesus of Nazareth was the greatest moral teacher and that God indeed wanted His children to be just and good. Things like the sermon on the mount and the Golden Rule were the “central tenets” of “Christian morality” that made for a “good and just society,” not necessarily Leviticus or Sodom & Gomorrah or anything Paul had to say.
A “religious and moral people” does not necessarily equate with the prudery that dominated founding era culture.
The key Founding Fathers and society as a whole back then was “Christian” in a broad sense. Orthodox Trinitarian “regenerate” Christians have always been a minority in any particular “Christian” culture in which they lived. Passages of the Bible that speak of the “narrow path” affirm this.
The difference is the “broad path” Christians of the Founding era wrote our Founding documents and were the early Presidents. The “broad path” Christian Churches of today perform same sex marriages.
Report comment to moderator
“Yet, President Bush has taken a pretty much identical stance to theirs, while still holding to traditional Judeo-Christian morality.”
When Bush says things like Allah is the same God Jews and Christians worship, and suggests a broader path to salvation, you are exactly right. Except he is, it seems to me, somewhat more orthodox in his Christology (I think he believes in the Trinity and that Jesus is God the Son; few of the key Founders seemed to have believed this; Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin rejected this, sometimes bitterly so and Madison and Washington said virtually nothing that was identifiably Trinitarian; George Ticknor founder of the Boston public library testified that Madison admitted to him he was a unitarian).
Further I think Bush goofed up royally as President. However, he seems fairly moderate or tolerant on the gay issue, for a religious conservative. This could be said to be the result of his “Christian kindness.” Yet, any steps towards a kinder, gentler stance on homosexuality is usually written off by folks like you as not really “Christian,” because the Christian God wants us to think of homosexuality like rape! Indeed I know of lots fundamentalist Christians who reject Bush’s authenticity as a “Christian” precisely because he’s not “judgmental” enough on the gay issue.
Report comment to moderator
Well my meticulous study of the “public religious” foundation of America demonstrates they believed in an overriding Providence who will ultimately reward good and punish evil, that His will was chiefly ascertainable by reason, that Jesus of Nazareth was the greatest moral teacher and that God indeed wanted His children to be just and good.
Amen. All good orthodox theology. Despite Victoria’s dire warnings, I actually clicked on one of your links to one of your blog posts and, in the process, I realized that your poor understanding of Protestant soteriology might explain why you would conclude that so many of the Founders were less orthodox than they were.
Things like the sermon on the mount and the Golden Rule were the “central tenets” of “Christian morality” that made for a “good and just society,” not necessarily Leviticus or Sodom & Gomorrah or anything Paul had to say.
I didn’t deny the centrality of the teachings of Christ in Christian theology, but rather, a facile reading of His teachings–a reading that takes them out of their Judaic and apostolic context, and renders them so infinitely flexible that they’re essentially meaningless.
The key Founding Fathers and society as a whole back then was “Christian” in a broad sense. Orthodox Trinitarian “regenerate” Christians have always been a minority in any particular “Christian” culture in which they lived. Passages of the Bible that speak of the “narrow path” affirm this.
I wouldn’t attempt to presume whether or not any given Founder of our nation was regenerate, and it strikes me as kind of audacious as well as ironic to see you attempting to do so.
The difference is the “broad path” Christians of the Founding era wrote our Founding documents and were the early Presidents. The “broad path” Christian Churches of today perform same sex marriages.
The Founders lived well before modern liberal theology, and even if some of the ideas of the Founders may have eventually led to the modernist apostasy of the mainstream Christianity, our nation was not founded on the theology of contemporary Christian apostate liberal theology. Again, you remind me of an apologist for Roman Catholicism. Your argument here is akin to theirs when they say that the writings of the early church fathers contained the “seed” of Roman Catholicism and, therefore, everything that followed in the Roman Catholic Church is legitimate “development,” and the modern Roman Catholic Church is the “true church” founded by Christ. Perhaps you should brush up on Newman and his Aristotelianism to help you further refine your arguments about our nation and its Founders.
because the Christian God wants us to think of homosexuality like rape!
Homosexuality is like rape in the sense that it’s a perversion of God-ordained human sexuality. Consensual homosexual sex is not like rape in gravity of consequences. Different manifestations of sin can be alike in some senses and different in others. Perhaps you’d prefer to ignore that distinction and to misrepresent me for polemical purposes. Be my guest. I’m not running for public office, so I have nothing to lose.
However, he seems fairly moderate or tolerant on the gay issue, for a religious conservative.
Bush on “Gay marriage.”
Report comment to moderator
Not that I want to defend Bush’s stance on gay equality but it was statements like this to which I referred:
http://tinyurl.com/5kfwf4
I wouldn’t attempt to presume whether or not any given Founder of our nation was regenerate, and it strikes me as kind of audacious as well as ironic to see you attempting to do so.
It would be presumptuous if a particular Founder presented himself as a orthodox Trinitarian Christian who believed in the doctrine of regeneration for me to “judge” him. However, if a particular Founder like Jefferson, J. Adams, or Franklin rejects the doctrine of regeneration, or like Washington and Madison never explicitly endorse orthodox doctrines or claims to believe in them, I don’t think it’s that presumptuous for me to say they weren’t. If someone never claims to be “born again,” (or evinces no born again experience) is it presumptuous to remark they weren’t?
The Founders lived well before modern liberal theology, and even if some of the ideas of the Founders may have eventually led to the modernist apostasy of the mainstream Christianity, our nation was not founded on the theology of contemporary Christian apostate liberal theology.
I never claimed they believed in the modern hot button apostasy issues like marrying same sex couples: But this is what “Christians” like John Adams (and Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison, Morris, etc.) believed in:
1) the unitarian heresies (the notion that Jesus was not God the Son, but something less than fully God); 2) that the Bible was only partially inspired; 3) that man’s reason (not the Bible) was the ultimate determiner of truth; 4) that most or all religions (including non-biblical ones) were valid ways to God; AND 5) they disbelieved in eternal damnation. If those 5 points can be incorporated into the political understanding of “Christianity” then yes, America can be said to have had an authentically “Christian” Founding.
If you throw in the “Judeo-Christian” sexual morality which you are fond of it makes them not unlike the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Report comment to moderator
Not that I want to defend Bush’s stance on gay equality but it was statements like this to which I referred:
Not that I support them, but civil unions are a compromise with the culture (kind of like slavery), not a principled stance.
It would be presumptuous if a particular Founder presented himself as a orthodox Trinitarian Christian who believed in the doctrine of regeneration for me to “judge” him. However, if a particular Founder like Jefferson, J. Adams, or Franklin rejects the doctrine of regeneration, or like Washington and Madison never explicitly endorse orthodox doctrines or claims to believe in them, I don’t think it’s that presumptuous for me to say they weren’t. If someone never claims to be “born again,” (or evinces no born again experience) is it presumptuous to remark they weren’t?
You can’t be serious. Now you’re claiming that they weren’t orthodox Christians because they didn’t testify to a Damascus Road experience–as if this defines orthodoxy? You clearly have a very limited understanding of what constitutes orthodoxy to make statements like this. It sounds as if your argument is that the Founders seemed not to have been doctrinally aligned with Billy Graham. Oh, please. For the record, neither am I.
I never claimed they believed in the modern hot button apostasy issues like marrying same sex couples: But this is what “Christians” like John Adams (and Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison, Morris, etc.) believed in:
1) the unitarian heresies (the notion that Jesus was not God the Son, but something less than fully God); 2) that the Bible was only partially inspired; 3) that man’s reason (not the Bible) was the ultimate determiner of truth; 4) that most or all religions (including non-biblical ones) were valid ways to God; AND 5) they disbelieved in eternal damnation. If those 5 points can be incorporated into the political understanding of “Christianity” then yes, America can be said to have had an authentically “Christian” Founding.
I’m not as familiar with their writings on their beliefs as you are, but based on what I have read from them, what I’ve read elsewhere about them, and on your record of misrepresentations and inaccuracies, I’m convinced that your interpretation of the number of heretical Founders and the degree of the unorthodoxy of certain Founders is exaggerated. For goodness sake, you’re not even hiding the fact that you’re drawing conclusions about some of their beliefs based on their silence. But even if they were, to a man, as far afield in their theology as you claim (and I’m certainly not conceding that they all were), they still held to a fundamental Judeo-Christian morality as the moral foundation for our country, and you just can’t dispute that. This is the crux of the issue.
If you throw in the “Judeo-Christian” sexual morality which you are fond of it makes them not unlike the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Even if you could prove that they were eagerly and breathlessly awaiting the coming of the great and holy prophets of God–Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell (note sarcasm there), this would still make the moral foundations, of our country, even if not the theological ones, essentially Christian. None of your arguments gain you anything in this debate.
Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving. It’s our Judeo-Christian foundations that make us able to openly carry on this debate. Praise God, the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Report comment to moderator
You clearly have a very limited understanding of what constitutes orthodoxy to make statements like this.
Uh no I have a very good understanding of what comprises “orthodoxy”; it’s called what’s written in the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds. Evangelicals, Reformed Protestants, Roman Catholics and capital O Orthodox Christians,…whatever it is that divides them theologically are united under these doctrines of orthodoxy. Further they’ve long held that if you don’t believe in these tenets (the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, infallibility of the Bible, salvation through grace, etc.) you aren’t a “Christian” whatever you call yourself (like for instance how the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses call themselves “Christians”).
I’d also like to know what you think to be my proven “record of misrepresentations and inaccuracies” about them.
Leaving the issue of “Judeo-Christian” morality & the Founding aside and dealing strictly with the issue of their theology & historic Christianity, what I have presented is a fairly moderate position in the historical academy; indeed it’s to the “right” of the claim that we had a “Deist” Founding. And this position is not only endorsed by notable conservative evangelicals like Joe Carter, and Drs. Gary Scott Smith and Gregg Frazer (of Grove City College and The Master’s College, respectively), but Frazer and Smith have done groundbreaking research positing this thesis that we had neither a “Deist” nor a “Christian” founding, that the key Founders were neither “Deists” nor “Christians” but something in between.
Re the argument from silence, there is really not much of an issue on Jefferson, Franklin and J. Adams. We know exactly what they believed because they told us over and over again, and each of them rejected nearly all of the tenets of orthodox Christianity. Adams is an especially important figure because there is a tendency to recognize Jefferson and Franklin as “Deists” (which they weren’t), cast them off as outliers and term the rest of them “Christians.” That such a moderate and mainstream figure as John Adams could possess a personal theology that was nearly identical to Jefferson’s and Franklin’s illustrates just how mainstream this theology was for the elite Founders. We do do a little bit of “gap filling” with Washington, Madison, and others. However, given the context and the circumstances, our use of argument from silence is reasonable. It’s hardly reasonable to conclude someone is “orthodox Christian” (which believes Jesus the ONLY way to God) if one systematically refuses to speak of Jesus Christ by name OR EXAMPLE or never be recorded as praying in Jesus’ name as is the case of George Washington (despite the fact that GW spoke of God and was recorded praying generic prayers hundreds of times). IN 20,000 pages of known recorded public and private writings and addresses there are only TWO instances of GW ever speaking of JC by name OR example and neither was written in GW’s hand.
Report comment to moderator
Now let me address this issue of so called “Judeo-Christian” morality, which we could term “Judeo-Christian-Mulsim” morality because Muslims believe in these moral tenets that condemn things such as homosexuality, fornication, adultery, and do a better job at imposing biblical punishments for them than Western Jewish and Christian societies presently do (thank God).
Whatever their personal views on sexual moral issues, the Founding Fathers still believed in very limited government and saw a limited role for the state in enforcing “morals” issues. Indeed, many libertarians like Ron Paul (a figure I tremendously admire) hold steadfast to so called “Judeo-Christian” morality while eschewing state involvement in what consenting adults do behind closed doors. And I think Paul and many of his Christian allies would agree the more we can get state out of the marriage business and leave it to private entities like Churches, the better off all our lives would be.
Finally, the Mormons, the Moonies, America’s key Founders who believed in what Drs. Frazer and Smith term “theistic rationalism” and others simply term “unitarianism” may hold opinions closer to yours on sexual-moral issues. However, many Christian Churches that marry same sex couples, and many individual Christians who favor same sex marriage still profess to believe in orthodoxy (i.e., the Nicene Creed, Christ’s divine nature as God the son, second person in the Trinity who died an atoning death). I don’t see why you should see the Apostasy of orthodox Trinitarian Christians (like Andrew Sullivan or Gary Wills) who adopt a cafeteria attitude on sexual matters as any greater than the Apostasy of the Mormons or American’s key Founders when they rejected (often bitterly mocking) Christ’s place as second person in the Trinity.
Why is the sin of Christian Churches marrying same sex couples worse than the sin of, for instance, John Adams’ high handed blasphemy:
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
Report comment to moderator
Uh no I have a very good understanding of what comprises “orthodoxy”; it’s called what’s written in the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds. Evangelicals, Reformed Protestants, Roman Catholics and capital O Orthodox Christians,…
Then don’t imply that the Founders weren’t orthodox because they didn’t “share their testimonies.”
I’d also like to know what you think to be my proven “record of misrepresentations and inaccuracies” about them.
Things like your implication that Adams considered Hinduism equal to Christianity because he said that one small portion of a Hindu treatise sounded like orthodox Christianity. There were other things like that on which I’ve challenged you throughout the discussion. I’m not going to go back and catalog them.
Leaving the issue of “Judeo-Christian” morality & the Founding aside and dealing strictly with the issue of their theology & historic Christianity, what I have presented is a fairly moderate position in the historical academy; indeed it’s to the “right” of the claim that we had a “Deist” Founding.
I haven’t disputed that some of the Founders (I don’t know the percentage) weren’t thoroughly orthodox in their theology.
We do do a little bit of “gap filling” with Washington, Madison, and others. However, given the context and the circumstances, our use of argument from silence is reasonable. It’s hardly reasonable to conclude someone is “orthodox Christian” (which believes Jesus the ONLY way to God) if one systematically refuses to speak of Jesus Christ by name OR EXAMPLE or never be recorded as praying in Jesus’ name as is the case of George Washington (despite the fact that GW spoke of God and was recorded praying generic prayers hundreds of times). IN 20,000 pages of known recorded public and private writings and addresses there are only TWO instances of GW ever speaking of JC by name OR example and neither was written in GW’s hand.
I don’t know enough to respond intelligently, but I’ve only said that I suspect that you exaggerate the situation and that you exaggerate how much we can know about some of them. But as I keep saying, even if all the Founders were proto-Mormons and JWs, that still wouldn’t help your case.
Now let me address this issue of so called “Judeo-Christian” morality, which we could term “Judeo-Christian-Mulsim” morality because Muslims believe in these moral tenets that condemn things such as homosexuality, fornication, adultery, and do a better job at imposing biblical punishments for them than Western Jewish and Christian societies presently do (thank God).
It wouldn’t be called “Judeo-Christian-Muslim” morality because the whole religion of Islam, like Mormonism and JWs, is just a Judeo-Christian heresy. It’s Judeo-Christian, because Christianity is a completion of early Judaism, not a different religion. In fact, I would even go so far as to endorse Pastor Peter Leithart’s thesis that God raised up Islam as a parody in judgment of Christianity. He makes a compelling case. Of course, for the person who presuppositionally denies God’s sovereignty, I wouldn’t expect that person to be moved.
Indeed, many libertarians like Ron Paul (a figure I tremendously admire) hold steadfast to so called “Judeo-Christian” morality while eschewing state involvement in what consenting adults do behind closed doors. And I think Paul and many of his Christian allies would agree the more we can get state out of the marriage business and leave it to private entities like Churches, the better off all our lives would be.
“Gay marriage” and what society sanctions in regard to the family is about much more than what consenting adults do behind closed doors, and you know it!
Finally, the Mormons, the Moonies, America’s key Founders who believed in what Drs. Frazer and Smith term “theistic rationalism” and others simply term “unitarianism” may hold opinions closer to yours on sexual-moral issues. However, many Christian Churches that marry same sex couples, and many individual Christians who favor same sex marriage still profess to believe in orthodoxy (i.e., the Nicene Creed, Christ’s divine nature as God the son, second person in the Trinity who died an atoning death).
One can profess with one’s mouth what one denies in one’s life.
I don’t see why you should see the Apostasy of orthodox Trinitarian Christians (like Andrew Sullivan or Gary Wills) who adopt a cafeteria attitude on sexual matters as any greater than the Apostasy of the Mormons or American’s key Founders when they rejected (often bitterly mocking) Christ’s place as second person in the Trinity.
Why is the sin of Christian Churches marrying same sex couples worse than the sin of, for instance, John Adams’ high handed blasphemy:
It isn’t my place to judge which professing Christians are more or less guilty, and I’m certainly not defending apostasy of any kind. I’m simply arguing that the rejection of “gay marriage” is consistent with the Founders’ worldview and the moral foundations of our nation. The degree to which I agree or disagree with their worldview isn’t relevant to that point.
Report comment to moderator
I categorically deny that I in any way misrepresented John Adams’ views with the Hindu quotation. That quotation supports my assertion that Adams thought most or all religions were valid ways to God with Christianity arguably being the best because of the superiority of Jesus’ moral teachings. The key Founders thought men were justified through works, and as such good (saved) folks could be found in all world religions, but Christianity was the quickest way up the mountain. As Adams put it:
“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”
– To Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.
http://tinyurl.com/5gccsu
I’m simply arguing that the rejection of “gay marriage” is consistent with the Founders’ worldview and the moral foundations of our nation. The degree to which I agree or disagree with their worldview isn’t relevant to that point.
And I’m simply arguing that gay marriage fits perfectly fine with the way in which their ideals of liberty and equality have evolved on an objective, rational course. Gay marriage grows from the “roots” of the Founding, as it were, regardless of the fact that frozen in late 18th Century context, they would not have supported gay marriage.
Report comment to moderator
And BTW:
I’m still not convinced that you aren’t the person I debated 5 years ago. If you want to prove me wrong then simply click on this URL to my group blog on America’s Founding & religion (you’ll find many sympathetic and non-sympathetic posters and commenters):
http://tinyurl.com/5lb6gc
The sitemeter button on our site “American Creation” will tell me from what geographic location your ISP is.
And again: Notice that the arguments I make on the FFs & religion, I try to be as “cautious” (that is non-distorting) as I can. I freely admit the culture back then was more morally traditionalist. I just disagree that the anti-gay animus that comes from you or other religious conservatives was in any way central to “the laws of nature or nature’s God” or Jesus’ moral teachings, anymore than Aristotle-Thomas’ teachings on contraception were (and indeed, the “laws of nature and nature’s God” was far more an Aristotelean-Aquinas like theory than it was a Protestant-Christian Sola Scriptura one).
In fact a I wrote a brief book review for First Things Magazine (so you certainly don’t “insult” me when you compare me to Roman Catholics who tend to have far greater intellectual minds than evangelical Protestants) on James H. Hutson’s Book of Quotations from the Founding Fathers (and Hutson — chief of the Manuscript Div. at the Library of Congress — is a scholar whom religious conservatives find very friendly to their worldview) and now my name appears on the back of the paperback published by Princeton University Press. You can see this at the book’s official site; my blurb is the 4th one down.
http://tinyurl.com/6ekgno
Report comment to moderator
That quotation supports my assertion that Adams thought most or all religions were valid ways to God with Christianity arguably being the best because of the superiority of Jesus’ moral teachings.
And still you downplay Adams’ belief that Christianity was the superior religion with the word “arguably.” By referring to these “good men” as “Christians,” (along with other things he says) he is unarguably stating that Christianity is true religion.
There are many Christians with whom I would disagree, but whom I would never, ever dispute the genuineness of their faith (C.S. Lewis among them), who have believed that “good men” from other religions displayed evidence of God’s grace and were therefore, in some sense Christian, and would be saved.
The key Founders thought men were justified through works, and as such good (saved) folks could be found in all world religions, but Christianity was the quickest way up the mountain.
Various degrees of semi-Pelagianism are more common than Reformed theology, even today, among Christians. That doesn’t negate the essentially Christian nature of their beliefs. Your whole line of argumentation is a smokescreen.
And I’m simply arguing that gay marriage fits perfectly fine with the way in which their ideals of liberty and equality have evolved on an objective, rational course. Gay marriage grows from the “roots” of the Founding, as it were, regardless of the fact that frozen in late 18th Century context, they would not have supported gay marriage.
Your whole argument relies on the presupposition that the logical result of “rational” thought is the wholesale rejection of Christian truth claims, while the Founders presupposition was that “rational” thought would necessarily lead to the acceptance of Christian truth claims. This dispute highlights the problem with the Founders’ reliance on rationalism (as opposed to genuine rationality), but it doesn’t win you the argument. Rationalism can lead to any conclusion (and I even remember reading one time in an 11th grade history text where Ben Franklin acknowledged that point), but our nation was founded on Christian morality, a rationalistic argument that leads away from Christian morality is inconsistent with the basic worldview assumptions of our Founders.
I’m still not convinced that you aren’t the person I debated 5 years ago.
And I’m not clear on why you would expect me to feel the need to go out of my way to prove my identity to you. I told you that I’m not that person, and you can believe me or not, as you please. You’ve already insulted me and my personality and put me in the same category as this other person whom you obviously also dislike, so what does it matter, anyway, if I’m the same person you previously disliked or another person who’s pretty much just like her (except on meds) whom you equally disliked? In any case, I’ve stated many times on other threads what part of the country I’m from–the Silicon Valley area of California. I don’t know where your other debater is from, but if you still aren’t convinced that I’m not she, and you’re still curious, you could ask me to click on your link to satisfy your curiosity. But when you ask me to do it as if I have some obligation to prove something that I have no need to prove, then thanks anyway, but I’ll pass.
I freely admit the culture back then was more morally traditionalist.
But then you act as if the moral traditions are just some happenstance of time and place and not a necessary consequence of the worldview on which our nation is founded. That’s where you go wrong.
I just disagree that the anti-gay animus that comes from you or other religious conservatives
You then go further astray when you classify a moral objection to a particular behavior as “animus,” with the implication that this so-called animus is directed toward people as opposed to a behavior. Christians have an equal moral objection to other forms of extra-marital sexual expression, but you don’t talk about that because that would make it apparent that we’re not singling out some class of people to villify and persecute, but rather we’re assenting to what we’re convinced that God says, and what we’ve found to be true (some of us by experience) about human sexuality.
was in any way central to “the laws of nature or nature’s God” or Jesus’ moral teachings, anymore than Aristotle-Thomas’ teachings on contraception were (and indeed, the “laws of nature and nature’s God” was far more an Aristotelean-Aquinas like theory than it was a Protestant-Christian Sola Scriptura one).
and this brings us back full-circle to where this debate started, so I’m certainly not going to rehash all that.
so you certainly don’t “insult” me when you compare me to Roman Catholics
Actually, I compared you to the apologists for Rome, not to Roman Catholics per se.
who tend to have far greater intellectual minds than evangelical Protestants
Are you comparing the masses of Mary-apparitioned tortilla worshippers with people like Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga when you say this or are you, more likely, comparing someone like Peter Kreeft with Tammy Faye Bakker? I’d be more inclined to say that there are brilliant minds and commoners among both groups, but I guess that’s just me.
Report comment to moderator
To go back to something you said earlier,
However, given the context and the circumstances, our use of argument from silence is reasonable. It’s hardly reasonable to conclude someone is “orthodox Christian” (which believes Jesus the ONLY way to God) if one systematically refuses to speak of Jesus Christ by name OR EXAMPLE or never be recorded as praying in Jesus’ name as is the case of George Washington (despite the fact that GW spoke of God and was recorded praying generic prayers hundreds of times). IN 20,000 pages of known recorded public and private writings and addresses there are only TWO instances of GW ever speaking of JC by name OR example and neither was written in GW’s hand.
I’m sure you’re not unfamiliar with documents such as George Washington’s Prayer Journal, and I’m a little curious how you reconcile it with what you said here. I’m assuming that you feel that you have some basis for rejecting its legitimacy, is that correct?
Report comment to moderator
I’m perfectly familiar with GW’s prayer journal and know that it’s been debunked as inauthentic.
http://tinyurl.com/6ob6ss
The reason why folks who argue for GW’s orthodox Christianity point to that is because there is nothing else in the primary sources where GW makes any kind of theologically orthodox confession. None of GW’s authenticated God talk is specifically orthodox like that found in “The Daily Sacrifice.” It’s all generic and philosophical. Though it does demonstrate his believe in an active personal “Providence,” not the distant Deist Watchmaker. But we could say the same thing about Thomas Jefferson’s God.
Report comment to moderator
And I’m not clear on why you would expect me to feel the need to go out of my way to prove my identity to you. I told you that I’m not that person, and you can believe me or not, as you please. You’ve already insulted me and my personality and put me in the same category as this other person whom you obviously also dislike, so what does it matter, anyway, if I’m the same person you previously disliked or another person who’s pretty much just like her (except on meds) whom you equally disliked? In any case, I’ve stated many times on other threads what part of the country I’m from–the Silicon Valley area of California. I don’t know where your other debater is from, but if you still aren’t convinced that I’m not she, and you’re still curious, you could ask me to click on your link to satisfy your curiosity. But when you ask me to do it as if I have some obligation to prove something that I have no need to prove, then thanks anyway, but I’ll pass.
Heh. Now you sound like her but without the meds. I don’t dislike her. She told a mutual email friend that she strongly disliked me; but I think, after that, we patched things up and ended on good terms; but who knows how she really feels about me. She’s older (over 65), an ex-hippie and now as fundamentalist as it gets.
And I didn’t meant to insult you when I said you had a “prickly” personality; you just do. I know I’m far from perfect myself.
On biblical grounds, the one thing, as a libertarian, that I’d like to explore more with her, that I never got to 5 years ago is…she thought that America might be destroyed by God if we accepted gay marriage and she was speaking as though with hate crimes laws that conservative Christians were the next persecuted minority. So I said something along the lines of I disagree with hate crimes and I believed in her absolute right to be left alone to freely practice her religion/associate/discriminate and then I said something like what if I could guarantee you the absolute right to speak and practice your religion, freely associate and whatnot, but in turn you had to grant the same rights to hard core pornographers. She reacted very negatively. She said something like Christians don’t want to be left alone and she’d rather see us all dead than allow for these things and it got worse from there.
In my study of orthodox biblical theology that has progressed since that time I’ve found that the “dominionist” tendency that I noticed she had was not at all authentically biblical. Indeed one could say that it IS most important for Christians to be left alone to preach the Word of God so you can convert one soul at a time. I utterly disagree with the idea that non-born again Christians go to Hell for eternity, think it horrific if true. But if it IS true, then it DOES follow that converting your neighbor is FAR more important than fighting a culture war battle. And IF you had the ABSOLUTE right to speak your mind without fear from government penalty, then SO WHAT if your neighbor is into porno? If he’s not a Christian, then it’s none of your business and as long as he doesn’t step on your toes then it doesn’t take anything away from you. And if he IS a Christian or becomes one, then it’s the churches’ responsibility, not the governments’ to discipline him. In a libertarian world, nothing prevents you from being your “brother’s keeper” in this regard.
I’ve learned some of this “clarity” from John MacArthur and Dr. Gregg Frazer (who heads the political and historical studies at The Master’s College). Note: They are not libertarians; I know they are BOTH anti-gay/anti-gay marriage, harshly so; Frazer’s an email friend, my mentor on the FFs and religion and I dislike him at all despite the disagreements I might have with him on political/cultural issues. And they are ESPECIALLY honest in noting that the Bible simply does NOT speak to the issue of political liberty, that the “unalienable right” to liberty that the Founders told us God guaranteed is NOWHERE to be found within the Bible’s text. Yet, by focusing on the next world as the Bible instructs, they have a sense of perspective and rationality that is missing from many right wing Christians fighting a culture war. For instance when asked whether he worried about Barack Obama becoming President, MacArthur noted he doesn’t spend 5 minutes worrying about it. He knows the essentials of free speech-religion won’t change under the Obama Administration. And regarding persecution, the worst that Christians have suffered in America so far is ABSOLUTELY nothing compared to what early Christians suffered in pagan Imperial Rome, a government by the way, that Peter and Paul submitted to and told believers to do so as well. See Romans 13. Indeed, they don’t argue we must have political liberty or a form of government like the Founders gave us (though Frazer has testified he believes it to be the best MAN made system, but stresses it was MAN, not GOD made) precisely because the Bible is compatible with so many (practically ANY) form of government including divine rule of Kings. Christians just don’t realize how good they have in 21st century America.
Report comment to moderator
Yikes. This should have read: “Frazer’s an email friend, my mentor on the FFs and religion and I DON’T dislike him at all despite the disagreements I might have with him on political/cultural issues.”
Report comment to moderator
Finally, here is a much shorter explanation for why GW’s “The Daily Sacrifice” prayer book is phony:
http://tinyurl.com/6m8lfv
Report comment to moderator
Ah. One more thing. (I’m going to let the other stuff go because this thread is about to close — though I’d be willing to keep this dialog going on other threads or fora for as long as you’d like — just that the issue of “laws of nature and nature’s God,” and its dependence on Aristotelean-Thomistic-Hookerian-Lockean, Protestant Christian or Enlightenment thought is an argument that rages on in the historical and political-philosophical academy and CERTAINLY hasn’t between “settled” between you and me on this thread).
Are you comparing the masses of Mary-apparitioned tortilla worshippers with people like Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga when you say this or are you, more likely, comparing someone like Peter Kreeft with Tammy Faye Bakker? I’d be more inclined to say that there are brilliant minds and commoners among both groups, but I guess that’s just me.
I was actually referring to Mark Noll’s “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.” Look at the Supreme Court, for instance, where you find some of the finest legal minds. The conservatives (and yes I’ll concede the Roman Catholic Justice Kennedy is NOT a conservative) Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia are ALL Roman Catholics as is Judge Robert Bork presently. Bork, Scalia and I have all written for First Things (as has Noll) much to their chagrin. (I’m making a joke; my piece for First Things was very very small and I doubt they’ll have me back.
)
Report comment to moderator
I think the thread will close 48 hours after the last post. If 48 hours doesn’t ensue between posts, I don’t think it’ll close. I don’t have time for a long post now, but in regard to the idea that God will judge America if we accept “gay marriage,” that’s not my position. I’m pretty much persuaded by Douglas Wilson’s argument that “gay marriage” is God’s judgment on the church.
Also, I may be old, but I’m not that old–I still have a couple of years before I reach 50, and I’m not an ex-hippie, nor would I classify myself as a fundamentalist.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the update. Okay now I believe you are not her. Check out my group blog americancreationdotblogspotdotcom and see the lively discussions we have there. The official posters include me, 2 Mormons, 4 or 5 evangelical or reformed Protestants, a conservative Roman Catholic, a Unitarian Universalist some atheists and agnostics, PhDs, attorneys, grad students. We have secular leftists, religious rightists all over and in between.
Feel free to comment there.
Report comment to moderator
I’m perfectly familiar with GW’s prayer journal and know that it’s been debunked as inauthentic.
I suspected as much since it would be such an obvious refutation of your characterization of his faith, and I knew you would have to know about it.
Though it does demonstrate his believe in an active personal “Providence,”
You’ve implied a few times that the Founders’ references to “Providence,” necessarily imply that they weren’t specifically thinking of the God revealed in the Bible, but rather, to some generic (albeit personal) God, or something to that effect, but there’s no basis for this assumption. This was the usual way that even America’s first settlers, those Bible-believing Calvinist Puritans, referred to God’s direction in the affairs of men. As descendants of the English Calvinists, I would expect this kind of language from them, and it certainly doesn’t show that they’re rejecting the God of their fathers. Rather, it would certainly seem to indicate the contrary, even if they rejected some of their theology.
And I didn’t meant to insult you when I said you had a “prickly” personality; you just do. I know I’m far from perfect myself..
Yeah, like maybe you’re a little too blunt. :p Anyway, I’m not exactly losing sleep over the barb, and I suspect, anyway, that a “prickly personality,” in your estimation, is by definition, a person with whom you’re engaged in an ongoing dispute.
I’ve learned some of this “clarity” from John MacArthur and Dr. Gregg Frazer (who heads the political and historical studies at The Master’s College).
I’m not familiar with Dr. Frazer, but I know that John MacArthur is a Reformed Baptist and, therefore, he would tend toward a more Baptistic worldview paradigm in which the Biblical mandate for cultural reform is all but overshadowed by the mandate for personal evangelism and “soulwinning.” If you’re interested in a good response to this view, perhaps you should pick up Peter Leithart’s Against Christianity.
And they are ESPECIALLY honest in noting that the Bible simply does NOT speak to the issue of political liberty, that the “unalienable right” to liberty that the Founders told us God guaranteed is NOWHERE to be found within the Bible’s text.
That’s fairly indisputable, I think.
I was actually referring to Mark Noll’s “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.”
It’s been about ten years since I read that book, but if I remember correctly, he’s referring to a general anti-intellectual trend that grew up within American Evangelicalism, isn’t he? But Mark Noll, himself, is a American Reformed Evangelical, and his point certainly isn’t that Evangelical Christianity, inevitably leads to an inability to think and reason. And I don’t remember him saying anything about the state of popular Roman Catholic apologetics, but if he thought that the case for Roman Catholicism was sound, no doubt he’d be “crossing the Tiber,” as they say.
Thanks for the update. Okay now I believe you are not her.
That’s good–I guess.
Check out my group blog… Feel free to comment there.
Thanks for the invite, but I probably won’t. I try to stick to one forum to post in to keep these internet discussions from taking over my life. Maybe I’ll take a look, though.
Report comment to moderator
But Mark Noll, himself, is a American Reformed Evangelical, and his point certainly isn’t that Evangelical Christianity, inevitably leads to an inability to think and reason.
Yes he is. And certainly no that wasn’t his point. His point was evangelicals WEREN’T producing the scholarship and works of philosophy which he thought they should.
And I don’t remember him saying anything about the state of popular Roman Catholic apologetics, but if he thought that the case for Roman Catholicism was sound, no doubt he’d be “crossing the Tiber,” as they say.
If I remember his argument correctly, he noted that Roman Catholics WERE producing the works of scholarship and philosophy and he argued evangelicals should aspire to their their level of intellectual achievement. He might note we need to see the evangelical intellectual equivalent of a John Finnis or Justices Roberts, Alito, and Scalia. (I’ll be fair and add Thomas; though I know a lot of his political enemies dispute his intellectual bona fides; I don’t.)
Report comment to moderator
Re “Providence” yes I’m aware that very traditionally orthodox folks used that term in the era and even before 1700. However it was — like the term “God” — a classic generic word for the deity that could suit a variety of different theological views, heterodox or orthodox. “Providence” was also Thomas Jefferson’s favorite word for God.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll be fair and add Thomas; though I know a lot of his political enemies dispute his intellectual bona fides..
Yeah, and it’s okay for them to do that because it’s only racism when the black person who’s being trashed is a liberal. Conservatives are fair game, whatever their race.
However it was — like the term “God” — a classic generic word for the deity that could suit a variety of different theological views, heterodox or orthodox.
I suppose so, but then why point out that they used the term as if it says anything significant about their beliefs?
Anyway, the crux of the matter is that Founder’s “Enlightenment” views, although problematic, stemmed from their essentially Christian assumptions. Most modern views that pass for “enlightened,”, reject these assumptions and are even contrary to them, and this is becoming more and more so as the years and decades pass. It’s disingenuous, therefore, to say that these modern views are consistent with the foundational beliefs and principles on which our nation was founded.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not trying to defend the atheistic type of secularism via Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. But I do argue that many “modern” secularish figures, like for instance Obama (whom I did NOT vote for; I supported Barr) do hold political-theological beliefs about “God” that are compatible with the American Founding. Lots of liberals, moderates and cafeteria Christians would agree that human rights come from God and have no problem saying things like “Under God” in various civic pledges, even as militant atheistic types of secularists do have a problem with these things.
Report comment to moderator
Let me also clarify my position on the FFs & religion. You say:
Anyway, the crux of the matter is that Founder’s “Enlightenment” views, although problematic, stemmed from their essentially Christian assumptions.
I would agree that the FFs proceeded from “essentially theistic” assumptions (as evidenced by their firm reliance on “Divine Providence” in the DOI) but not “essentially Christian.” What I consider to be “essentially Christian” include doctrines like original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, infallibility of the Bible, etc. You reject those and you reject what it means to be a “mere Christian” as CS Lewis would put it. And the key FFs either outright rejected those tenets (Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin) or otherwise ignored them (Madison, Washington). This is why I would argue, from the perspective of a Reformed evangelical, a traditional Roman Catholic or capital O Orthodox Christian [the common ground of small o "orthodoxy" in which they all believe] American could be said to have had a “religious” but not “Christian” Founding.
Report comment to moderator
But I do argue that many “modern” secularish figures, like for instance Obama (whom I did NOT vote for; I supported Barr) do hold political-theological beliefs about “God” that are compatible with the American Founding.
Modern liberal beliefs (even those of “liberal Christians) are fundentally incompatible with our nation’s founding because of the shift from moral absolutism to moral relativism. The Founders held to a modernist paradigm while contemporary liberals hold to a postmodernist one. Morality in our culture no longer means what it did to the Founders.
I would agree that the FFs proceeded from “essentially theistic” assumptions (as evidenced by their firm reliance on “Divine Providence” in the DOI) but not “essentially Christian.” What I consider to be “essentially Christian” include doctrines like original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, infallibility of the Bible, etc. You reject those and you reject what it means to be a “mere Christian” as CS Lewis would put it.
Theological heresies are false and harmful, but they needn’t, necessarily, negate the essential Christian worldview of the people who hold them. Your definition of those holding to an essentially non-Christian worldview not only includes the Founding Fathers, but many of the Church Fathers as well. You’d even be forced to deny the essentially Christian nature of medieval Europe because Constantine was an Arian. The entire Eastern Church would also have to be counted as “theistic, but not Christian” based on your definition. To justify your unjustifiable claims about our nation, you’re playing semantic games.
Report comment to moderator
Constantine was an Arian? And what is it about the Eastern Church (capital O Orthodox) that denies Trinitarian orthodoxy?
Report comment to moderator
You may call this a “semantic game” but the definition of “Christianity” I’ve put forth is endorsed by many notable theologians. For instance Joe Carter on why Obama probably isn’t a “Christian” even though he calls himself one:
If you tell me that you’re a “Christian” I take that to mean that you subscribe to a common set of doctrines outlined in either the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed. Both of these creeds are ecumenical Christian statements of faith accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and almost all branches of Protestantism. They outline what it means to be a “mere” Christian.
http://tinyurl.com/63h863
Report comment to moderator
But re the “essentially Christian” standard of the Founding, I would note, there was a Christian component, but it was watered down in an Enlightenment and noble-pagan (Greco-Roman) zeitgeist.
The Founding Fathers largely “remade” the Christian God in their own image and as such made Him a more “man centered” deity. Theirs was a “theistic humanism.” I blogged about that here:
http://tinyurl.com/5px5kx
Some highlights from my post.
Still, in carefully examining the attributes of America’s Founders’ benevolent unitarian deity, one must ask is this the authentic biblical God? I’ve noted before that since America’s key Founders believed man’s reason superseded biblical revelation, this was the God of the Bible, minus everything written in the Bible that America’s Founders found irrational like God’s wrath, judgment, and jealously (plus other things added in like the fact that men have unalienable rights to life, liberty, equality, property, the pursuit of happiness and to revolt against civil governments that don’t secure such unalienable rights, ideas for the most part, not found in the Bible).
[...]
Accordingly, figures like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield represented the “old way” which was the authentic and traditionally Christian way of man being God centered. But America’s Founders followed men like John Locke, Samuel Clarke, Joseph Priestley, Jonathan Mayhew, Charles Chauncy, and others who were Christian heretics, theists, and rationalists who posited theistic humanism. Even many of the orthodox Christians who influenced the American Founding like John Witherspoon, Samuel Langdon, and Ezra Stiles, when they preached politics, did not speak in authentically Christian terms, but rather borrowed from the theistic rationalists.
This approach of course, concedes that the traditional conservative Christianity that stresses such notions as the Trinity, eternal damnation, and Christ as the only way, is indeed authentic Christianity! One could also make the case that the Founders’ Christianity which denied the Trinity and eternal damnation, is true, authentic Christianity. If one concedes that you can disbelieve in the Trinity and believe in universal salvation and still be a Christian, I’d have a hard time arguing that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin were not Christians. Personally, I would concede that these key Founders qualify as “Christian heretics.” They presented their ideas under the auspices of Christianity, not Deism.
In his PhD thesis Dr. Frazer quotes some telling passages from earlier academics on this change in perspective and Charles Chauncy, one of the most important Founding-era, pro-revolutionary ministers, a unitarian and a universalist, and the quintessential theologian who remade God to be more man centered. As he quotes one such scholar of religion:
“Before the good of man consisted ultimately in glorifying God; now the glory of God consists in the good of man. Before man lived to worship and serve God, and now God lives to serve human happiness.”
– Joseph Haroutunian, “Piety versus Moralism: The Passing of the New England Theology,” 145.
Frazer also points to a book by James W. Jones entitled “The Shattered Synthesis” where Jones compares the theology of Jonathan Edwards to that of Charles Chauncy’s:
“For Edwards, God’s actions must be consistent with God’s own nature and intentions; for Chauncy, God’s actions must be consistent with what he calls ‘the common happiness.’ For Edwards, God’s actions must be consistent only with his own glory. For Chauncy, since God’s benevolence is directed not toward God himself but primarily toward creation, God’s actions must be consistent with the good of creation.”
– pp. 168-69, quoted in Frazer, “The Political Theology of the American Founding,” p. 305.
As a conservative evangelical, Frazer terms this “a brand of humanism in which even God is man centered.” Ibid.
Report comment to moderator
With perhaps one or two minor exceptions, I have no quarrel with anything you wrote in these responses, and I haven’t disputed those things. My dispute is that the worldview of these “Christian heretics” (and particularly their idea of morality and the basis for morality) was not basically Christian.
What I consider to be “essentially Christian” include doctrines like original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, infallibility of the Bible, etc. You reject those and you reject what it means to be a “mere Christian” as CS Lewis would put it.
And what is it about the Eastern Church (capital O Orthodox) that denies Trinitarian orthodoxy?
The Eastern Church vehemently denies original sin.
Constantine was an Arian?
He was baptized by an Arian bishop.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, that should say “…the worldview of these “Christian heretics” (and particularly their idea of morality and the basis for morality) was basically Christian,” not that it was not basically Christian.
Report comment to moderator
And that sentence is just a restatement of what I wrote in my previous response when I said, “Modern liberal beliefs (even those of “liberal Christians) are fundentally incompatible with our nation’s founding because of the shift from moral absolutism to moral relativism. The Founders held to a modernist paradigm while contemporary liberals hold to a postmodernist one. Morality in our culture no longer means what it did to the Founders.”
Report comment to moderator
Well here is the problem I have your I would concede there was something we might term a “basic Christian worldview” at play with these key Founders, though I’d prefer a term like “nominal” or “minimal” Christian worldview. Yes, sexual culture back then was on the prudish side (though FFs like Franklin, Hamilton and G. Morris lived sexual lifestyles that you would consider extremely sinful) and yes, your antigay sentiments are compatible with a “basic Christian worldview,” but so are Andrew Sullivan’s, for instance, progay sentiments. They also stem from a basic Christian worldview and “revelatory” view of nature. In other words, “basic Christian wordview” is a pretty broad and flexible concept. Let’s repeat what Sullivan wrote:
For others, the symbology is simply about the notion of “complementarity,” the way in which each sex is invited in the act of sexual congress — even when they are sterile — to perceive the mystery of the other; when the two sexes are the same, in contrast, the act becomes one of mere narcissism and self-indulgence, a higher form of masturbation. For others still, the symbolism is simply about Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve, and the essentially dual, male-female center of the natural world. Denying this is to offend the complementary dualism of the universe.
But all these arguments are arguments for the centrality of heterosexual sexual acts in nature, not their exclusiveness. It is surely possible to concur with these sentiments, even to laud their beauty and truth, while also conceding that it is nevertheless also true that nature seems to have provided a spontaneous and mysterious contrast that could conceivably be understood to complement — even dramatize — the central male-female order. In many species and almost all human cultures, there are some who seem to find their destiny in a similar but different sexual and emotional union. They do this not by subverting their own nature, or indeed human nature, but by fulfilling it in a way that doesn’t deny heterosexual primacy, but rather honors it by its rare and distinct otherness. As albinos remind us of the brilliance of color; as redheads offer a startling contrast to the blandness of their peers; as genius teaches us, by contrast, the virtue of moderation; as the disabled person reveals to us in negative form the beauty of the fully functioning human body; so the homosexual person might be seen as a natural foil to the heterosexual norm, a variation that does not eclipse the theme, but resonates with it. Extinguishing — or prohibiting — homosexuality is, from this point of view, not a virtuous necessitys, but the real crime against nature, a refusal to accept the pied beauty of God’s creation, a denial of the way in which the other need not threaten, but may actually give depth and contrast to the self.
This is the alternative argument embedded in the Church’s recent grappling with natural law, that is just as consonant with the spirit of natural law as the Church’s current position. It is more consonant with what actually occurs in nature; seeks an end to every form of natural life; and upholds the dignity of each human person. It is so obvious an alternative to the Church’s current stance that it is hard to imagine the forces of avoidance that have kept it so firmly at bay for so long.
I would argue there is utterly nothing “relativistic” about Sullivan’s argument; indeed it relies on the same “faith” assumptions that theists — Jews, Christians, and Muslims — hold. I’ve shared with some postmodern atheistic gay rights activists who entirely reject it.
See part two for my example by analogy between Roger Williams and Samuel Rutherford.
Report comment to moderator
Before getting to my Rutherford/Williams point, let me note that just as very few of the general population are atheists (less than 10% I think), the same point can be made of gays and lesbians (though I suspect that you’ll find a higher % of professed atheists and agnostics in the GLTB population, and a higher % of artist, intellectuals generally brighter, more creative folks there as well). Most gays and lesbians self define as “Christian,” belong to churches (very often are the choral directors, organists or even ministers) and many of them believe as a matter of a FAITH (just as you have YOUR faith beliefs) that God made them this way and consequently they are gay by birth/genetics.
Of course I’m skeptical of a simplistic gay/gene/birth explanation, but the point is, this very common, arguably dominant sentiment among gays and lesbians is *not* moral relativism or postmodernism. To the contrary.
Report comment to moderator
On to Rutherford/Williams, both men reformed Protestants of impeccable, fanatical orthodoxy.
The narrative: John Calvin as acting governor of Geneva has M. Servetus burned at the stake simply for publicly arguing against the Trinity. And Samuel Rutherford defends Calvin’s decision:
“It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spirituall and diabolick cruelty to many thousand soules, whom he did pervert, and by his Booke, does yet lead into perdition.”
– Samuel Rutherfurd, “A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience.” (1649).
He’s arguing against the novel claims of one Roger Williams, Founder of Rhode Island who “rethought” the traditional “Christian” position stemming from a “basic Christian worldview” on Liberty of Conscience and comes to the very opposite conclusion.
All civil states with their officers of justice, in their respective constitutions and administrations, are . . . essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the Spiritual, or Christian, State and worship. . . . It is the will and command of God that, since the coming of His Son, the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish or anti-Christian consciences and worship be granted to all men, in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only, in Soul matters able to conquer, to wit; the sword of the Spirit–the Word of God. . . .
http://tinyurl.com/287ubf
Now, history has spoken and rightly (in my opinion) consigned the view of Calvin/Rutherford on this matter to the ashcan. But as a matter of pure logic/argumentation, there is no question that Calvin’s/Rutherford’s position makes perfect sense given orthodox Christian presuppositions. Williams’ novel ideas made sense from his position as an orthodox Christian as well, but the results on this EXTREMELY important public policy issue (should societies permit free exercise of religion?) are utterly and dramatically divergent. As dramatic as the difference between YOUR position on gay marriage and Sullivan’s.
But you, admittedly, don’t even have such a specific anchor to cling to as “the infallibility of the Bible” or the “Truth” of the Christian religion (which bring with it those doctrines like the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement) [because America's key Founders didnt' believe in these things] but rather some amorphous concept, a “basic Christian worldview.” In 100 years if it’s “settled” that gays can marry just as interracial couples can [which it probably will be], I think it will be “self evident” to most folks that this sprang from a “basic Christian worldview.”
Report comment to moderator
I would argue there is utterly nothing “relativistic” about Sullivan’s argument; indeed it relies on the same “faith” assumptions that theists — Jews, Christians, and Muslims — hold. I’ve shared with some postmodern atheistic gay rights activists who entirely reject it.
And I would dispute your argument. The last time you posted it, I said, “Even Sullivan doesn’t deny the inherently complementary nature of male and female, and he does well to cite the argument that homosexual sex is innately narcissistic, but he then tries to refute it by creating an argument based on a thoroughly non-Christian view of nature.” I would go further and say that his argument is rooted in the pantheistic Transcendentalist philosophy that worked its way into the American psyche well after the nation’s founding. This may be no more theologically syncretistic than the Enlightenment philosophy of the Founders, but it’s still contrary to their view that the Biblical ethic was true. Yes, they argued that unaided reason confirms this ethic, but whether or not one wants to dispute this argument, it was still a presuppositional assumption in the founding of our nation.
Of course I’m skeptical of a simplistic gay/gene/birth explanation, but the point is, this very common, arguably dominant sentiment among gays and lesbians is *not* moral relativism or postmodernism. To the contrary.
They may not define it as such, but it certainly relies on an absolute subjectivism that is relativistic to its core. Just because people holding to anti-Christian theological beliefs self-identify as Christian, that doesn’t mean that there’s anything Christian about their beliefs. The Founders held to some ideas that were anti-Christian, as well, but the radical subjectivism of these self-justifying so-called Christian homosexuals is as on the complete opposite end of the philosophical spectrum from Christianity–just like the intuitionist philosophy of the Transcendentalists. Even if, in some senses, the Fathers paved the way for these later philosophies by introducing this unbiblical slippery slope, it was the beliefs of the Founders on which our country was founded, not the beliefs of the later philosophers. If I can’t appeal to the infallibility of the Scriptural revelation because the Founders rejected it, neither can you appeal to this radically subjective epistemology, since neither did it come from the Founders.
The narrative: John Calvin as acting governor of Geneva has M. Servetus burned at the stake simply for publicly arguing against the Trinity.
Oh no–not another “Calvin had Servetus burned at the stake,” post. Check your facts. Calvin had no authority over the Tribunal that sentenced Servetus, and if I remember the chronology correctly, he had been imprisoned by these same authorities just days prior to their capture of Servetus. This isn’t particularly relevant to your point, but I get so tired of this misrepresentation of history and this slanderous accusation against John Calvin. He did assent to Servetus’s death. (After all, Servetus’s intention of overturning the foundation of Christian-based Geneva according to his heretical ideas was equivalent to treason in their society.) But he advocated a more humane execution, and he pleaded with Servetus to repent prior to his death.
He’s arguing against the novel claims of one Roger Williams, Founder of Rhode Island who “rethought” the traditional “Christian” position stemming from a “basic Christian worldview” on Liberty of Conscience and comes to the very opposite conclusion….
Now, history has spoken and rightly (in my opinion) consigned the view of Calvin/Rutherford on this matter to the ashcan. But as a matter of pure logic/argumentation, there is no question that Calvin’s/Rutherford’s position makes perfect sense given orthodox Christian presuppositions. Williams’ novel ideas made sense from his position as an orthodox Christian as well, but the results on this EXTREMELY important public policy issue (should societies permit free exercise of religion?) are utterly and dramatically divergent. As dramatic as the difference between YOUR position on gay marriage and Sullivan’s.
So your argument boils down to the idea that, because there are some disputable issues within the context of a Christian worldview, then everything is legitimately up for grabs. A Christian worldview is not infinitely elastic. The debate over what constitutes the most God-honoring form of government is extremely complex. The “debate” over whether boys marrying boys honors God is not.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry I’ve been busy. I’ve studied the Calvin Servetus thing and am aware of the distinctions you make and conclude they are distinctions without a difference: Calvin essentially had Servetus burned at the stake for openly denying the Trinity.
I disagree that permitting gay marriage necessarily puts everything up for grabs or means the “Christian Worldview” is infinitely flexible.
Roger Williams’ plan for pluralism has radical implications, as radical as permitting gay marriage. He actually believed in tolerated — and consequently our Founding Fathers granted “unalienable rights” to folks who would worship false gods which violates the very First Commandment.
Perhaps YOU should question whether the vision of Williams-Locke-the Founding Fathers, at least with regards to their “rights talk” is compatible with a traditional Christian worldview to begin with. Maybe Calvin and Rutherfurd had it right from your end.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve studied the Calvin Servetus thing and am aware of the distinctions you make and conclude they are distinctions without a difference: Calvin essentially had Servetus burned at the stake for openly denying the Trinity.
Let me get this straight.
A tribunal opposed to Calvin and whose authority he was under sentenced Servetus to burn at the stake and, to you, this is essentially the same thing as Calvin sentencing Servetus to be burned at the stake.
Calvin considered burning at the stake to be an inhumane method of executing capital criminals and he pleaded for a quicker, less painful method, but the authorities over him refused and went ahead with the burning. And, to you, this is the same thing as Calvin sentencing Servetus to be burned at the stake.
Servetus published an anti-Trinitarian theological treatise with the treasonous intention of overthrowing the Christian society, and he was found guilty of blasphemy by two separate tribunals–one Roman Catholic and one Protestant. Calvin had no authority in either one, and during the entire time in which Calvin was in power in Geneva, not a single person was sentenced to death for heresy, during a century when death sentences for heretics occurred all over Europe.
But to you, that’s essentially the same thing as Calvin sentencing Servetus to burn at the stake.
There’s no reasoning with this kind of anti-Christian bigotry.
Report comment to moderator
I guess we’re done, then?
Report comment to moderator
Keeping it open in case you want to respond.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
It looks like Calvin, in your letter, is taking responsibility for Servetus’ death which supports my point.
The defense of Calvin is that he wanted him beheaded as opposed to being burned at the stake?
Report comment to moderator
Jon
You and I rarely agree, but on this particular subject YES –
There is much proof against Calvin which many people aren’t able to accept, that doesn’t change the facts –
This particular piece was addressed in Calvin’s Institutes to: Francis, King of the French in 1536
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You witnessed the extent of Victoria’s willingess and/or ability to critically evaluate arguments and evidence on this very thread with one of your own assertions, but now that she’s coming out in support of what you want to believe, you’re right there on board with her anachronistic prooftexting assertions. I’m beginning to question the wisdom of having spent this much time in a discussion with you. Previously, I was under the impression that you’re somewhat fairminded, but since this Calvin topic came up, I’m beginning to wonder.
The only way in which Calvin “exterminated” Servetus was by acting as a witness at his trial when Servetus came to Geneva, presumably hoping to find an environment favorable to his ideas, since Calvin was out of favor with the authorities at the time.
And yes, Calvin wanted Servetus beheaded instead of burned. If our government were planning the execution of an Al Qaeda terrorist by means of carving off his limbs with a dull blade before disembowelling and beheading him with the same dull blade, and a person of potential influence pleaded with the authorities to use lethal injection instead, would you be so dismissive of a the claim that the person was demonstrating compassion?
You act as if it’s a given that anyone who condoned the death penalty for heresy in 16th century Europe is self-evidently worthy of condemnation–as if any “decent people” of the time would have obviously held to the same idea of religious liberty as 21st century Americans. This is ridiculously anachronistic. Even Aquinas, a man you seemingly respect, said, “If the heretic still remains pertinacious the church, despairing of his conversion, provides for the salvation of others by separating him from the church by the sentence of excommunication and then leaves him to the secular judge to be exterminated from the world by death.” (Summa Theologiae, IIaIIae q. 11 a. 3)
The really amazing thing in light of the times is that Servetus was the only person executed in Geneva during Calvin’s lifetime.
Victoria then quotes Calvin’s “Institutes” in which he writes, “For I fear not to declare, that what I have here given may be regarded as a summary of the very doctrine which, they vociferate, ought to be punished with confiscation, exile, imprisonment, and flames, as well as exterminated by land and sea.“
This is an example of typical rhetorical flourish demonstrating honor and allegiance to his king. But when the occasion arose where Calvin was to show his true convictions, he showed that he did believe in execution as a just punishment for publicly propagating heresy, the same as the rest of Europe did. But he believed in doing it in a manner that was quick and painless. And since no one was executed for heresy under Calvin’s authority, we see, too, that Calvin was no Inquisitionist-like “heresy hunter.”
And it’s despicable to see people like Victoria, beneficiaries of the Protestant Reformers, slandering the names of the men God raised up to reform His church. They were men of their own times, not of ours, and some of their views attest to that fact. They were also sinners in need of a Savior, just like we are. But they were godly men as well, faithful to their calling. And we Protestants owe them a debt of gratitude and honor.
Report comment to moderator
Ree – 270
There is nothing anachronistic to what I have posted, it is neither chronologically wrong nor obsolete. What I have posted are factual quotes.
I don’t agree with many of Jon’s arguments regarding the Founding Fathers, that does not mean I can’t agree with him on another topic. You question — “spent this much time in a discussion” — with Jon because I agree with him? – that’s immature – Fair minded has nothing to do with this discussion, you simply don’t like the proof which I have brought forth. You mentioned Dave Hunt (on Whirled Views) as being a source, but obviously there are hundreds of sources, which you either aren’t aware of, OR you hoped no one else had studied.
Report comment to moderator
Ree – 270
Ree there are many strong Evangelical Believers who do not have the high opinion of John Calvin as you do, or many others. Even John Calvin’s descendents and those in Geneva -1903 put up an expiatory monument which excused the error of John Calvin — as they referred to him “our great Reformer” which was guilty of error “which was that of his century” -
IF Calvin knew the Scriptures, WHY did he want Servetus or anyone else murdered for NOT believing as he did? No where did Jesus or HIS disciples request or desire others to be killed because they didn’t believe. John Calvin wasn’t reading his Bible when he became so incensed with Servetus, the passage of Scripture below is in the books of Mark and Luke as well, do you think Calvin had studied those books?
Jesus made it clear —– And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Matthew 10:14
John Calvin was very different, he was unable to contain his anger against Servetus — the way in which Calvin conducted himself was despicable, using the same word, as you have to describe my belief -
Report comment to moderator
Ree — in the past, did you post under the name of ‘Saved by Grace’ ?
Report comment to moderator
Actually Ree I am at a very busy time at my work period (end of semester calculation of 24 credits worth of grades) and so I am just reading/posting at a “surface” level.
I’ll read what you two have to say in detail on the Calvin/Servetus issue and then see if my mind changes.
Though I will note I am someone who tries to 1) read the Bible for what it says — as absolutely unmoored by subsequent “historical” changes, movements and interpretations, and then 2) analyze those historical changes, movements, and biblical interpretations and see how well they match up to “the Bible” taken at face value.
As it stands, I’m not at all convinced that the Bible/Christian religion, properly understood, condemns the notion that we execute heretics because they risk confusing folks into making soul damning error choices. There is a pretty serious argument to be made that heretics, in this regard, are worse than the worst criminals you can imagine (like child molesters and the like). As such, Calvin’s/Rutherford’s ideas of executing heretics and not permitting free exercise of religion, not Roger Williams’/Locke’s/the American Founders’ would be the authentically biblical ones.
Report comment to moderator
Ree — in the past, did you post under the name of ‘Saved by Grace’ ?
No Victoria, I didn’t. And I never had a debate with Jon Rowe under another name. And I never posted on this blog under any other name.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – OK
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing anachronistic to what I have posted, it is neither chronologically wrong nor obsolete. What I have posted are factual quotes.
The standard by which you’re judging is what’s anachronistic.
You mentioned Dave Hunt (on Whirled Views) as being a source, but obviously there are hundreds of sources, which you either aren’t aware of, OR you hoped no one else had studied.
Dave Hunt was mentioned as an example of a specific type of person–a rabidly anti-Calvinistic Christian who has no scruples about boldly misrepresenting that which he criticizes. You’re right that there are countless others like him, though.
Even John Calvin’s descendents and those in Geneva -1903 put up an expiatory monument which excused the error of John Calvin — as they referred to him “our great Reformer” which was guilty of error “which was that of his century” -
The error “which was that of his century.” That’s precisely my point. It was a given in his time that propagators of heresy must be put to death by the state. To single him out as some kind of false Christian for holding that belief is not only unfair, but it’s hypocritical. And to hold him primarily responsible for the death of Servetus is outrageous since he wasn’t the one doing the sentencing. If a defendant is sentenced to death for something you don’t agree should be a capital crime in any other instance, I’m sure you wouldn’t hold an expert witness primarily responsible for the defendant’s death, even if the expert witness agreed that the person’s act was worthy of death.
John Calvin was very different, he was unable to contain his anger against Servetus
If this were true, it would be hard to explain his tearful prayers for the condemned heretic’s repentance and his visit with him in which he pleaded for him to repent.
Report comment to moderator
Ree – 277
YOU WRITE: “The standard by which you’re judging is what’s anachronistic.”
No it isn’t chronologically wrong, do you understand the definition of anachronistic?
anachronistic
Definition:
1. chronologically wrong: belonging to a time other than the one being represented, especially in fiction or drama
2. not appropriate to times: out-of-date or inappropriate at the time in question
Report comment to moderator
Ree – 277
YOU WRITE: “Dave Hunt was mentioned as an example of a specific type of person–a rabidly anti-Calvinistic Christian who has no scruples about boldly misrepresenting that which he criticizes. You’re right that there are countless others like him, though.”
No Ree I didn’t say there are countless others like him, what I did say was:
“You mentioned Dave Hunt (on Whirled Views) as being a source, but obviously there are hundreds of sources, which you either aren’t aware of, OR you hoped no one else had studied.”
Ree if you are going to quote me, then use exact quotes, not reworded to suit your purpose – Those who have studied Calvin and the death of Servetus have documented many of Calvin’s writings, this might be distasteful to many, but it doesn’t change the truth -
Report comment to moderator
Ree – 270
YOU WRITE: “The error “which was that of his century.” That’s precisely my point. It was a given in his time that propagators of heresy must be put to death by the state. To single him out as some kind of false Christian for holding that belief is not only unfair, but it’s hypocritical. And to hold him primarily responsible for the death of Servetus is outrageous since he wasn’t the one doing the sentencing. If a defendant is sentenced to death for something you don’t agree should be a capital crime in any other instance, I’m sure you wouldn’t hold an expert witness primarily responsible for the defendant’s death, even if the expert witness agreed that the person’s act was worthy of death. ”
John Calvin made very clear his anger towards Servetus. As Calvin stated: “If he [Servetus] comes to Geneva, I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.” This in a letter to William Farel on February 13, 1546
Then Calvin further BOASTS: “Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.” letter to Marquis Paet, the chamberlain to King Navarre in 1561
Ree the remark John Calvin writes in his letter to Marquis Paet is undeniably making CRYSTAL CLEAR that Calvin has exterminated Servetus, he gives NO ONE ELSE the honor – Calvin takes the responsibility with great aplomb -
Report comment to moderator
No problem, Jon, if you don’t get to respond or if you take a long time. The thread may still be open whenever you get around to it, but if not, that’s fine, too.
In regard “the Bible taken at face value,” keep in mind that the Bible can’t be rightfully understood apart from its correct religious and cultural context. The various books of Scripture were written within a particular cultural milieu, and the better understanding one has of Hebraic culture, the better one’s exegesis is likely to be.
Report comment to moderator
The Word of GOD can be understood only through the guidance of the Holy Spirit – man believes it is only possible with cultural ties to the past, but that is just a guess at best, with no proof.
The Bible is different than any other book on earth – God in his infinite knowledge makes possible the truth to those who seek HIM – that includes understanding of HIS Word – He never changes -
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Hebrews 13:8
Lets not forget that Christ picked men who were fishermen, tentmakers and a tax collector as HIS disciples – yet man today believes himself so wise so arrogant that he alone, knowing all the languages, be it Latin, Greek Aramaic, and Hebrew are the only individuals who know the truth of God’s Word – nothing could be further from the truth –
Now we come to culture, as if anyone today actually understands the heart of culture in the day of our LORD, over 2,000 years ago – it is with false intellectual pride, that anyone can truly say they know the pulse of those days so long ago.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I’m not denying any of the writings you’ve cited, and I’ve already explained the context. Now are you claiming that Calvin actually did the sentencing? Or that he had some authority over the tribunal that sentenced him? If you are, then you’re ignoring the historical record.
Calvin, like all of Christendom, thought of the propogators of heresy pretty much the same way you think of Islamic terrorists. Their purpose was to wreak havoc on a society and to turn God’s people away from the truth. His first hope for Servetus was for him to repent, but if he refused, then yes, Calvin wanted him put to death by the state. That was the law of the land at the time, and the weasly Servetus was already under another death sentence from a Roman Catholic tribunal when he disguised himself and escaped to Geneva, presumably hoping for more favorable treatment there. He knew that his main opposition in Geneva, John Calvin, was imprisoned by the authorities at the time, so apparently he hoped that, in all of Christendom, he might be safe there. He was a heretic who wrote a long treatise propogating his heresy, but unlike the men of courage and conviction of the time, he was a coward who assumed a false identity and hoped not to be discovered.
You can indict Calvin if you like, but you can’t do it without indicting all of Christendom for how they dealt with heresy unless you’re okay with being a hypocrite. I have no problem with that, though.
Report comment to moderator
The Word of GOD can be understood only through the guidance of the Holy Spirit
I agree that the gospel can only be genuinely understood through the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit. The message of the cross is foolishness to the world because, the worldly man acknowledges neither his own sinful estate, nor the holiness of God. Therefore, he doesn’t understand his desperate need for a Savior. And, yes, that which is necessary for salvation is clearly proclaimed in Scripture, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the Scriptures were written during particular times and places in particular languages and that, therefore, a deeper knowledge of those things is helpful for understanding meaning and context.
There are some secular scholars, and even some unregenerate “Christian” scholars, who because of their studies, could teach Christians a lot about the Scriptures, but for whom the message of salvation doesn’t penetrate because they don’t recognize their need for God or for reconciliation with God. That’s where the Holy Spirit comes in. But the Scriptures aren’t some kind of gnostic writings that require some special initiation to decipher their meaning.
Report comment to moderator
REE – 283
YOU WRITE: “Calvin, like all of Christendom, thought of the propogators of heresy pretty much the same way you think of Islamic terrorists.”
Ree, the above statement makes no sense, and it certainly hasn’t anything to do with what we are discussing. Comparing Islamic terrorists to Servetus or anyone like him is nothing more than hysteria – and then you throw me into the mix as an agreement to what you wrote –
Whatever Calvin “thought” he was not referring to the Word of God, he (Calvin) was filled with hate and anger at anyone who disagreed with him. This has nothing to do with “Islamic terrorists” –
Christ didn’t preach, nor did HIS disciples anything that would have led anyone to kill someone like Servetus, – the other point is, Calvin did want Servetus to be “exterminated” he also boasts that he (Calvin) was responsible.
It really makes no difference as to who did the sentencing, Calvin states ”I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard” so in essence Calvin is triumphant at his accomplishment, believe that he had “exterminated” the man who disagreed with him.
YOU WRITE: “You can indict Calvin if you like, but you can’t do it without indicting all of Christendom for how they dealt with heresy unless you’re okay with being a hypocrite. I have no problem with that, though.
I don’t indict Calvin, he indicts himself – His letter to Marquis Paet, the chamberlain to King Navarre in 1561 was more than enough to indict him -
Report comment to moderator
(92) – “Now for Joseph Smith (founder of Mormons) His church wasn’t publicly until 1838 that was two years after James Madison died.”
Victoria, you crack me up.
Back in comments 92 and 100, you make a big hubub about Jon mixing up dates on Mormonism’s founding and the death of Madison, and how you supposedly caught him red-handed in some web of lies, and how dare anyone think that they could know more than you about the Mormon church.
*Newsflash* – Joseph Smith founded the Church of Christ (later renamed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in 1830. Even before the church was officially founded, the movement was hardly unheard of. News of the publishing of the Book of Mormon and Smith’s “gold bible” was hot news in New England throughout the late 1820s and early 1830s, and you can find articles in the New York Times archive. Although this was completely irrelevant to Jon’s point, I found it amusing that you would call him out with such vitriol when in fact you had your own dates wrong.
If you want a good scholarly treatment of Joseph Smith and early Mormonism, try Columbia University historian Richard Bushman’s “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” (Knopf, 2005). Probably the most thorough and balanced biography on Joseph Smith to date.
Judging from your comments, I find your claim to any kind of accurate knowledge on Mormonism highly suspect. I would be very wary of the countercult info that you seem to be steeped in. You can read all of the fad diet books you can get your hands on, but that doesn’t make you an expert on nutrition.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!