Friday, May 29, 2009
Homosexual...Marriage???
Let me start by being clear on two points.
1) I do not believe in homosexual people; so there is no point, in my mind, in determining whether people are "born this way" or not. I believe people, through corrupt culture or other psychological reasons, have physical attraction to persons of the same sex.
2) Homosexual intercourse, like other sins of the flesh, are "that which is against the order of reason" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Question 153). Therefore, it is sinful; just like masturbation, fornication, adultery, and abortion. The reason for intercourse is the solidification of the marital bond and procreation. In the nature of sins is that there are characterized by excess. Homosexual intercourse serves no societal useful end but immediate gratification (similar to adultery). It is similar to mutual masturbation.
After those two whoppers, I should be clear to the reader that I believe there is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" and, given the fact that we are social beings, the state has a compelling interest in limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
I do have empathy for those you suffer SSA. Likewise, I empathize with those you suffer an inordinate attraction to extra-marital relations, fornication, pornography, or child molestation. By the way, let me be CRYSTAL CLEAR, I am NOT advocating legalizing punishment of people who identify themselves as "homosexuals". I am saying that I believe, based on reason and revelation that homosexual intercourse is gravely sinful and, therefore, that homosexual marriage should NOT be recognized by the state. Please do not have faith-a-phobia and misconstrue my words.
1) I do not believe in homosexual people; so there is no point, in my mind, in determining whether people are "born this way" or not. I believe people, through corrupt culture or other psychological reasons, have physical attraction to persons of the same sex.
2) Homosexual intercourse, like other sins of the flesh, are "that which is against the order of reason" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Question 153). Therefore, it is sinful; just like masturbation, fornication, adultery, and abortion. The reason for intercourse is the solidification of the marital bond and procreation. In the nature of sins is that there are characterized by excess. Homosexual intercourse serves no societal useful end but immediate gratification (similar to adultery). It is similar to mutual masturbation.
After those two whoppers, I should be clear to the reader that I believe there is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" and, given the fact that we are social beings, the state has a compelling interest in limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
I do have empathy for those you suffer SSA. Likewise, I empathize with those you suffer an inordinate attraction to extra-marital relations, fornication, pornography, or child molestation. By the way, let me be CRYSTAL CLEAR, I am NOT advocating legalizing punishment of people who identify themselves as "homosexuals". I am saying that I believe, based on reason and revelation that homosexual intercourse is gravely sinful and, therefore, that homosexual marriage should NOT be recognized by the state. Please do not have faith-a-phobia and misconstrue my words.
"Let us also go, that we may die with Him." (John 11:16 RSV)
This passage intrigued me, since the first time I read it, especially when read in its context, like here. On the surface, it seems to be a noble, even heroic, testimony to the truth of Jesus' mission and the apostles willingness to die for it. However, when read in the context of the remainder of Gospel accounts, we hear that "they all left him and fled" (Mark 14:50, NAB). It is, plainly, a fair assumption that "all" included Thomas. Additionally, when we read John 11:16 in light of St. Thomas' (the Apostle) later interaction with the Glorified, Risen Christ (John 20:24-28), I think, it is apparent that St. Thomas the Apostle did not clearly understand the implication and ramification of his statement in John 10:16.
It seems to me most people. even today, skim over this text without giving it much practical consideration. In Luke 9:23, Jesus is reported to have said "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me". This is in contrast to another reference to taking up one's cross (Mark 8:34), which omits the adjective daily, in the Greek text. It seems that, for the sake of consistency, the adjective (daily) should be explicate our understanding of Mark 8:34. Maybe St. Thomas the Apostle thought of one famous, heroic stand with Jesus, in which they would triumph and vanquish their opponents, when he suggested following Jesus. Jesus, though, shows us another picture of what St. Thomas' word should mean. The secret to followings looks, to me, that it lies in the constant or daily battles and temptations that we face. The victory appears to be through the struggles; similar to Hemingway's fisherman. On a more personal note, one of the biggest stumbling blocks between Christianity and myself is the flippant or, more tragically, doctrinal airbrushing that Christians give to this call to martyrdom. It is clear, to me, that Christ wants the reality of self-sacrifice to innundate the life of the believer, not merely be an accident of heritage. This call that St. Thomas the Apostle made needs to be heeded daily and dictate ALL actions that a Christian's life; speech, dress, mannerism, etc. Jesus himself tells us what the proper response to this call is in Luke 9,
"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?"
In summary, Jesus is NOT a get-out-of-hell-free card! Also, see an entry from another blog on the same topic here.
It seems to me most people. even today, skim over this text without giving it much practical consideration. In Luke 9:23, Jesus is reported to have said "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me". This is in contrast to another reference to taking up one's cross (Mark 8:34), which omits the adjective daily, in the Greek text. It seems that, for the sake of consistency, the adjective (daily) should be explicate our understanding of Mark 8:34. Maybe St. Thomas the Apostle thought of one famous, heroic stand with Jesus, in which they would triumph and vanquish their opponents, when he suggested following Jesus. Jesus, though, shows us another picture of what St. Thomas' word should mean. The secret to followings looks, to me, that it lies in the constant or daily battles and temptations that we face. The victory appears to be through the struggles; similar to Hemingway's fisherman. On a more personal note, one of the biggest stumbling blocks between Christianity and myself is the flippant or, more tragically, doctrinal airbrushing that Christians give to this call to martyrdom. It is clear, to me, that Christ wants the reality of self-sacrifice to innundate the life of the believer, not merely be an accident of heritage. This call that St. Thomas the Apostle made needs to be heeded daily and dictate ALL actions that a Christian's life; speech, dress, mannerism, etc. Jesus himself tells us what the proper response to this call is in Luke 9,
"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?"
In summary, Jesus is NOT a get-out-of-hell-free card! Also, see an entry from another blog on the same topic here.
The Only Story Ever Told
My family and I just completed reading through the "Chronicles of Prydain" series, that was written by Lloyd Alexander in the middle to late 1960's and 1970's. It is a fabulous repackaging of classic Welsh mythology. All of us thoroughly enjoyed the series; so much so that I even engaged the idea for a moment that I preferred Prydain and its cast of characters to Middle Earth or Narnia. But then, I came to my senses ;->. I still prefer Tolkein and Lewis stories because of their strong spiritually allegorical feel. That being said, Prydain's heroes and villans, while lacking the allegorical quality of the aforementioned fantasy lands, are more human and, generally, less dour. I recommend this series to all.
While reading the books, it occurred to me, again and again, that good stories seem to share similar plots. They seems to inevitably revolve around good and evil, right and wrong. It may be that this is somewhat isolated to the historical-based fantasy. Nevertheless, some variation of the good versus evil them seems to abound it almost all stories. For example, the Thousand and One Nights stories have similar plots and these are, by no means, "Western" stories. By the way, I would also like to recommend "Arabian Nights" program that was produced for TV in 2000 by Hallmark. It starred Mili Avital and is a nice introduction to the Thousand and One Nights and the special effects weren't bad either, for TV.
I think the similarities in story speak to a common desire to utilize story, generally, and words, specifically, to give us meaning. We, as humans, desire meaning and purpose. We desire "The Good" of Aristotle. When we tell stories, we transcend ourselves. We see that what we are is not all we can be. We learn what we ought to be, in fact, what we MUST be. As it is stated by one of the characters in "Castle of Llyr", "Child, child, do you not see? For each of us comes a time when we must be more than what we are."
We are to be heroes; more than what our biology or psychology tells us! We are to live, love, fight, and have adventures; forget Satre's mundane existentialism! The adventures comes when we have purpose and meaning. We are to, like St. George, slay our dragons. The interesting thing is that, most often, our inordinate desires are our own dragons. These dragons can only be faced through inner struggle against the self. Taran, the hero of Prydain, starts as an impatient youth of quite poor judgement (for an assistant pig-keeper) and ends up as the "High King". He learns many lessons, along the way, but one of the lessons subsumes them all. In order to find oneself, one must lose oneself. Specifically, one must lose oneself to others. Our dragons of selfishness, pride, hatred, deception, etc can only be overcome by sacrificing them on the altar of others' needs.
Jesus said in St. Matthew's Gospel, "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it". This is just one of the similar themes that are shared between Christ's teachings and various stories. Even Harry Potter has to sacrifice himself for his friends. The values preached in the Christian tradition seem to resound so widely, across the history of story, that it makes me think that the Gospels are NOT the "Best Story Ever Told". Perhaps, it is the ONLY STORY EVER TOLD!
While reading the books, it occurred to me, again and again, that good stories seem to share similar plots. They seems to inevitably revolve around good and evil, right and wrong. It may be that this is somewhat isolated to the historical-based fantasy. Nevertheless, some variation of the good versus evil them seems to abound it almost all stories. For example, the Thousand and One Nights stories have similar plots and these are, by no means, "Western" stories. By the way, I would also like to recommend "Arabian Nights" program that was produced for TV in 2000 by Hallmark. It starred Mili Avital and is a nice introduction to the Thousand and One Nights and the special effects weren't bad either, for TV.
I think the similarities in story speak to a common desire to utilize story, generally, and words, specifically, to give us meaning. We, as humans, desire meaning and purpose. We desire "The Good" of Aristotle. When we tell stories, we transcend ourselves. We see that what we are is not all we can be. We learn what we ought to be, in fact, what we MUST be. As it is stated by one of the characters in "Castle of Llyr", "Child, child, do you not see? For each of us comes a time when we must be more than what we are."
We are to be heroes; more than what our biology or psychology tells us! We are to live, love, fight, and have adventures; forget Satre's mundane existentialism! The adventures comes when we have purpose and meaning. We are to, like St. George, slay our dragons. The interesting thing is that, most often, our inordinate desires are our own dragons. These dragons can only be faced through inner struggle against the self. Taran, the hero of Prydain, starts as an impatient youth of quite poor judgement (for an assistant pig-keeper) and ends up as the "High King". He learns many lessons, along the way, but one of the lessons subsumes them all. In order to find oneself, one must lose oneself. Specifically, one must lose oneself to others. Our dragons of selfishness, pride, hatred, deception, etc can only be overcome by sacrificing them on the altar of others' needs.
Jesus said in St. Matthew's Gospel, "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it". This is just one of the similar themes that are shared between Christ's teachings and various stories. Even Harry Potter has to sacrifice himself for his friends. The values preached in the Christian tradition seem to resound so widely, across the history of story, that it makes me think that the Gospels are NOT the "Best Story Ever Told". Perhaps, it is the ONLY STORY EVER TOLD!
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Evolution is not threat to religion, but to rationality
The title of this entry is a paraphrase, hopefully accurate, of a quote that I recall from G.K. Chesterton. I have been reading a lot of Chesterton recently. He was a British poet, playwright, novelist, and cultural critic who lived 29 May 1874 – 14 June 1936. My first exposure to his work was a production of his play, "The Surprise", on EWTN by the Theatre of the Word Incorporated. The play was nicely done and I enjoyed it. After that play, I resolved to familiarize myself with his works. Upon completion of the first chapter of his book "Orthodoxy", it became apparent that I should proceed with further reading. Subsequently, I read and enjoyed "The Everlasting Man", "Saint Thomas Aquinas", and "Saint Francis of Assisi". Also, I plan to continue reading his works.
He has been labelled the "Apostle of Common Sense" by the American Chesterton Society and, in my opinion, it is very appropriate. Although he was writing in the early 1900s, he, in many instances, seems to be writing for the 21st century. H
e had a wonderfully entertaining style of rhetoric that, to our detriment, has fallen out of fashion. My own personal theory is that one can become more intelligent by reading G.K. Chesterton. The implication is, clearly, that I should continue to read his works, then.
Although the physical sciences were not a specialty of his, nor was he trained in any of them, he had a unique way of reducing seemingly complex scientific issues to basic, logically discourse. I am sure that many dogmatic scientific naturalists may refute this. I argue, though, that he did not need to know the "nuts and bolts" of any scientific discipline to discuss the moral and ethical implications of them. Some of his thoughts on evolution, for example, do not "expose" evolution. However, they do propose some views of evolution that most people do not initially see.
He does not attempt to rebut evolution and rightfully so, in my opinion. Modern science has been a boon for us, medically, physically, environmentally, etc. The study of evolutionary science, for example, attempts to give us a glimpse into HOW the physical world we know has come about. It cannot , however, give us answers to the WHY questions, that must be engaged to answer the question of how we should live.
In this vein, G.K. Chesterton, mentioned something to the effect that evolution is no threat to religion, but, is a threat to rationality. The first proposition is easily proven by looking at the various charismatic religious movements in the world. Modern science has not, in any way, slowed the propogation of emotive approaches to any number of religions or irreligions. Soren Kiergegaard may have been on to something.
As regards the second statement, that evolution may be a threat to rationality, Chesterton may have just been restated Charles Darwin's own concern that his evolutionary theory raises other questions. Basically, the question of whether we should even trust our understanding of the sciences, if our minds are the result of an incomplete evolutionary process. It may be that Atheism is a Darwinian misfire.
He has been labelled the "Apostle of Common Sense" by the American Chesterton Society and, in my opinion, it is very appropriate. Although he was writing in the early 1900s, he, in many instances, seems to be writing for the 21st century. H
e had a wonderfully entertaining style of rhetoric that, to our detriment, has fallen out of fashion. My own personal theory is that one can become more intelligent by reading G.K. Chesterton. The implication is, clearly, that I should continue to read his works, then.Although the physical sciences were not a specialty of his, nor was he trained in any of them, he had a unique way of reducing seemingly complex scientific issues to basic, logically discourse. I am sure that many dogmatic scientific naturalists may refute this. I argue, though, that he did not need to know the "nuts and bolts" of any scientific discipline to discuss the moral and ethical implications of them. Some of his thoughts on evolution, for example, do not "expose" evolution. However, they do propose some views of evolution that most people do not initially see.
He does not attempt to rebut evolution and rightfully so, in my opinion. Modern science has been a boon for us, medically, physically, environmentally, etc. The study of evolutionary science, for example, attempts to give us a glimpse into HOW the physical world we know has come about. It cannot , however, give us answers to the WHY questions, that must be engaged to answer the question of how we should live.
In this vein, G.K. Chesterton, mentioned something to the effect that evolution is no threat to religion, but, is a threat to rationality. The first proposition is easily proven by looking at the various charismatic religious movements in the world. Modern science has not, in any way, slowed the propogation of emotive approaches to any number of religions or irreligions. Soren Kiergegaard may have been on to something.
As regards the second statement, that evolution may be a threat to rationality, Chesterton may have just been restated Charles Darwin's own concern that his evolutionary theory raises other questions. Basically, the question of whether we should even trust our understanding of the sciences, if our minds are the result of an incomplete evolutionary process. It may be that Atheism is a Darwinian misfire.
Friday, May 22, 2009
I think, therefore I blog
"Je pense donc je suis".
Rene Descartes wrote these famous words in his remarkable philosophical work "Discourse on Method" in 1637. I thought that, perhaps, it was appropriate to begin my first substantive blog entry with an seemingly obscure reference to Monsieur Descartes' notorious statement. My decision is due to the fact that I, above all else, believe in rationality. I accept Descartes' basic premise that the our starting point for discovery, whether scientific or metaphysical, must begin with the assumption that something called rationality exists. It is an appropriate introduction to myself and why I am engaged in blogging.
While purposely maintaining my anonymity, I will attempt to layout a few of the key elements that have contributed to building my worldview. I could discuss, in today's entry, many of these elements. However, due to time limitations and boredom of whatever readers may exist, I will confine myself to but one of these, as it is the primary factor. It is religion and philosophy.
I was raised as a nominal protestant Christian in the United States. Religion was only a minor influence through most of my childhood. However, I, for whatever reason, became extremely interested in Christianity and religion, in general, in my teens. As it turned out, this was a phase that I was passing through until my early adult years. By the time, I had reached my twenties, I was a devout skeptic and dabbled in socialism. Eventually, I found my way back to theism, in the form of Islam. The clarity and authority of Islam, or at least my perception of it, was impressive to me. After many years of practicing Islam, I realized that I have too many questions about Islam to continue to practice it, in good conscience. Although I am now longer Muslim, however, many aspects of Islam still resonate with me, though. The last, and perhaps final, phase has been Christianity. Although, still not a being of a specific denomination, I am feeling out various forms of Christianity. I have never been drawn back to atheism, in any form. It seems too much of a leap of faith to conclude that there is no such thing as rationality; as this is the ultimate conclusion that must be drawn from the assumption that a higher intellect cannot exist. In the present age, atheism, popularly believed, is merely hedonism without a philosophical backbone. I think that one has much more intellectual integrity in being an agnostic, as opposed to an atheist. Perhaps the greatest response to the question of God is recorded in the Gospel of Saint Mark,
Rene Descartes wrote these famous words in his remarkable philosophical work "Discourse on Method" in 1637. I thought that, perhaps, it was appropriate to begin my first substantive blog entry with an seemingly obscure reference to Monsieur Descartes' notorious statement. My decision is due to the fact that I, above all else, believe in rationality. I accept Descartes' basic premise that the our starting point for discovery, whether scientific or metaphysical, must begin with the assumption that something called rationality exists. It is an appropriate introduction to myself and why I am engaged in blogging.
While purposely maintaining my anonymity, I will attempt to layout a few of the key elements that have contributed to building my worldview. I could discuss, in today's entry, many of these elements. However, due to time limitations and boredom of whatever readers may exist, I will confine myself to but one of these, as it is the primary factor. It is religion and philosophy.
I was raised as a nominal protestant Christian in the United States. Religion was only a minor influence through most of my childhood. However, I, for whatever reason, became extremely interested in Christianity and religion, in general, in my teens. As it turned out, this was a phase that I was passing through until my early adult years. By the time, I had reached my twenties, I was a devout skeptic and dabbled in socialism. Eventually, I found my way back to theism, in the form of Islam. The clarity and authority of Islam, or at least my perception of it, was impressive to me. After many years of practicing Islam, I realized that I have too many questions about Islam to continue to practice it, in good conscience. Although I am now longer Muslim, however, many aspects of Islam still resonate with me, though. The last, and perhaps final, phase has been Christianity. Although, still not a being of a specific denomination, I am feeling out various forms of Christianity. I have never been drawn back to atheism, in any form. It seems too much of a leap of faith to conclude that there is no such thing as rationality; as this is the ultimate conclusion that must be drawn from the assumption that a higher intellect cannot exist. In the present age, atheism, popularly believed, is merely hedonism without a philosophical backbone. I think that one has much more intellectual integrity in being an agnostic, as opposed to an atheist. Perhaps the greatest response to the question of God is recorded in the Gospel of Saint Mark,
"Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!".
Blogging
Hello,
Woohoo! I have started a blog...finally! I am very excited for the opportunity to spout my musings to the world in a blog, as opposed to continually ranting to my wife. She has become accustomed to patiently awaiting interludes in my rants and adding vocal acknowledgements of her agreement or disinterest.
I intend to blog about various issues. However, I am certain that a few, apparently, disjointed subjects will monopolize my thoughts, though. My primary interests are, seemingly, quite varied. For example, I am may one day blog concerning hockey fights and the next day's subject may be transubstantiation.
My primary hope is that readers of my blog; if there, indeed, are any, will be encouraged to think about the sundry issues, beyond the headline. One of the problems in the world today is the mass media. While it provides a valuable service in keeping the populace, generally, abreast of important events. It too often descends into headlinization. Oops. The spell checker does not seems to like that word. Oh well. What I mean is that, in many instances (perhaps most), the mass media reduces an article of news to a headline. There will be no discussion or dialog of the nuance of the issue. This is a point I hope to discuss further in an upcoming blog. Hopefully, my blog will go beyond headlines and attempt to engage the issue on a deeper level; whether the blog entry concerns a news article or a theological musing. Perhaps, though, I am overvaluing my two cents.
Woohoo! I have started a blog...finally! I am very excited for the opportunity to spout my musings to the world in a blog, as opposed to continually ranting to my wife. She has become accustomed to patiently awaiting interludes in my rants and adding vocal acknowledgements of her agreement or disinterest.
I intend to blog about various issues. However, I am certain that a few, apparently, disjointed subjects will monopolize my thoughts, though. My primary interests are, seemingly, quite varied. For example, I am may one day blog concerning hockey fights and the next day's subject may be transubstantiation.
My primary hope is that readers of my blog; if there, indeed, are any, will be encouraged to think about the sundry issues, beyond the headline. One of the problems in the world today is the mass media. While it provides a valuable service in keeping the populace, generally, abreast of important events. It too often descends into headlinization. Oops. The spell checker does not seems to like that word. Oh well. What I mean is that, in many instances (perhaps most), the mass media reduces an article of news to a headline. There will be no discussion or dialog of the nuance of the issue. This is a point I hope to discuss further in an upcoming blog. Hopefully, my blog will go beyond headlines and attempt to engage the issue on a deeper level; whether the blog entry concerns a news article or a theological musing. Perhaps, though, I am overvaluing my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
