Homosexuality & abusing priests

A $2 million study of the priest child abuse scandal, paid for in part by the Roman Catholic Church,  takes the politically-correct position that homosexuality had nothing to do with it.  Louie Verrecchio, himself a Catholic, disagrees, based on the report’s own data:

On May 18, researchers from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice released their long-awaited final report, “Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010.”

The research team, led by Karen Terry, Ph.D., gathered an impressive amount of information from which they drew a number of conclusions; the most unsettling of which is the claim that homosexuality is unrelated to the abuse (particularly of adolescent males, the primary victims in the crisis.)

Though 81 percent of the victims were post-pubescent males, researchers downplayed the homosexual connection by suggesting that this simply reflects the fact that offenders had greater access to boys. The report also proposes the possibility that, “Although the victims of priests were most often male, thus defining the acts as homosexual, the priest did not at any time recognize his identity as homosexual.”

A less politically correct conclusion, it would seem, is to acknowledge that the offending clerics were perhaps unwilling to take “ownership” of their struggle with homosexuality. In any event, this line of argument appears to be little more than a red herring.

According to Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a consultant to the Vatican Congregation for Clergy and a leading expert on clerical sex abuse, how an abuser may “recognize” himself is not entirely relevant; rather, the homosexual acts alone testify to “deep seated” homosexuality.

“We are identified by our behavior,” Dr. Fitzgibbons said in a recent telephone interview. “The attempt to distance the homosexual acts in question from a personal struggle against SSA (Same Sex Attraction) on the part of the abuser is inconsistent with clinical data.”

Information found in the report itself also strongly suggests that the abuse is directly related to homosexuality. For instance: “This excuse (that the victim initiated physical intimacy) was particularly common for priests who were accused of abusing adolescents, who referred to the abuse as a ‘relationship.’”

Does this scenario, in which an adult male imagines that he is involved in a sexually active consenting “relationship” with an adolescent boy, describe a heterosexual crime of convenience? So determined to deny the obvious, the John Jay researchers are at pains to have you believe that it does.

The report also reveals that abusers often “groomed” their victims over a period of time prior to the onset of abuse; where grooming is defined as “a premeditated behavior intended to manipulate the potential victim into complying.”

This information effectively undermines the “crime of convenience” explanation for the preponderance of adolescent male victims. It also clearly indicates a direct connection to homosexuality, but the John Jay researchers resolutely insist otherwise claiming that the abusers were simply men who “appear to have had certain vulnerabilities to commit abuse (for example, emotional congruence with children or adolescents), experienced increased stressors from work (for example, having recently received more responsibilities, such as becoming a pastor), and had opportunities to abuse (for example, unguarded access to minors).” 

via John Jay Study: A $2 million exercise in political correctness :: Catholic News Agency (CNA).

The abusers had “vulnerabilities to commit abuse”?  They were vulnerable?  So  they were the victims?

HT:  David Mills

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    This is what happens when you break down all of history and society into Marxist categories of “victim” and “victimizer”: everyone becomes a victim. And how post-modern is it to find in the abusing Priest an underlying psychological anomaly that makes him “vulnerable”? I would enjoy hearing French philosopher Foucault’s (author of Discipline and Punish) comments here. He argued that as the Western penal system switched its focus from punishing the body (corporal punishment) to punishing the soul (psychological analysis), incidents of the particular crime would climb.

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    This is what happens when you break down all of history and society into Marxist categories of “victim” and “victimizer”: everyone becomes a victim. And how post-modern is it to find in the abusing Priest an underlying psychological anomaly that makes him “vulnerable”? I would enjoy hearing French philosopher Foucault’s (author of Discipline and Punish) comments here. He argued that as the Western penal system switched its focus from punishing the body (corporal punishment) to punishing the soul (psychological analysis), incidents of the particular crime would climb.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I would add to Mark’s comment (@1) that psychology does this as well. Everything is somebody else’s fault; nothing is yours.

    There is no room for Original Sin in psychology. Add to that the fact that the founders of psychology approached humanity from an atheistic position, and you have something that is at odds with Christianity.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I would add to Mark’s comment (@1) that psychology does this as well. Everything is somebody else’s fault; nothing is yours.

    There is no room for Original Sin in psychology. Add to that the fact that the founders of psychology approached humanity from an atheistic position, and you have something that is at odds with Christianity.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I read one guy who stated, “The fact that homosexual priests molested kids tells you a lot about the Roman Catholic Church, but absolutely nothing about gays.” He also noted that some like to pretend they are so smart by going with other than obvious explanations for things.

    Ockham’s razor?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I read one guy who stated, “The fact that homosexual priests molested kids tells you a lot about the Roman Catholic Church, but absolutely nothing about gays.” He also noted that some like to pretend they are so smart by going with other than obvious explanations for things.

    Ockham’s razor?

  • Tom Hering

    “… some like to pretend they are so smart by going with other than obvious explanations for things.”

    Blame the flower children. That seems to be the chief conclusion of a new report about the Roman Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal. The study, undertaken by John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the request of America’s Catholic bishops, links the spike in child abuse by priests in the 1960s and ’70s to “the importance given to young people and popular culture” — along with the emergence of the feminist movement, a “singles culture” and a growing acceptance of homosexuality. It also cites crime, drugs, an increase in premarital sexual behavior and divorce.

    The problem with this conclusion isn’t that it absolves molesting priests of responsibility.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-abuse-20110521,0,1610894.story

  • Tom Hering

    “… some like to pretend they are so smart by going with other than obvious explanations for things.”

    Blame the flower children. That seems to be the chief conclusion of a new report about the Roman Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal. The study, undertaken by John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the request of America’s Catholic bishops, links the spike in child abuse by priests in the 1960s and ’70s to “the importance given to young people and popular culture” — along with the emergence of the feminist movement, a “singles culture” and a growing acceptance of homosexuality. It also cites crime, drugs, an increase in premarital sexual behavior and divorce.

    The problem with this conclusion isn’t that it absolves molesting priests of responsibility.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-abuse-20110521,0,1610894.story

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    One can quibble over whether it’s homosexuality or pederasty, and torture out a differentiation, but I would have to assume that a precondition for sexual abuse of anyone would be the abuser’s sexual attraction to the person to be abused, no?

    Or are we too “smart” these days to figure out things like this?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    One can quibble over whether it’s homosexuality or pederasty, and torture out a differentiation, but I would have to assume that a precondition for sexual abuse of anyone would be the abuser’s sexual attraction to the person to be abused, no?

    Or are we too “smart” these days to figure out things like this?

  • Joe

    Bike – @ 5 “but I would have to assume that a precondition for sexual abuse of anyone would be the abuser’s sexual attraction to the person to be abused, no?”

    I am not sure that this is correct. While some level of attraction toward the abused probably plays a minor role, in cases of abuse the attraction is not toward the victim but toward the power and control of being able to abuse another person. the victim is generally interchangeable.

  • Joe

    Bike – @ 5 “but I would have to assume that a precondition for sexual abuse of anyone would be the abuser’s sexual attraction to the person to be abused, no?”

    I am not sure that this is correct. While some level of attraction toward the abused probably plays a minor role, in cases of abuse the attraction is not toward the victim but toward the power and control of being able to abuse another person. the victim is generally interchangeable.

  • Pete

    sg (@3) said: “..some like to pretend they are so smart by going with other than obvious explanations for things.”

    Preach it, brother.

    Does anyone imagine that defining a vocation that requires one to be a) male, and b) celibate, and confers both lofty authority and prolonged and relatively unsupervised access to altar boys won’t result in this sort of thing?

    Does the enforced celibacy and gender segregation of prison seem to lead to homosexual practices?

    Has the transition to co-ed living arrangements at colleges and universities been accompanied by increased heterosexual activity among students? Or (perhaps easier to find stats) an uptick in STD’s? (I honestly don’t know the answer to this one, but I can make a pretty good guess and am hoping someone on the blog might have figures)

    Does switching to Geico…….?

    Dope slap to the Roman Catholic church and to society in general. Pogo was right.

  • Pete

    sg (@3) said: “..some like to pretend they are so smart by going with other than obvious explanations for things.”

    Preach it, brother.

    Does anyone imagine that defining a vocation that requires one to be a) male, and b) celibate, and confers both lofty authority and prolonged and relatively unsupervised access to altar boys won’t result in this sort of thing?

    Does the enforced celibacy and gender segregation of prison seem to lead to homosexual practices?

    Has the transition to co-ed living arrangements at colleges and universities been accompanied by increased heterosexual activity among students? Or (perhaps easier to find stats) an uptick in STD’s? (I honestly don’t know the answer to this one, but I can make a pretty good guess and am hoping someone on the blog might have figures)

    Does switching to Geico…….?

    Dope slap to the Roman Catholic church and to society in general. Pogo was right.

  • Kimberly

    Information found in the report itself also strongly suggests that the abuse is directly related to homosexuality. For instance: “This excuse (that the victim initiated physical intimacy) was particularly common for priests who were accused of abusing adolescents, who referred to the abuse as a ‘relationship.’”

    This excuse is sick and absurd. The adolescents initiated the “relationships”? Utterly disgusting. The priests were adults; they knew it was wrong; it was their responsibility to say “no” before it ever got started if the youth were initiating (which is HIGHLY unlikely). In any other discussion of sexual abuse this line of reasoning would be seen for what it is: vile, irresponsible blaming of the victim for the abuser’s “mistake”.

    It is truly horrifying that people who have vowed to serve the Church would try to cover up such sin and then blame it on the little ones they hurt. God have mercy on the RCC and may the Gospel still reach and heal the elect.

  • Kimberly

    Information found in the report itself also strongly suggests that the abuse is directly related to homosexuality. For instance: “This excuse (that the victim initiated physical intimacy) was particularly common for priests who were accused of abusing adolescents, who referred to the abuse as a ‘relationship.’”

    This excuse is sick and absurd. The adolescents initiated the “relationships”? Utterly disgusting. The priests were adults; they knew it was wrong; it was their responsibility to say “no” before it ever got started if the youth were initiating (which is HIGHLY unlikely). In any other discussion of sexual abuse this line of reasoning would be seen for what it is: vile, irresponsible blaming of the victim for the abuser’s “mistake”.

    It is truly horrifying that people who have vowed to serve the Church would try to cover up such sin and then blame it on the little ones they hurt. God have mercy on the RCC and may the Gospel still reach and heal the elect.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Joe @ 6

    Situations like this always involve power and control not because they aren’t primarily about erotic love, but because erotic love hinges on authority and submission (which become corrupted into control as erotic love itself is corrupted into rape). Just consider the most common romantic cliches–being swept off your feet, or falling head over heels in love. It’s not coincidental that romantic language tends to imply being subject to somebody else.

    The line that rape is really about power generally comes from dialectics that reduce all human interaction to issues of power. These reductions are believable because of the nature of erotic love and the consequent observations of erotic love in action, but rape is really an act of eroticism, not of power as such. So it is here. It really is about sex and attraction; sex just happens to be multi-faceted.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Joe @ 6

    Situations like this always involve power and control not because they aren’t primarily about erotic love, but because erotic love hinges on authority and submission (which become corrupted into control as erotic love itself is corrupted into rape). Just consider the most common romantic cliches–being swept off your feet, or falling head over heels in love. It’s not coincidental that romantic language tends to imply being subject to somebody else.

    The line that rape is really about power generally comes from dialectics that reduce all human interaction to issues of power. These reductions are believable because of the nature of erotic love and the consequent observations of erotic love in action, but rape is really an act of eroticism, not of power as such. So it is here. It really is about sex and attraction; sex just happens to be multi-faceted.

  • Pingback: Shocking Home Office report reveals that in Britain every 20 minutes a child is sexually abused | iToD Daily

  • Pingback: Shocking Home Office report reveals that in Britain every 20 minutes a child is sexually abused | iToD Daily

  • steve

    The conclusions are not all too surprising in light of the current trend to classify people by how they identify (read “feel about”) themselves. If a person with male genitalia who feels like a woman, is a woman, then why wouldn’t a person that conducts primarily homosexual acts who feels like a heterosexual, be a heterosexual?

  • steve

    The conclusions are not all too surprising in light of the current trend to classify people by how they identify (read “feel about”) themselves. If a person with male genitalia who feels like a woman, is a woman, then why wouldn’t a person that conducts primarily homosexual acts who feels like a heterosexual, be a heterosexual?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Joe; if the victim is generally interchangeable, why are most victims young, post-pubescent teen boys–and a good portion of the remainder pre-pubescent boys?

    At the risk of stereotyping, there is a word for young people who tend to be around church, see a great deal of authority in the priest or pastor, and tend to be compliant to male authority. That word is “girls.”

    The fact that the vast majority of victims in this case are “not girls” tends to suggest that the victims are not in fact interchangeable, but are rather “chosen.”

    Along the same lines, I noticed an article today that suggested that a southern pastor had settled with his (again, male) accusers. Not a good day for the church…..

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Joe; if the victim is generally interchangeable, why are most victims young, post-pubescent teen boys–and a good portion of the remainder pre-pubescent boys?

    At the risk of stereotyping, there is a word for young people who tend to be around church, see a great deal of authority in the priest or pastor, and tend to be compliant to male authority. That word is “girls.”

    The fact that the vast majority of victims in this case are “not girls” tends to suggest that the victims are not in fact interchangeable, but are rather “chosen.”

    Along the same lines, I noticed an article today that suggested that a southern pastor had settled with his (again, male) accusers. Not a good day for the church…..

  • Joe

    Bike – I suggest to reasons: 1. it is a lot more common for a priest to be alone with young males than with females. 2. the attraction of power and control is stronger if a male is overpowering another male.

  • Joe

    Bike – I suggest to reasons: 1. it is a lot more common for a priest to be alone with young males than with females. 2. the attraction of power and control is stronger if a male is overpowering another male.

  • Joe

    that should be “two”

  • Joe

    that should be “two”

  • Grace

    I believe men who molest boyes are homosexual pedophiles. If they weren’t homosexual they would have affairs with women. If they weren’t pedophiles they wouldn’t molest children.

    Homosexuals don’t want to be attached to pedophilia.

  • Grace

    I believe men who molest boyes are homosexual pedophiles. If they weren’t homosexual they would have affairs with women. If they weren’t pedophiles they wouldn’t molest children.

    Homosexuals don’t want to be attached to pedophilia.

  • Grace

    Pete – 7

    “Does the enforced celibacy and gender segregation of prison seem to lead to homosexual practices?”

    Prisons are full of those individuals who break laws, harm, kill, steal, molest, and do other horrific crimes. I don’t believe hardened criminals have any morals whatsoever, their instincts are just like animals, for the most part. There are some who see the error of their lives, turn to Christ and His saving grace, repent of their sins.

  • Grace

    Pete – 7

    “Does the enforced celibacy and gender segregation of prison seem to lead to homosexual practices?”

    Prisons are full of those individuals who break laws, harm, kill, steal, molest, and do other horrific crimes. I don’t believe hardened criminals have any morals whatsoever, their instincts are just like animals, for the most part. There are some who see the error of their lives, turn to Christ and His saving grace, repent of their sins.

  • steve

    Though I think the authors of this study were overreaching by saying homosexuality was unrelated, I would say it’s unrelated some of the time. One can see in parts of the world that have very strict adultery laws and that are very segregated along gender lines, this type of behavior is widespread. I’m thinking of parts of the Middle East and Islamic south Asia. There is a rationale that goes something like: if it’s not a woman, it’s not adultery and if it’s not an intimate relationship (i.e., it’s just the act) then its not homosexuality. It’s just entertainment; boys being boys, if you will.

    Now, it is true that male sexuality focuses around frequency and variety and male nature in general tends toward predatory. Take women out of the equation and toss in an authoritarian relationship where the superior speaks for God, the ultimate Authority, then its quite easy to see how this can happen. Its certainly far from unheard of in human history.

  • steve

    Though I think the authors of this study were overreaching by saying homosexuality was unrelated, I would say it’s unrelated some of the time. One can see in parts of the world that have very strict adultery laws and that are very segregated along gender lines, this type of behavior is widespread. I’m thinking of parts of the Middle East and Islamic south Asia. There is a rationale that goes something like: if it’s not a woman, it’s not adultery and if it’s not an intimate relationship (i.e., it’s just the act) then its not homosexuality. It’s just entertainment; boys being boys, if you will.

    Now, it is true that male sexuality focuses around frequency and variety and male nature in general tends toward predatory. Take women out of the equation and toss in an authoritarian relationship where the superior speaks for God, the ultimate Authority, then its quite easy to see how this can happen. Its certainly far from unheard of in human history.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I wouldn’t mind if we defined our terms here before engaging in labeling.

    What, exactly, is meant by “homosexuality”? Is it simply any sexual act engaged in by any two people of the same sex? Or does the notion of “orientation” enter into it? If two males engage in sex, does that necessarily mean that they are homosexual, or is it merely that act that is homosexual?

    Because if all we’re saying is that “homosexual” means “sexual acts between people of the same sex”, then, sure, homosexuality had something to do with it, by definition. But if we’re talking about something deeper, more psychological, I’m not so sure.

    I mean, if these priests had solely engaged in their behavior with girls, don’t you think it might be reasonable to argue that their behavior had nothing to do with heterosexuality? I mean, I’m a heterosexual male, and I’ll cop to having a sex drive corrupted by sin, but nothing in my hetersexuality makes me want to have sex with young girls. To me, that has nothing to do with heterosexuality, and everything to do with pedophilia. Is that “politically correct” to say so?

    I can’t really claim to understand the mindset of a pedophile, or a sexual abuser of any sort, up to and including rape. But it seems to me that these sinful conditions are separate from mere sexual orientation.

    It also occurs to me that the sexual drive will, in most people, tend to find outlets wherever it can. Doesn’t the Bible tell us as much? This is, of course, why marriage is so helpful for the lusting man or woman. Except that if such a man is a Catholic priest, that outlet is not available to him.

    But I’m not convinced that makes him a homosexual if he primarily sexually abuses boys. (And the article here does say they were the “primary victims” — if so, wouldn’t the inclusion of female victims mean that this is in the realm of bisexuality? Or were there some priests who primarily abused girls, while most abused boys? If so, wouldn’t that mean that heterosexuality had something to do with their abuse?)

    I’ve heard that, at least back in the day, it was not unknown for (male) sailors on lengthy voyages to give vent to their sex urges with the only other people around, which were other men. Similarly, in (sexually separated) prisons, men will engage in sex with other men. Are all these examples of homosexuals? What if they engaged in sex with women whenever women were available, but only men when they were not? Still homosexual? What if they primarily only have access to (and the ability to exercise power over) adolescent males?

    I’m not really up on my Catholic practices, but does anyone know what positions these abuse victims held that put them in proximity with the priests? Were they students? Altar boys? Or what? And is it true that, whatever their roles, there were more boys among that group than girls? 81% certainly is heavily skewed towards boys, but 19% isn’t exactly something to ignore, whatever theory you espouse.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I wouldn’t mind if we defined our terms here before engaging in labeling.

    What, exactly, is meant by “homosexuality”? Is it simply any sexual act engaged in by any two people of the same sex? Or does the notion of “orientation” enter into it? If two males engage in sex, does that necessarily mean that they are homosexual, or is it merely that act that is homosexual?

    Because if all we’re saying is that “homosexual” means “sexual acts between people of the same sex”, then, sure, homosexuality had something to do with it, by definition. But if we’re talking about something deeper, more psychological, I’m not so sure.

    I mean, if these priests had solely engaged in their behavior with girls, don’t you think it might be reasonable to argue that their behavior had nothing to do with heterosexuality? I mean, I’m a heterosexual male, and I’ll cop to having a sex drive corrupted by sin, but nothing in my hetersexuality makes me want to have sex with young girls. To me, that has nothing to do with heterosexuality, and everything to do with pedophilia. Is that “politically correct” to say so?

    I can’t really claim to understand the mindset of a pedophile, or a sexual abuser of any sort, up to and including rape. But it seems to me that these sinful conditions are separate from mere sexual orientation.

    It also occurs to me that the sexual drive will, in most people, tend to find outlets wherever it can. Doesn’t the Bible tell us as much? This is, of course, why marriage is so helpful for the lusting man or woman. Except that if such a man is a Catholic priest, that outlet is not available to him.

    But I’m not convinced that makes him a homosexual if he primarily sexually abuses boys. (And the article here does say they were the “primary victims” — if so, wouldn’t the inclusion of female victims mean that this is in the realm of bisexuality? Or were there some priests who primarily abused girls, while most abused boys? If so, wouldn’t that mean that heterosexuality had something to do with their abuse?)

    I’ve heard that, at least back in the day, it was not unknown for (male) sailors on lengthy voyages to give vent to their sex urges with the only other people around, which were other men. Similarly, in (sexually separated) prisons, men will engage in sex with other men. Are all these examples of homosexuals? What if they engaged in sex with women whenever women were available, but only men when they were not? Still homosexual? What if they primarily only have access to (and the ability to exercise power over) adolescent males?

    I’m not really up on my Catholic practices, but does anyone know what positions these abuse victims held that put them in proximity with the priests? Were they students? Altar boys? Or what? And is it true that, whatever their roles, there were more boys among that group than girls? 81% certainly is heavily skewed towards boys, but 19% isn’t exactly something to ignore, whatever theory you espouse.

  • Stephen

    I think it sounds like this is approaching being stretched here way out to be some kind of litmus test for homosexuality. As such, I do not think it is a good idea to shave with Occam’s razor, because opinions going in about what is being observed sure sound biased to me, and these are people, not repeatable lab experiments.

    Perhaps there is a very good reason we have the 13th article in our confessions that addresses priestly celibacy because out of it comes all kinds strange stuff. I can see why both gay men AND pedophiles would be attracted to the priesthood, but for completely different reasons. Those two realities do not have any necessary relationship whatsoever. Just because that is or maybe the case does not in any way mean that they are then connected to each other. It is pure guilt by association, and these attempts being made to connect the two speculations about causes without any way to link them.

    So maybe the real issue is the goods (or bads) that are conferred from this practice of priestly celibacy, ya think? Luther thought so.

    Todd makes about a dozen good points I wish I had made. What does the wanton rape of women and young girls in war zones tell us about heterosexual men given some power and license to do as they please? We don’t seem to see an outbreak of homosexuality at these times. Hmm? Does it then say something about all heterosexual men, what is really going on with them? Why isn’t an issue like that “really” about heterosexuality?

    http://www.womenwarpeace.org/

    (that’s for you sg)

    For that matter, why couldn’t it be the case that a heterosexual man would enter the priesthood because he knew he could use the office and its emotional power to bed a lot of women that way? Just sayin’

    I’m going with Plato’s Beard.

  • Stephen

    I think it sounds like this is approaching being stretched here way out to be some kind of litmus test for homosexuality. As such, I do not think it is a good idea to shave with Occam’s razor, because opinions going in about what is being observed sure sound biased to me, and these are people, not repeatable lab experiments.

    Perhaps there is a very good reason we have the 13th article in our confessions that addresses priestly celibacy because out of it comes all kinds strange stuff. I can see why both gay men AND pedophiles would be attracted to the priesthood, but for completely different reasons. Those two realities do not have any necessary relationship whatsoever. Just because that is or maybe the case does not in any way mean that they are then connected to each other. It is pure guilt by association, and these attempts being made to connect the two speculations about causes without any way to link them.

    So maybe the real issue is the goods (or bads) that are conferred from this practice of priestly celibacy, ya think? Luther thought so.

    Todd makes about a dozen good points I wish I had made. What does the wanton rape of women and young girls in war zones tell us about heterosexual men given some power and license to do as they please? We don’t seem to see an outbreak of homosexuality at these times. Hmm? Does it then say something about all heterosexual men, what is really going on with them? Why isn’t an issue like that “really” about heterosexuality?

    http://www.womenwarpeace.org/

    (that’s for you sg)

    For that matter, why couldn’t it be the case that a heterosexual man would enter the priesthood because he knew he could use the office and its emotional power to bed a lot of women that way? Just sayin’

    I’m going with Plato’s Beard.

  • Stephen

    second paragraph should have read “are speculations”

  • Stephen

    second paragraph should have read “are speculations”

  • Jonathan

    Would it be rude to say that it’s been refreshing to not read posts from Porcell or DonS?

  • Jonathan

    Would it be rude to say that it’s been refreshing to not read posts from Porcell or DonS?

  • Pete

    tODD (@17) sez: “…I’ll cop to having a sex drive corrupted by sin, but nothing in my heterosexuality makes me want to have sex with young girls.”

    This occurred to me a few years back as I was studying the epistle to the Romans. In chapter 1 there’s the famous and lengthy laundry list of bad things people do. And as one reads that list, there are some of the things described there that make us (me) squirm, but others on the list not so much. One of the things listed is homosexuality and I gotta say (just like tODD feeling no sexual inclination towards young girls – and I believe him) I’m pretty clean on that. The homosexuality thing, I mean – but young girls, too. I’m pretty sure that if you strapped me into a lie detector and asked me if I’d ever had sexual feelings towards another man, I’d say, “No,” and the tracing wouldn’t budge an inch. But the epiphany that I had as I read on was when Paul said something to the effect of “you are guilty of the same”. Not “some of the same” but “the same”. Made me reflect on the reality that all of the incentives in my life, right now, are against homosexual behavior on my part; I’ve grown up in a religion the sacred text of which condemns it, I don’t seem to be naturally inclined towards it (quite the opposite, actually), I’m happily married or, in modern parlance “in a stable, monogamous, heterosexual relationship” – in short there is precious little incentive towards homosexuality in my milieu. But what if that were to change? tODD cited the sailors on the long sea voyage. Or if I wound up in prison. Or I’d been kidnapped by gypsies as a child and raised in San Francisco. And I think the honest answer is that I’m not really allowed to be proud of conquering sins that are not currently tempting me in any meaningful way.* Given different circumstances, I might be guilty of a whole different slate of sins. What did the theologians say – lex semper accusat?
    But the question that’s really bothering me is this: if tODD is the first word in a sentence, should the initial “t” be capitalized or not? So many things we’ll never know.

    * Yes, I know; I’m not really allowed to be proud of conquering ANY sins.

  • Pete

    tODD (@17) sez: “…I’ll cop to having a sex drive corrupted by sin, but nothing in my heterosexuality makes me want to have sex with young girls.”

    This occurred to me a few years back as I was studying the epistle to the Romans. In chapter 1 there’s the famous and lengthy laundry list of bad things people do. And as one reads that list, there are some of the things described there that make us (me) squirm, but others on the list not so much. One of the things listed is homosexuality and I gotta say (just like tODD feeling no sexual inclination towards young girls – and I believe him) I’m pretty clean on that. The homosexuality thing, I mean – but young girls, too. I’m pretty sure that if you strapped me into a lie detector and asked me if I’d ever had sexual feelings towards another man, I’d say, “No,” and the tracing wouldn’t budge an inch. But the epiphany that I had as I read on was when Paul said something to the effect of “you are guilty of the same”. Not “some of the same” but “the same”. Made me reflect on the reality that all of the incentives in my life, right now, are against homosexual behavior on my part; I’ve grown up in a religion the sacred text of which condemns it, I don’t seem to be naturally inclined towards it (quite the opposite, actually), I’m happily married or, in modern parlance “in a stable, monogamous, heterosexual relationship” – in short there is precious little incentive towards homosexuality in my milieu. But what if that were to change? tODD cited the sailors on the long sea voyage. Or if I wound up in prison. Or I’d been kidnapped by gypsies as a child and raised in San Francisco. And I think the honest answer is that I’m not really allowed to be proud of conquering sins that are not currently tempting me in any meaningful way.* Given different circumstances, I might be guilty of a whole different slate of sins. What did the theologians say – lex semper accusat?
    But the question that’s really bothering me is this: if tODD is the first word in a sentence, should the initial “t” be capitalized or not? So many things we’ll never know.

    * Yes, I know; I’m not really allowed to be proud of conquering ANY sins.

  • Pete

    Grace (@15)

    “Prisons are full of those individuals who break laws, harm, kill, steal, molest, and do other horrific crimes.”

    Churches, too. I understand the BTK killer was Lutheran. And an elder or deacon. Does anybody know, was he LCMS?

  • Pete

    Grace (@15)

    “Prisons are full of those individuals who break laws, harm, kill, steal, molest, and do other horrific crimes.”

    Churches, too. I understand the BTK killer was Lutheran. And an elder or deacon. Does anybody know, was he LCMS?

  • Jon

    Pete, if I recall, he was in an ELCA church, president of the council. I myself see little difference, generally, between the ELCA and LCMS; the differences lie among the local congregations. Nontheless, Judas traveled with the other Eleven for quite some time.

  • Jon

    Pete, if I recall, he was in an ELCA church, president of the council. I myself see little difference, generally, between the ELCA and LCMS; the differences lie among the local congregations. Nontheless, Judas traveled with the other Eleven for quite some time.

  • kerner

    Stephen:

    How does pedophilia fit into the “golden rule plus reason” standard of sexual morality you were advocating a couple of months ago. I mean if these people have a sexual orientation towards young boys, why isn’t it “showing love” to them to allow them an outlet for it? Just askin’.

  • kerner

    Stephen:

    How does pedophilia fit into the “golden rule plus reason” standard of sexual morality you were advocating a couple of months ago. I mean if these people have a sexual orientation towards young boys, why isn’t it “showing love” to them to allow them an outlet for it? Just askin’.

  • Stephen

    ELCA

  • Stephen

    ELCA

  • Stephen

    That was for Pete

  • Stephen

    That was for Pete

  • Stephen

    Kerner,

    Are you “just askin” or are you mocking me? What is the whole of the law?

  • Stephen

    Kerner,

    Are you “just askin” or are you mocking me? What is the whole of the law?

  • kerner

    I mean “showing mercy”. If God “will have mercy and not sacrifice”, why should they have to “sacrifice” that part of their sexual nature that attracts them to the young?

  • kerner

    I mean “showing mercy”. If God “will have mercy and not sacrifice”, why should they have to “sacrifice” that part of their sexual nature that attracts them to the young?

  • Stephen

    Good point Jon about Judas. Creepy though about Rader

  • Stephen

    Good point Jon about Judas. Creepy though about Rader

  • Stephen

    Kerner,

    What is the whole of the law?

  • Stephen

    Kerner,

    What is the whole of the law?

  • kerner

    I’m not mocking you. I am asking you if there is a consistent way to differentiate between the sexual orientation of the homosexual and the sexual orientation of the pedophile using you earlier analysis of morality.

  • kerner

    I’m not mocking you. I am asking you if there is a consistent way to differentiate between the sexual orientation of the homosexual and the sexual orientation of the pedophile using you earlier analysis of morality.

  • kerner

    great commandment 1: Love god with all your heart, etc.

    great commandment 2: Love neighbor as self.

    This is our common starting point.

  • kerner

    great commandment 1: Love god with all your heart, etc.

    great commandment 2: Love neighbor as self.

    This is our common starting point.

  • Jon

    Stephen, by the way, I dig your comments. Whether I agree with you or not, you’re interesting to read.

  • Jon

    Stephen, by the way, I dig your comments. Whether I agree with you or not, you’re interesting to read.

  • Stephen

    Kerner,

    Why don’t you answer that one question? You can even quote Jesus.

    How do you differentiate your sexuality consistently between that of a rapist of any other kind? These children were molested and raped (read “overpowered” if that helps). Were they shown mercy?

  • Stephen

    Kerner,

    Why don’t you answer that one question? You can even quote Jesus.

    How do you differentiate your sexuality consistently between that of a rapist of any other kind? These children were molested and raped (read “overpowered” if that helps). Were they shown mercy?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Jonathan, yes. Look up “ad hominem attack.”

    tODD, you ask great questions. Here’s a link to Wiki’s Jay report:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report

    OK, so if Wiki is correct, then it looks like our gracious host’s source missed some things. It’s not 81% post-pubescent boys, but rather 81% boys altogether. It’s also about half pre-pubescent kids, as if we needed to increase the “ick” factor.

    That said, one thing our host’s source does indicate is that at least one psychologist who treated wayward priests is that almost all of those he treated had poor relationships with their fathers, and almost all of them had had previous homosexual relationships with adult men.

    In other words, if Dr. Fitzgibbons’ testimony can be backed up statistically, the Catholic molestation scandal mirrors what people were told about homosexuality back in the 1950s, more or less. It’s worth a look.

    As is Joe’s point about the situations, to be fair. That said, the Wiki summary of the report suggests that the “grooming” took place in social situations, not during all-male situations like training of altar boys.

    If, if, if, of course, and if someone takes a good look at the data (hopefully John Jay will share it), I fully expect all h*ll to break loose if the data support what it may appear to support.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Jonathan, yes. Look up “ad hominem attack.”

    tODD, you ask great questions. Here’s a link to Wiki’s Jay report:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report

    OK, so if Wiki is correct, then it looks like our gracious host’s source missed some things. It’s not 81% post-pubescent boys, but rather 81% boys altogether. It’s also about half pre-pubescent kids, as if we needed to increase the “ick” factor.

    That said, one thing our host’s source does indicate is that at least one psychologist who treated wayward priests is that almost all of those he treated had poor relationships with their fathers, and almost all of them had had previous homosexual relationships with adult men.

    In other words, if Dr. Fitzgibbons’ testimony can be backed up statistically, the Catholic molestation scandal mirrors what people were told about homosexuality back in the 1950s, more or less. It’s worth a look.

    As is Joe’s point about the situations, to be fair. That said, the Wiki summary of the report suggests that the “grooming” took place in social situations, not during all-male situations like training of altar boys.

    If, if, if, of course, and if someone takes a good look at the data (hopefully John Jay will share it), I fully expect all h*ll to break loose if the data support what it may appear to support.

  • kerner

    Who says any force was used? These men describe what was going on as a “relationship”, and in their minds it probably was. It is very possible that these children were sweet talked into what ever happened. In their minds, pedophiles “love” their sexual partners.

    And for that matter, what is the Bible verse that names an age of consent?

  • kerner

    Who says any force was used? These men describe what was going on as a “relationship”, and in their minds it probably was. It is very possible that these children were sweet talked into what ever happened. In their minds, pedophiles “love” their sexual partners.

    And for that matter, what is the Bible verse that names an age of consent?

  • Stephen

    Yes Kerner.

    And these children were neither loved nor shown mercy in any way. So that is basically how I go about it. It is a matter of justice and they need to be dealt with that way. The kids had no real say in the matter at all. Kids should be protected. They are the weak among us. They are due mercy. This was Jesus’ basic problem with the way divorces were bing handled. Women were being treated as chattle, not human beings. No mercy. Sign some papers and you are done with them. They would then become whores and outcasts whether they liked it or deserved it (most likely not).

    Jesus says “Wait a second” these are God’s children, his beloved. Unless you men are cheating on your wives and need to honor them by breaking the covenant of marriage so they can remarry someone more honorable then you should be a faithful husband an not simply cast them off because you are tired of them or see something better next door. That’s how I read it, informed biblical scholar that I am, because women had absolutely no say in the matter. Remember they would just stone a woman caught in adultery. Whether she had been raped didn’t matter. women were powerless in relationships. 10th commandment and all that.

    Does that help?

  • Stephen

    Yes Kerner.

    And these children were neither loved nor shown mercy in any way. So that is basically how I go about it. It is a matter of justice and they need to be dealt with that way. The kids had no real say in the matter at all. Kids should be protected. They are the weak among us. They are due mercy. This was Jesus’ basic problem with the way divorces were bing handled. Women were being treated as chattle, not human beings. No mercy. Sign some papers and you are done with them. They would then become whores and outcasts whether they liked it or deserved it (most likely not).

    Jesus says “Wait a second” these are God’s children, his beloved. Unless you men are cheating on your wives and need to honor them by breaking the covenant of marriage so they can remarry someone more honorable then you should be a faithful husband an not simply cast them off because you are tired of them or see something better next door. That’s how I read it, informed biblical scholar that I am, because women had absolutely no say in the matter. Remember they would just stone a woman caught in adultery. Whether she had been raped didn’t matter. women were powerless in relationships. 10th commandment and all that.

    Does that help?

  • Stephen

    Thanks Jon. That’s encouraging.

    I have to go guys. May be back late tonight. Not sure. Peace be with you.

  • Stephen

    Thanks Jon. That’s encouraging.

    I have to go guys. May be back late tonight. Not sure. Peace be with you.

  • Jonathan

    Bubs, it’s not ‘ad hominem’ simply to say that, in one’s opinion, others’ posts are generally tiresome and therfore their absence has resulted in making this blog more pleasant to read. Contrary to what you may have thought, I was not referring to their views of the sacraments.

  • Jonathan

    Bubs, it’s not ‘ad hominem’ simply to say that, in one’s opinion, others’ posts are generally tiresome and therfore their absence has resulted in making this blog more pleasant to read. Contrary to what you may have thought, I was not referring to their views of the sacraments.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bubba (@35), I’m a bit confused here. The Wikipedia article you link to refers to a 2004 report, “The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States”, and not this 2011 report, which is titled “Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010″.

    The latter, more recent, report, can be read here. I have not done so, yet.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bubba (@35), I’m a bit confused here. The Wikipedia article you link to refers to a 2004 report, “The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States”, and not this 2011 report, which is titled “Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010″.

    The latter, more recent, report, can be read here. I have not done so, yet.

  • Stephen

    Kerner

    One last note:

    “Force” is not the only thing that gets kids to do what you want them to do. Coercion comes in all kinds of forms. They are kids!!!!

    And you are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing what I was arguing in the past. That may be because you didn’t understand it, or because, as yet, you still have not answered my question about enforced celibacy among homosexuals. Instead, you prefer diversions.

  • Stephen

    Kerner

    One last note:

    “Force” is not the only thing that gets kids to do what you want them to do. Coercion comes in all kinds of forms. They are kids!!!!

    And you are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing what I was arguing in the past. That may be because you didn’t understand it, or because, as yet, you still have not answered my question about enforced celibacy among homosexuals. Instead, you prefer diversions.

  • kerner

    Look, Stephen, I’ll say again that I’m not mocking you. But I still took the position back then that there are still some black and white rules of sexual morality that we have to follow, and you reduced all morality to showing love and mercy. we went round and round.

    Well, there have been, and still are, cultures all over the world that think a sexual relationship between a grown man and a 12 year old boy are perfectly acceptable ways of “showing love”, and that having to sacrifice that behavior would be “unmerciful”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

    I don’t agree with them. And I have no problem calling such behavior sin on the good old basis of “the Bible says so”. What I don’t see is how a sexual orientation towards children is any different, or less “hard wired” that a sexual orientation towards adults of the same sex. And I don’t know how you distinguish them using your former arguments.

  • kerner

    Look, Stephen, I’ll say again that I’m not mocking you. But I still took the position back then that there are still some black and white rules of sexual morality that we have to follow, and you reduced all morality to showing love and mercy. we went round and round.

    Well, there have been, and still are, cultures all over the world that think a sexual relationship between a grown man and a 12 year old boy are perfectly acceptable ways of “showing love”, and that having to sacrifice that behavior would be “unmerciful”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

    I don’t agree with them. And I have no problem calling such behavior sin on the good old basis of “the Bible says so”. What I don’t see is how a sexual orientation towards children is any different, or less “hard wired” that a sexual orientation towards adults of the same sex. And I don’t know how you distinguish them using your former arguments.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner asked (@36), “Who says any force was used?” To which the answer is: our society does. It’s more or less the same response to your other question, “what is the Bible verse that names an age of consent?” There isn’t one, of course. But that doesn’t preclude societies from coming up with such a notion, of course, and from it having moral force.

    After all, our society also determines what behavior is or isn’t disrespectful to parents (kids using their first names, perhaps), is or isn’t licentious (how much leg are you allowed to show before you’re thought a whore), or is or isn’t respectful in church (should men always wear suits and women always wear hats, or are slacks and a polo okay, or even shorts).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner asked (@36), “Who says any force was used?” To which the answer is: our society does. It’s more or less the same response to your other question, “what is the Bible verse that names an age of consent?” There isn’t one, of course. But that doesn’t preclude societies from coming up with such a notion, of course, and from it having moral force.

    After all, our society also determines what behavior is or isn’t disrespectful to parents (kids using their first names, perhaps), is or isn’t licentious (how much leg are you allowed to show before you’re thought a whore), or is or isn’t respectful in church (should men always wear suits and women always wear hats, or are slacks and a polo okay, or even shorts).

  • Pete

    Where’s fws when we need him?

  • Pete

    Where’s fws when we need him?

  • kerner

    Stephen:

    Our modern “age of consent” is a very recent development.

    http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230

    I read somewhere that until the late 1890′s in most states it was 10 or 12, and that in Delaware it was 7.

    I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but you are not even attempting to use rational thought to reach it.

    You have an emotional reaction against pedophilia, so that’s not “showing love”, even though millions of people all over the world think it is.

    You like gay people and you want to approve of what they do, so ignoring Biblical prohibitions becomes “showing love”.

    This is not good theological analysis.

  • kerner

    Stephen:

    Our modern “age of consent” is a very recent development.

    http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230

    I read somewhere that until the late 1890′s in most states it was 10 or 12, and that in Delaware it was 7.

    I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but you are not even attempting to use rational thought to reach it.

    You have an emotional reaction against pedophilia, so that’s not “showing love”, even though millions of people all over the world think it is.

    You like gay people and you want to approve of what they do, so ignoring Biblical prohibitions becomes “showing love”.

    This is not good theological analysis.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    You’re right, but does that mean that our society controls our decisions about sexual morality? What I’m trying to say is that “showing love” as a sole standard of morality can be twisted into almost anything.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    You’re right, but does that mean that our society controls our decisions about sexual morality? What I’m trying to say is that “showing love” as a sole standard of morality can be twisted into almost anything.

  • kerner

    Stephen @41:

    Why is it not,by your standards, unmerciful to force a pedophile to be celibate? Why shouldn’t we just be like ancient Greece and give these poor people an outlet for their sex drives? don’t they need your “mercy” as much as gays attracted to adults?

    I know you don’t want to go here, but this is where your “letting people have any kind sex they want is showing mercy” argument leads.

  • kerner

    Stephen @41:

    Why is it not,by your standards, unmerciful to force a pedophile to be celibate? Why shouldn’t we just be like ancient Greece and give these poor people an outlet for their sex drives? don’t they need your “mercy” as much as gays attracted to adults?

    I know you don’t want to go here, but this is where your “letting people have any kind sex they want is showing mercy” argument leads.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner asked (@46), “does that mean that our society controls our decisions about sexual morality?” Well, yes and no.

    Isn’t it the case with all earthly authorities that, by nature of their being authorities over us, we are to submit them to the degree that doing so would not disobey the ultimate authority, God? And that, barring this theological loophole, disobeying earthly authorities’ rules — even if they are not touched on in Scripture — remains sinful, precisely because it’s a rebellion against the One who put those authorities in place?

    As such, if our society (and here, we are appealing not merely to potentially squishy norms but to actual, explicit laws) tells us that any child under [age of consent] having sex was necessarily forced into it, that law carries moral weight. Because it doesn’t contravene God’s Law in deigning to protect the young and vulnerable. Quite the opposite.

    I’m not really arguing a particular stance between you and Stephen, but I do think his stance could be defended as consistent. I am ignoring, for the time being, the issue of whether he is correct in reading God’s Word as to homosexual sex and sin.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner asked (@46), “does that mean that our society controls our decisions about sexual morality?” Well, yes and no.

    Isn’t it the case with all earthly authorities that, by nature of their being authorities over us, we are to submit them to the degree that doing so would not disobey the ultimate authority, God? And that, barring this theological loophole, disobeying earthly authorities’ rules — even if they are not touched on in Scripture — remains sinful, precisely because it’s a rebellion against the One who put those authorities in place?

    As such, if our society (and here, we are appealing not merely to potentially squishy norms but to actual, explicit laws) tells us that any child under [age of consent] having sex was necessarily forced into it, that law carries moral weight. Because it doesn’t contravene God’s Law in deigning to protect the young and vulnerable. Quite the opposite.

    I’m not really arguing a particular stance between you and Stephen, but I do think his stance could be defended as consistent. I am ignoring, for the time being, the issue of whether he is correct in reading God’s Word as to homosexual sex and sin.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    To reiterate (I’m not sure I was clear), the issue with pedophilia is whether a child can ever truly give consent. We all agree, at some point, that children are too young/foolish/vulnerable/etc. to enter into various situations — sex, marriage, legal contracts, buying alcohol — so we prohibit them from doing so, for their own good. That is to say, no “mercy” can be shown them by putting them in these situations, as they are highly likely to mess up their lives even if they act completely voluntarily.

    But, from a purely secular point of view, the same can’t be said of two adult men (or women). We believe, as a society (mental health issues notwithstanding) that they are capable of giving consent, and may very well do any of those things without doing anyone any harm. Again, from a secular point of view. And, yes, we’re still debating that claim when it comes to marriage. But then, when it comes to gay marriage, I believe you’re largely arguing from a religious point, not a secular one. And understandably so.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    To reiterate (I’m not sure I was clear), the issue with pedophilia is whether a child can ever truly give consent. We all agree, at some point, that children are too young/foolish/vulnerable/etc. to enter into various situations — sex, marriage, legal contracts, buying alcohol — so we prohibit them from doing so, for their own good. That is to say, no “mercy” can be shown them by putting them in these situations, as they are highly likely to mess up their lives even if they act completely voluntarily.

    But, from a purely secular point of view, the same can’t be said of two adult men (or women). We believe, as a society (mental health issues notwithstanding) that they are capable of giving consent, and may very well do any of those things without doing anyone any harm. Again, from a secular point of view. And, yes, we’re still debating that claim when it comes to marriage. But then, when it comes to gay marriage, I believe you’re largely arguing from a religious point, not a secular one. And understandably so.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    I guess that on one level at least I agree with you. If society decides on an age of consent we have to respect the law.

    The reason I think Stephen is inconsistent is that a major part of his argument was that :

    1 Gay people can’t help being gay, so

    2 It is unmerciful to expect them to try to change their orientation or be celibate, so

    3 We have to change our institutions to allow them to have sex with people of the same gender

    I simply wish to point out that Stephen is unwilling to apply the same argument to pedophiles, who are equally stuck in a sexual orientation they have great difficulty controlling. He certainly is not willing to create a social institution giving pedophilia an outlet (such as was done in ancient Greece).

    And this illustrates a point I believe must be made. Stephen must concede that there is such a thing as a sexual orientation that is intrinsically sinful (eg. pedophilia). Once we get there, the “mercy” argument no longer factors into the equation, because it is not mercy to approve of sin.

    Once we agree that there is such a thing as a sexual orientation that is intrinsically sinful, it becomes much harder to interpret all those Bible verses that prohibit same gender sex as anything other that what they are.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    I guess that on one level at least I agree with you. If society decides on an age of consent we have to respect the law.

    The reason I think Stephen is inconsistent is that a major part of his argument was that :

    1 Gay people can’t help being gay, so

    2 It is unmerciful to expect them to try to change their orientation or be celibate, so

    3 We have to change our institutions to allow them to have sex with people of the same gender

    I simply wish to point out that Stephen is unwilling to apply the same argument to pedophiles, who are equally stuck in a sexual orientation they have great difficulty controlling. He certainly is not willing to create a social institution giving pedophilia an outlet (such as was done in ancient Greece).

    And this illustrates a point I believe must be made. Stephen must concede that there is such a thing as a sexual orientation that is intrinsically sinful (eg. pedophilia). Once we get there, the “mercy” argument no longer factors into the equation, because it is not mercy to approve of sin.

    Once we agree that there is such a thing as a sexual orientation that is intrinsically sinful, it becomes much harder to interpret all those Bible verses that prohibit same gender sex as anything other that what they are.

  • Stephen

    Kerner -

    I think I can tease out a response. There is a break in the action at home and I will do my best.

    I cannot agree to the term “intrinsic” because this is, again, a natural law argument and it is not a biblical one. What is the whole of the law?

    I think we have to look at the goods being produced. I think this is what happens when Jesus teaches on divorce. There we have an unequal situation. “Unequal” is perhaps not a strong enough term. women are essentially non-persons. This is difficult for us to get our minds around. As I said before, I have some experience of this having spent time in India where women have no real existence in society without a connection to a male. Father or husband, otherwise it is complete abandonment or sexual furniture, much the same as Jesus points out.

    In Luke, Jesus has the children and infants, also non-people, come and he puts himself over them as the sense is in Greek. This is startling, amazing stuff – absolutely stunning to 1st c. hearers that we maybe don’t hear in all it’s magnitude. But I guarantee you that poor, outcast people in somewhere like India do very much.

    All of that is not to break your heart (well, maybe) but to make the point of what kinds of relationships Jesus is defining, ones in which the law, if it has any use AT ALL, is for doing what Jesus is teaching in these instances – producing this kind of love and mercy for those who have none, and, in the eyes of those who keep the law outwardly, do not merit it either. They do not exist.

    Now, what does this have to do with what we are talking about? I think we have to ask if this kind of love and mercy is being produced from this situation. The children who were abused and grew up to then accuse these priests certainly do not seem to feel that way regardless of the claims of the abusers. They don’t seem to regard this as anything within the orbit of what they understand as love. They have been destroyed by it in all sorts of ways.

    Well, without going into some complex argument that threatens to become some psychological analysis that I’d bet none of us are qualified to dip into, let’s just ask ourselves if love and mercy were done to the kids first of all. Todd’s points about the law of the land and it’s purposes as being instituted by God to bring about goodness and mercy are helpful. I think we can reasonably observe the situation and answer the question fairly emphatically “no”, at least not in a way that makes sense to 99% of us. I never claimed reason was perfect, but it is helpful.

    But then the question you really want to know is if it is merciful to somehow allow for this behavior among adults with children. I’m going to say “no” to that too, because they would be sinning against a child who cannot protect themselves. We have laws for that. The very fact that they are a child implies their helplessness. I agree that this “practice” is allowed in other cultures, and it is also the case that in those same cultures children are also understood to be non-people. The example I would give presently would be India, where girls are married off to older men at a very young age. The example you gave from our country hearkens back to a time when we also had not child labor laws. What does that tell us about how we felt about kids?

    Now, perhaps this still does not answer the question. IF we lived in a culture such as India where a man of 35 could marry a 15 year old to add to his other 3 wives, and this same man treated these women well, it might be better for this girl to be married because it is the only way to be protected. Otherwise, it’s off to the brothel. I imagine a similar thing in Jesus’ day. Was he making a cultural statement such as “this cultural practice is intrinsically sinful and must change” or was he saying something about the way women ought to be treated – with mercy, as those beloved by God, which is, after all, the whole of the law.

    If you want me to answer a question about Greek culture, well, there was a lot of slavery and cultic practices going on there, some of which implies abuse and certainly prostitution. I read the NT with such things in mind as you know. It was common for young warriors to “team up” with an older mentor, but as I understand it, homosexual love was actually looked down upon in formal Roman society. Platonic friendship between men was prized above even marital love (I can get you a source). And I will say this – when it comes to homosexuality there are lots of competing agendas, and I don’t agree with all of them. Neither do all gay people. I’m not trying to and can’t cover for all of them. Gay people do not, beyond all appearances, speak with one voice.

    When I was in India I visited a village in the tribal areas of the south where the little kids had never seen white faces. It took a whole afternoon to get them to come out and play with us. We used a jump rope. There were four “women” working in the home where we stayed – two women and two girls that looked like teenagers. The man who owned the home, a large mud hut, was like the mayor of the village. He had become a Christian. The women were his four wives. They washed our feet when we arrived and fed us for week. The missionary, an Indian Lutheran, told me he did not expect the man to give up any of his wives because if he did, those three others would be destitute and cast out of the village – non-people again, and worse, they would be divorced and untouchable. They would either starve or become prostitutes.

    So now Kerner, using your knack for casuistry, you tell me, what does mercy demand in such a case as what I just described? You are on the director of missions board who signs the checks and you hear about this sort of thing. They are asking for money to build a school. Is there some intrinsic sinning going on there which you cannot abide by? Will you be a reprobate if you send them dollars? What is the whole of the law? What does love look like? Do we know at all or do we need a rule from God for this one? And why is the rubric for homosexuals so rigid? Why do they get compared to pedophiles while you and I do not?

  • Stephen

    Kerner -

    I think I can tease out a response. There is a break in the action at home and I will do my best.

    I cannot agree to the term “intrinsic” because this is, again, a natural law argument and it is not a biblical one. What is the whole of the law?

    I think we have to look at the goods being produced. I think this is what happens when Jesus teaches on divorce. There we have an unequal situation. “Unequal” is perhaps not a strong enough term. women are essentially non-persons. This is difficult for us to get our minds around. As I said before, I have some experience of this having spent time in India where women have no real existence in society without a connection to a male. Father or husband, otherwise it is complete abandonment or sexual furniture, much the same as Jesus points out.

    In Luke, Jesus has the children and infants, also non-people, come and he puts himself over them as the sense is in Greek. This is startling, amazing stuff – absolutely stunning to 1st c. hearers that we maybe don’t hear in all it’s magnitude. But I guarantee you that poor, outcast people in somewhere like India do very much.

    All of that is not to break your heart (well, maybe) but to make the point of what kinds of relationships Jesus is defining, ones in which the law, if it has any use AT ALL, is for doing what Jesus is teaching in these instances – producing this kind of love and mercy for those who have none, and, in the eyes of those who keep the law outwardly, do not merit it either. They do not exist.

    Now, what does this have to do with what we are talking about? I think we have to ask if this kind of love and mercy is being produced from this situation. The children who were abused and grew up to then accuse these priests certainly do not seem to feel that way regardless of the claims of the abusers. They don’t seem to regard this as anything within the orbit of what they understand as love. They have been destroyed by it in all sorts of ways.

    Well, without going into some complex argument that threatens to become some psychological analysis that I’d bet none of us are qualified to dip into, let’s just ask ourselves if love and mercy were done to the kids first of all. Todd’s points about the law of the land and it’s purposes as being instituted by God to bring about goodness and mercy are helpful. I think we can reasonably observe the situation and answer the question fairly emphatically “no”, at least not in a way that makes sense to 99% of us. I never claimed reason was perfect, but it is helpful.

    But then the question you really want to know is if it is merciful to somehow allow for this behavior among adults with children. I’m going to say “no” to that too, because they would be sinning against a child who cannot protect themselves. We have laws for that. The very fact that they are a child implies their helplessness. I agree that this “practice” is allowed in other cultures, and it is also the case that in those same cultures children are also understood to be non-people. The example I would give presently would be India, where girls are married off to older men at a very young age. The example you gave from our country hearkens back to a time when we also had not child labor laws. What does that tell us about how we felt about kids?

    Now, perhaps this still does not answer the question. IF we lived in a culture such as India where a man of 35 could marry a 15 year old to add to his other 3 wives, and this same man treated these women well, it might be better for this girl to be married because it is the only way to be protected. Otherwise, it’s off to the brothel. I imagine a similar thing in Jesus’ day. Was he making a cultural statement such as “this cultural practice is intrinsically sinful and must change” or was he saying something about the way women ought to be treated – with mercy, as those beloved by God, which is, after all, the whole of the law.

    If you want me to answer a question about Greek culture, well, there was a lot of slavery and cultic practices going on there, some of which implies abuse and certainly prostitution. I read the NT with such things in mind as you know. It was common for young warriors to “team up” with an older mentor, but as I understand it, homosexual love was actually looked down upon in formal Roman society. Platonic friendship between men was prized above even marital love (I can get you a source). And I will say this – when it comes to homosexuality there are lots of competing agendas, and I don’t agree with all of them. Neither do all gay people. I’m not trying to and can’t cover for all of them. Gay people do not, beyond all appearances, speak with one voice.

    When I was in India I visited a village in the tribal areas of the south where the little kids had never seen white faces. It took a whole afternoon to get them to come out and play with us. We used a jump rope. There were four “women” working in the home where we stayed – two women and two girls that looked like teenagers. The man who owned the home, a large mud hut, was like the mayor of the village. He had become a Christian. The women were his four wives. They washed our feet when we arrived and fed us for week. The missionary, an Indian Lutheran, told me he did not expect the man to give up any of his wives because if he did, those three others would be destitute and cast out of the village – non-people again, and worse, they would be divorced and untouchable. They would either starve or become prostitutes.

    So now Kerner, using your knack for casuistry, you tell me, what does mercy demand in such a case as what I just described? You are on the director of missions board who signs the checks and you hear about this sort of thing. They are asking for money to build a school. Is there some intrinsic sinning going on there which you cannot abide by? Will you be a reprobate if you send them dollars? What is the whole of the law? What does love look like? Do we know at all or do we need a rule from God for this one? And why is the rubric for homosexuals so rigid? Why do they get compared to pedophiles while you and I do not?

  • Stephen

    dang typos

  • Stephen

    dang typos

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    J dean @ 2

    “There is no room for Original Sin in psychology. ”

    I don´t think I agree. Could you give me how you are defining Original Sin?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    J dean @ 2

    “There is no room for Original Sin in psychology. ”

    I don´t think I agree. Could you give me how you are defining Original Sin?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    The line that rape is really about power generally comes from dialectics that reduce all human interaction to issues of power. …So it is here. It really is about sex and attraction; sex just happens to be multi-faceted.

    1) define ” rape”. If rape is defined as a property rights violation as it is in the Bible, then what you say would mean one thing…. If “rape” is defined as sex against the volition of one of the parties, then your comment would have a different context.

    2) You are overlaying theory and philosophy on things. Maybe in some quarters what you say is true. But your brush is too broad. There are many cases of homeless bag ladies being raped and 80 year old grandmas being raped…. I am not so quick to say that this is about “attraction”.

    What you write would fold rape into the general definition of heterosexual sex just as sodom and gomorrah is used as definitional of homosexuality. This seems sorta off…..

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    The line that rape is really about power generally comes from dialectics that reduce all human interaction to issues of power. …So it is here. It really is about sex and attraction; sex just happens to be multi-faceted.

    1) define ” rape”. If rape is defined as a property rights violation as it is in the Bible, then what you say would mean one thing…. If “rape” is defined as sex against the volition of one of the parties, then your comment would have a different context.

    2) You are overlaying theory and philosophy on things. Maybe in some quarters what you say is true. But your brush is too broad. There are many cases of homeless bag ladies being raped and 80 year old grandmas being raped…. I am not so quick to say that this is about “attraction”.

    What you write would fold rape into the general definition of heterosexual sex just as sodom and gomorrah is used as definitional of homosexuality. This seems sorta off…..

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bike @ 11

    “Joe; if the victim is generally interchangeable, why are most victims young, post-pubescent teen boys–and a good portion of the remainder pre-pubescent boys?”

    1)I would speculate that the men who go after 16 and 17 year old young men are probably gay. Gays like men. They would not go after a prepubescent boy.

    2)I would be absolutely certain that the men who molest prepubescent boys are heterosexual. Hetersexual molesters like the feminine qualities of young boys.

    3) why is no one bringing up the fact that any sex by a pastor, psychiatrist, doctor, or anyone else in such a position with anyone of any age is just plain wrong and a gross abuse of their vocation? And yes it is about a position of authority used against someone who is very vulnerable. It is not at all unusual for a woman or boy or… to come onto a pastor or a psychiatrist or teacher or gym coach. Of course it can be rationalised, especially if the person is of consentual age. … but it is still just wrong.

    4) The age of consent…. in the usa that age for girls was around 12 years old till around the turn of the century. Historically, the passage to adulthood was marked by society around the time that a child could produce offspring. So at a certain point… the historical definition of “child abuse” is sorta blurry. Fact. HOWEVER that fact does not excuse an adult from abusing their superior ability to manipulate , etc. The men ALL deserve jail time for multiple reasons.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bike @ 11

    “Joe; if the victim is generally interchangeable, why are most victims young, post-pubescent teen boys–and a good portion of the remainder pre-pubescent boys?”

    1)I would speculate that the men who go after 16 and 17 year old young men are probably gay. Gays like men. They would not go after a prepubescent boy.

    2)I would be absolutely certain that the men who molest prepubescent boys are heterosexual. Hetersexual molesters like the feminine qualities of young boys.

    3) why is no one bringing up the fact that any sex by a pastor, psychiatrist, doctor, or anyone else in such a position with anyone of any age is just plain wrong and a gross abuse of their vocation? And yes it is about a position of authority used against someone who is very vulnerable. It is not at all unusual for a woman or boy or… to come onto a pastor or a psychiatrist or teacher or gym coach. Of course it can be rationalised, especially if the person is of consentual age. … but it is still just wrong.

    4) The age of consent…. in the usa that age for girls was around 12 years old till around the turn of the century. Historically, the passage to adulthood was marked by society around the time that a child could produce offspring. So at a certain point… the historical definition of “child abuse” is sorta blurry. Fact. HOWEVER that fact does not excuse an adult from abusing their superior ability to manipulate , etc. The men ALL deserve jail time for multiple reasons.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    todd @ 17

    to second todd….

    rape of a woman by a man could maybe be defined as “heterosexual sex”. In that case it would become definitional of “heterosexual”. That would be sorta twisted I think. … if u catch what I am saying…..

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    todd @ 17

    to second todd….

    rape of a woman by a man could maybe be defined as “heterosexual sex”. In that case it would become definitional of “heterosexual”. That would be sorta twisted I think. … if u catch what I am saying…..

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 24

    1)There is a grossly unequal position of power with an adult vs a child or even , say…. a 40 year old man and an impressionable naive young girl of say 21 years old.

    I think it would not be hard to build an ethical framework around that based on reason and love dear Kerner.

    2) The claim, on the part of myself and Stephen is that what you just articulated, more or less, is the position of the Lutheran Confessions.

    Here is what Luther says about morality in a sermon that is the basis for the Formula of Concord art VI. Read it and let me know what you take from it …

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 24

    1)There is a grossly unequal position of power with an adult vs a child or even , say…. a 40 year old man and an impressionable naive young girl of say 21 years old.

    I think it would not be hard to build an ethical framework around that based on reason and love dear Kerner.

    2) The claim, on the part of myself and Stephen is that what you just articulated, more or less, is the position of the Lutheran Confessions.

    Here is what Luther says about morality in a sermon that is the basis for the Formula of Concord art VI. Read it and let me know what you take from it …

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 42

    The fact is that individuals mature differently. Some men and women are fully mature and probably ready for marriage at a very early age. Others…. not so much.

    So hard and fast rules are good, but they are rarely hard and fast.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 42

    The fact is that individuals mature differently. Some men and women are fully mature and probably ready for marriage at a very early age. Others…. not so much.

    So hard and fast rules are good, but they are rarely hard and fast.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 46 & 47

    You’re right, but does that mean that our society controls our decisions about sexual morality? What I’m trying to say is that “showing love” as a sole standard of morality can be twisted into almost anything.
    . 47 kerner May 27, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Stephen @41:

    “Why is it not,by your standards, unmerciful to force a pedophile to be celibate? ”

    Because pedophilia is rape maybe? IF we define rape as nonconsentual sex. If it is defined as a property right violation then we are in OT territory , which looks mostly like current Islamic practices…. Is marrying off a girl at age 7 or 8 or 9 or… moral or not…. I am not sure “celibacy ” frames the issue here Kerner….

    “Why shouldn’t we just be like ancient Greece and give these poor people an outlet for their sex drives? don’t they need your “mercy” as much as gays attracted to adults?”

    Again. Unequal power… rape… and unfortunately this IS situational. Which is why parents CAN sign liberate a minor girl to marry etc….Sometimes a 30 or 50 year old man marrying an 18 year old or 16 year old is just sick. Other times, depending…. maybe not so much…. it really depends on the two persons….. and … ditto for gays I think actually.

    “I know you don’t want to go here, but this is where your “letting people have any kind sex they want is showing mercy” argument leads.”

    You are oversimplifying the argument Kerner is why you are having problems. You are driving to extreme examples that are not great examples. Exceptions usually prove that there is a general rule that exists right?

    The exceptions you throw out probably demonstrate something.

    Here is really a good context:

    Governments can form rules based on what God has Divinely revealed in the minds of all men. And Kerner, the Confessions say that that IS the Divine Revelation of the Law: Reason. And so reason agrees with the Decalog because they are the same Divinely Revealed Law from the same Author.

    So then: Laws can be developed , based alone on reason and love that are consistent and reasonable without any resort to divine written revelation. What is reasonable is not always clear. This is why case law has developed, by trial and error over many centuries eh? And it is also why it often needs to change based on changing circumstances.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 46 & 47

    You’re right, but does that mean that our society controls our decisions about sexual morality? What I’m trying to say is that “showing love” as a sole standard of morality can be twisted into almost anything.
    . 47 kerner May 27, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Stephen @41:

    “Why is it not,by your standards, unmerciful to force a pedophile to be celibate? ”

    Because pedophilia is rape maybe? IF we define rape as nonconsentual sex. If it is defined as a property right violation then we are in OT territory , which looks mostly like current Islamic practices…. Is marrying off a girl at age 7 or 8 or 9 or… moral or not…. I am not sure “celibacy ” frames the issue here Kerner….

    “Why shouldn’t we just be like ancient Greece and give these poor people an outlet for their sex drives? don’t they need your “mercy” as much as gays attracted to adults?”

    Again. Unequal power… rape… and unfortunately this IS situational. Which is why parents CAN sign liberate a minor girl to marry etc….Sometimes a 30 or 50 year old man marrying an 18 year old or 16 year old is just sick. Other times, depending…. maybe not so much…. it really depends on the two persons….. and … ditto for gays I think actually.

    “I know you don’t want to go here, but this is where your “letting people have any kind sex they want is showing mercy” argument leads.”

    You are oversimplifying the argument Kerner is why you are having problems. You are driving to extreme examples that are not great examples. Exceptions usually prove that there is a general rule that exists right?

    The exceptions you throw out probably demonstrate something.

    Here is really a good context:

    Governments can form rules based on what God has Divinely revealed in the minds of all men. And Kerner, the Confessions say that that IS the Divine Revelation of the Law: Reason. And so reason agrees with the Decalog because they are the same Divinely Revealed Law from the same Author.

    So then: Laws can be developed , based alone on reason and love that are consistent and reasonable without any resort to divine written revelation. What is reasonable is not always clear. This is why case law has developed, by trial and error over many centuries eh? And it is also why it often needs to change based on changing circumstances.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Kerner @ 50

    Kerner, is your argument this?

    1 Gay people can’t help being gay
    2 People who are mentally or physically ill can´t help that either.

    Therefore:

    What one says about Gays MUST apply to anyone else who can´t help the way they are. That would include, I do suppose, heterosexuals as well?
    3 We have to change our institutions to allow them to have sex with people of the same gender

    KERNER: “I simply wish to point out that Stephen is unwilling to apply the same argument to pedophiles, who are equally stuck in a sexual orientation they have great difficulty controlling.”

    FWS : I am addicted to Coca Cola. People are addicted to drugs, sex, food, dieting… These are called compulsive disorders. Gays and heterosexuals probably all suffer from this to some degree eh? Your point is?

    KERNER ” He certainly is not willing to create a social institution giving pedophilia an outlet (such as was done in ancient Greece).”

    FWS Neither am I. I stated why. It is an argument based on reason. And Love. Your point is? That we need to find a rule in the Bible against pedophilia? You don´t suppose that the OT patriarchs´practice was maybe an awful lot like that if modern conservative Islam. There is your rule…. Happy now? Suggestion: back way up, consider the definition of what “Divinely Revealed Law” is. THEN go and see if your definition can result in something that looks… um…. dare I say it… reasonable and truly loving?

    KERNER And this illustrates a point I believe must be made. Stephen must concede that there is such a thing as a sexual orientation that is intrinsically sinful (eg. pedophilia). Once we get there, the “mercy” argument no longer factors into the equation, because it is not mercy to approve of sin.

    FWS No Kerner. We all agree here. There is no Goodness and Mercy in approving of sin. Define sin. According to the second Table of the Law sin is 1) to hurt or harm our neighbor and 2) to not help and befriend him in every bodily need. Start arguing about definitions based on God´s Word. THEN hit some case situations against that. You are skipping the definitional part Kerner…..

    KERNER Once we agree that there is such a thing as a sexual orientation that is intrinsically sinful, it becomes much harder to interpret all those Bible verses that prohibit same gender sex as anything other that what they are.

    FWS Ya lost me with that logic. Why is that? Again. Definitions. “sexual orientation” this is a clinical term. How do medical professionals define that term? Is pedophilia called a “sexual orientation”? Why or why not ? Is it about political correctness? Is there no rational reason for the medical definition? maybe start with arguing there… you are just jumping in Kerner with this sorta funny logic…. what can I say…..

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Kerner @ 50

    Kerner, is your argument this?

    1 Gay people can’t help being gay
    2 People who are mentally or physically ill can´t help that either.

    Therefore:

    What one says about Gays MUST apply to anyone else who can´t help the way they are. That would include, I do suppose, heterosexuals as well?
    3 We have to change our institutions to allow them to have sex with people of the same gender

    KERNER: “I simply wish to point out that Stephen is unwilling to apply the same argument to pedophiles, who are equally stuck in a sexual orientation they have great difficulty controlling.”

    FWS : I am addicted to Coca Cola. People are addicted to drugs, sex, food, dieting… These are called compulsive disorders. Gays and heterosexuals probably all suffer from this to some degree eh? Your point is?

    KERNER ” He certainly is not willing to create a social institution giving pedophilia an outlet (such as was done in ancient Greece).”

    FWS Neither am I. I stated why. It is an argument based on reason. And Love. Your point is? That we need to find a rule in the Bible against pedophilia? You don´t suppose that the OT patriarchs´practice was maybe an awful lot like that if modern conservative Islam. There is your rule…. Happy now? Suggestion: back way up, consider the definition of what “Divinely Revealed Law” is. THEN go and see if your definition can result in something that looks… um…. dare I say it… reasonable and truly loving?

    KERNER And this illustrates a point I believe must be made. Stephen must concede that there is such a thing as a sexual orientation that is intrinsically sinful (eg. pedophilia). Once we get there, the “mercy” argument no longer factors into the equation, because it is not mercy to approve of sin.

    FWS No Kerner. We all agree here. There is no Goodness and Mercy in approving of sin. Define sin. According to the second Table of the Law sin is 1) to hurt or harm our neighbor and 2) to not help and befriend him in every bodily need. Start arguing about definitions based on God´s Word. THEN hit some case situations against that. You are skipping the definitional part Kerner…..

    KERNER Once we agree that there is such a thing as a sexual orientation that is intrinsically sinful, it becomes much harder to interpret all those Bible verses that prohibit same gender sex as anything other that what they are.

    FWS Ya lost me with that logic. Why is that? Again. Definitions. “sexual orientation” this is a clinical term. How do medical professionals define that term? Is pedophilia called a “sexual orientation”? Why or why not ? Is it about political correctness? Is there no rational reason for the medical definition? maybe start with arguing there… you are just jumping in Kerner with this sorta funny logic…. what can I say…..

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 31

    “. I am asking you if there is a consistent way to differentiate between the sexual orientation of the homosexual and the sexual orientation of the pedophile using you earlier analysis of morality.”

    1) is there mutual consent under all the tests that the civil law has come up with over the ages… such as an (arbitrary) age of consent, mental capacity etc?

    2) is there harm done?

    3) are there identifiable social benefits (example: polygamy in the OT probably saved alot of women from starvation etc…. context is important, and context, like it or not, changes over time. So the laws need to too. …..

    4) is there an identifiable harm done to individuals or society as in less order, more chaos? health issues? is the general public good helped or hindered or maybe not even an issue? application: legalize drugs and prostitution or not? society weighs the cost vs the benefit. Or should. For some things in a fallen world there is no perfect solution. application: are adults gonna have sex? Confessions: Short of a miracle ? Yes. Solution: get em married off.

    Ah Kerner says….. the confessions have something to say about those carthusian monks doing (probably same sex) stuff. But then Kerner ignores the argumentative context: The cite is an example of how mandatory celebacy provokes sinning. the argument is then this:

    “Homosexuality happens because of the church insisting on mandatory celebacy. ”

    That is the argument. But not really. Why? The confessors had no concept called “homosexuality”. That´s why their argument appears absurd even to the most conservative christian today. It is an exercise in anachronism.

    Here is the delema: 1) the bible and the Lutheran Confessions condemns making celebacy mandatory. Fact. 2) There is nothing in the bible that says same gender sex is permitted. There is stuff in the bible that says heterosexual sex is permitted. 3) there are no positive examples of either heterosexual or homosexual sexual relationships in the bible that would be held up as exemplary outside of the “song of solomon”, which book, is never read in church. for a reason!

    so where does that leave us?

    reason and love.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 31

    “. I am asking you if there is a consistent way to differentiate between the sexual orientation of the homosexual and the sexual orientation of the pedophile using you earlier analysis of morality.”

    1) is there mutual consent under all the tests that the civil law has come up with over the ages… such as an (arbitrary) age of consent, mental capacity etc?

    2) is there harm done?

    3) are there identifiable social benefits (example: polygamy in the OT probably saved alot of women from starvation etc…. context is important, and context, like it or not, changes over time. So the laws need to too. …..

    4) is there an identifiable harm done to individuals or society as in less order, more chaos? health issues? is the general public good helped or hindered or maybe not even an issue? application: legalize drugs and prostitution or not? society weighs the cost vs the benefit. Or should. For some things in a fallen world there is no perfect solution. application: are adults gonna have sex? Confessions: Short of a miracle ? Yes. Solution: get em married off.

    Ah Kerner says….. the confessions have something to say about those carthusian monks doing (probably same sex) stuff. But then Kerner ignores the argumentative context: The cite is an example of how mandatory celebacy provokes sinning. the argument is then this:

    “Homosexuality happens because of the church insisting on mandatory celebacy. ”

    That is the argument. But not really. Why? The confessors had no concept called “homosexuality”. That´s why their argument appears absurd even to the most conservative christian today. It is an exercise in anachronism.

    Here is the delema: 1) the bible and the Lutheran Confessions condemns making celebacy mandatory. Fact. 2) There is nothing in the bible that says same gender sex is permitted. There is stuff in the bible that says heterosexual sex is permitted. 3) there are no positive examples of either heterosexual or homosexual sexual relationships in the bible that would be held up as exemplary outside of the “song of solomon”, which book, is never read in church. for a reason!

    so where does that leave us?

    reason and love.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “1)There is a grossly unequal position of power with an adult vs a child or even , say…. a 40 year old man and an impressionable naive young girl of say 21 years old.”

    Nah, she would have to be much younger than that, maybe 12-13. I have been there. Women know what is going on. Even young women, say 14, 15. I did.

    “2)I would be absolutely certain that the men who molest prepubescent boys are heterosexual. Hetersexual molesters like the feminine qualities of young boys.”

    Same sex is same sex by definition. It is just that gay men like men, not kids. So, guys who like boys are not like guys who like men. They are just different, but not hetero.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “1)There is a grossly unequal position of power with an adult vs a child or even , say…. a 40 year old man and an impressionable naive young girl of say 21 years old.”

    Nah, she would have to be much younger than that, maybe 12-13. I have been there. Women know what is going on. Even young women, say 14, 15. I did.

    “2)I would be absolutely certain that the men who molest prepubescent boys are heterosexual. Hetersexual molesters like the feminine qualities of young boys.”

    Same sex is same sex by definition. It is just that gay men like men, not kids. So, guys who like boys are not like guys who like men. They are just different, but not hetero.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @62

    1) Your logic seems to be this: “I was a certain way, so , based on that, everyone else is too.

    2) So the boys and girls that were 14 years old and up “knew what was going on” with those priests? So what would be the conclusions you would draw from that sg? I am curious. So if a pastor got with your 14 year old you would hold your 14 year old equally responsible?

    SG So, guys who like boys are not like guys who like men. They are just different, but not hetero.

    FWS Your basis for saying they are not hetero SG? If they are not hetero then they are gay? Again, your basis for stating that?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @62

    1) Your logic seems to be this: “I was a certain way, so , based on that, everyone else is too.

    2) So the boys and girls that were 14 years old and up “knew what was going on” with those priests? So what would be the conclusions you would draw from that sg? I am curious. So if a pastor got with your 14 year old you would hold your 14 year old equally responsible?

    SG So, guys who like boys are not like guys who like men. They are just different, but not hetero.

    FWS Your basis for saying they are not hetero SG? If they are not hetero then they are gay? Again, your basis for stating that?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Back to the post…

    The Lutheran Confessions make the argument , in the Apology to the Augsburg Confessions art XXIII, that male/male sex among the clergy was the fault of mandatory celebacy.

    Would anyone, knowing what we think we know now about sexuality and homosexuality, still care to try to make this argument?

    I would modify the argument this way:

    1) Many pastors, priests, psychologists, etc appear to enter their professions either as an attempt to fix themselves with self understanding or by cutting some sort of deal with God.

    2) I would theorize that many homosexual men get married or become priests to try to do this.

    3) I would suggest that the results of this sort of effort, when it is about sacrifice and bargaining than faith, are to provoke sin for exactly the reasons the Lutheran Confessions state.

    4) How do we recongnize to what extent such actions are about sacrifice or about faith? This way: a) Are the actions done to placate/propitiate God and make him happy by our doing? b) Or are the actions done to serve others?

    On earth, God is pleased only by Good Works done to please others. Only such works conform to the Word of God and so can be called Good Works. Good Works, to be Goodness and Mercy (see Luther´s Small Catechism for more on this), are always evidenced by their usefulness to others. Luther (paraphrase) : “Is the work truly useful to others? Then God is pleased with that work and it is done according to his will, purpose and pleasure and we can and should be certain of that.”

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

    God threatens to punish those who break his commandments. This includes works done to placate Him, which we call “sacrifice”. God punishes sin, and the idolatry that sacrifice represents is the root of all sin. It is to place our trust in what we can do rather than in what Christ has done. It robs Christ of what is alone His.

    We daily need to put the Works of Christ to work to please God. We need to daily plead th0se works of Christ, alone, to God for we all daily sin much and truly deserve nothing but temporal and eternal punishment for each and every one of our sins and even our very best works.

    Then… we put our own works to work in order to please our neighbor.

    This is how we please God in heaven and on earth at the same time. This is God´s will being done as God´s Word teaches us. This is the right dividing of Law and Gospel.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Back to the post…

    The Lutheran Confessions make the argument , in the Apology to the Augsburg Confessions art XXIII, that male/male sex among the clergy was the fault of mandatory celebacy.

    Would anyone, knowing what we think we know now about sexuality and homosexuality, still care to try to make this argument?

    I would modify the argument this way:

    1) Many pastors, priests, psychologists, etc appear to enter their professions either as an attempt to fix themselves with self understanding or by cutting some sort of deal with God.

    2) I would theorize that many homosexual men get married or become priests to try to do this.

    3) I would suggest that the results of this sort of effort, when it is about sacrifice and bargaining than faith, are to provoke sin for exactly the reasons the Lutheran Confessions state.

    4) How do we recongnize to what extent such actions are about sacrifice or about faith? This way: a) Are the actions done to placate/propitiate God and make him happy by our doing? b) Or are the actions done to serve others?

    On earth, God is pleased only by Good Works done to please others. Only such works conform to the Word of God and so can be called Good Works. Good Works, to be Goodness and Mercy (see Luther´s Small Catechism for more on this), are always evidenced by their usefulness to others. Luther (paraphrase) : “Is the work truly useful to others? Then God is pleased with that work and it is done according to his will, purpose and pleasure and we can and should be certain of that.”

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

    God threatens to punish those who break his commandments. This includes works done to placate Him, which we call “sacrifice”. God punishes sin, and the idolatry that sacrifice represents is the root of all sin. It is to place our trust in what we can do rather than in what Christ has done. It robs Christ of what is alone His.

    We daily need to put the Works of Christ to work to please God. We need to daily plead th0se works of Christ, alone, to God for we all daily sin much and truly deserve nothing but temporal and eternal punishment for each and every one of our sins and even our very best works.

    Then… we put our own works to work in order to please our neighbor.

    This is how we please God in heaven and on earth at the same time. This is God´s will being done as God´s Word teaches us. This is the right dividing of Law and Gospel.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 46

    “You’re right, but does that mean that our society controls our decisions about sexual morality? What I’m trying to say is that “showing love” as a sole standard of morality can be twisted into almost anything.”

    I suggest that all the laws we currently have that deal with minors in family law, contract law etc are an example of the Divinely Revealed Law of God in the Minds of men (Ap art IV) at work. They fit most cases well and they protect the weak. And yes, there are exceptions to be made with almost every law. That is why preserving judicial discretion is so very important, as is the need to pray for wise judges.

    My point: Our legal system in action is what reason guided by love looks like in action Kerner. Where law does not result in love, results in more harm than good, or we need a new law, again … reason. We argue and experiment, guided by case experience and the outcomes of those cases.

    So you are proposing we do what as an alternative? Some christian version of Sharia Law in the form of some codification of whatever Law is found in the Bible? There is a group of conservative christians calle “restorationists” who propose exactly that. You might want to google them and consider their arguments carefully.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 46

    “You’re right, but does that mean that our society controls our decisions about sexual morality? What I’m trying to say is that “showing love” as a sole standard of morality can be twisted into almost anything.”

    I suggest that all the laws we currently have that deal with minors in family law, contract law etc are an example of the Divinely Revealed Law of God in the Minds of men (Ap art IV) at work. They fit most cases well and they protect the weak. And yes, there are exceptions to be made with almost every law. That is why preserving judicial discretion is so very important, as is the need to pray for wise judges.

    My point: Our legal system in action is what reason guided by love looks like in action Kerner. Where law does not result in love, results in more harm than good, or we need a new law, again … reason. We argue and experiment, guided by case experience and the outcomes of those cases.

    So you are proposing we do what as an alternative? Some christian version of Sharia Law in the form of some codification of whatever Law is found in the Bible? There is a group of conservative christians calle “restorationists” who propose exactly that. You might want to google them and consider their arguments carefully.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 46

    I have been trying to think of where you are going with your thinking about the Law of God. Maybe you are thinking this: that there is civil Law that is man´s doing, then there is God´s Divinely Revealed Law that is something only christians can really know about or … maybe that christians AND pagans can only know about by turning to the Bible?

    Lutherans sort of agree with this. but not in the way you seem to be headed dear Kerner.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 46

    I have been trying to think of where you are going with your thinking about the Law of God. Maybe you are thinking this: that there is civil Law that is man´s doing, then there is God´s Divinely Revealed Law that is something only christians can really know about or … maybe that christians AND pagans can only know about by turning to the Bible?

    Lutherans sort of agree with this. but not in the way you seem to be headed dear Kerner.

  • Lou

    One somewhat radical question and a somewhat radical observation here:
    1) could the austere and aesthetic emphasis on the RC priesthood produce an environment somewhat akin to the occurance of jailhouse homosexual acts by otherwise hetro males?
    2) if the victims are ‘post-pubescent adolescent males’, then the situation is much different than portrayed in the media. If ‘post-pubescent adolescent males’ = 15+ y.o., we’re getting close to age of consent. So, what seemed outrageous to me earlier (imagining 6 or 7 year olds being abused), is still repulsive, but perhaps raises more questions about responsibility and manhood, etc….

    Lou

  • Lou

    One somewhat radical question and a somewhat radical observation here:
    1) could the austere and aesthetic emphasis on the RC priesthood produce an environment somewhat akin to the occurance of jailhouse homosexual acts by otherwise hetro males?
    2) if the victims are ‘post-pubescent adolescent males’, then the situation is much different than portrayed in the media. If ‘post-pubescent adolescent males’ = 15+ y.o., we’re getting close to age of consent. So, what seemed outrageous to me earlier (imagining 6 or 7 year olds being abused), is still repulsive, but perhaps raises more questions about responsibility and manhood, etc….

    Lou

  • kerner

    Hi frank. To you and Stephen:

    What I am trying to say is that your “Love plus Reason” definition of law is really nothing more that Emotionalism plus Rationalization.

    You can make it go anywhere if you try hard enough. And it is not true that nobody can find “love” in an adult-child sexual relationship using your principles.

    Re-read the link on pederasty. The older patron frequently treated his 12-17 year old partner as a protege, teaching him and using his superior influence to advance the youth’s career, until the youth reached the age at which he would take child partner of his own. And the older man would take on a new one. The greeks regarded this practice as “love”, and it is reflected in their philosophy and even in their mythology. It was the Jews and the early Church that condemned this practice and drove it underground, although they clearly couldn’t eradicate it.

    And this concept of an adult showing “love” through sex is not unknown today. See here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vagina_Monologues

    In the Vagina Monologue, “The Little Coochie-snorcher That Could”, a woman looks back on a time when she was 13 years old and was given alcohol and sex with a “gorgeous” 24 year old woman. This is described as a positive event, a “good rape”. In later performances, the girl’s age was changed to 16, because 13 was a bit much even for some artistic feminists, but clearly not for all of them.

    You don’t hear the term, “situational ethics” as much as you used to, but I think that your “love plus reason” approach is really nothing more than that.

    You love some one, i.e., you care about them and want to make them happy, so you try to give them what they want without regard for any objective standard of whether what they want is right or wrong. You have not convinced me that the law is reduced to that.

    A law that allows you to rationalize what ever “feels right” is no law at all, and no one would ever be convicted by it. Since one purpose of the law is to convict us, your definition of the law must be wrong.

  • kerner

    Hi frank. To you and Stephen:

    What I am trying to say is that your “Love plus Reason” definition of law is really nothing more that Emotionalism plus Rationalization.

    You can make it go anywhere if you try hard enough. And it is not true that nobody can find “love” in an adult-child sexual relationship using your principles.

    Re-read the link on pederasty. The older patron frequently treated his 12-17 year old partner as a protege, teaching him and using his superior influence to advance the youth’s career, until the youth reached the age at which he would take child partner of his own. And the older man would take on a new one. The greeks regarded this practice as “love”, and it is reflected in their philosophy and even in their mythology. It was the Jews and the early Church that condemned this practice and drove it underground, although they clearly couldn’t eradicate it.

    And this concept of an adult showing “love” through sex is not unknown today. See here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vagina_Monologues

    In the Vagina Monologue, “The Little Coochie-snorcher That Could”, a woman looks back on a time when she was 13 years old and was given alcohol and sex with a “gorgeous” 24 year old woman. This is described as a positive event, a “good rape”. In later performances, the girl’s age was changed to 16, because 13 was a bit much even for some artistic feminists, but clearly not for all of them.

    You don’t hear the term, “situational ethics” as much as you used to, but I think that your “love plus reason” approach is really nothing more than that.

    You love some one, i.e., you care about them and want to make them happy, so you try to give them what they want without regard for any objective standard of whether what they want is right or wrong. You have not convinced me that the law is reduced to that.

    A law that allows you to rationalize what ever “feels right” is no law at all, and no one would ever be convicted by it. Since one purpose of the law is to convict us, your definition of the law must be wrong.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “1) Your logic seems to be this: “I was a certain way, so , based on that, everyone else is too.”

    Not exactly, but partly. While intellectual, physical and emotional development are not uniform for everyone, they do increase with age. I just don’t seen anything wrong with a 20 year old woman with a 40 year old man. Is there any Biblical reason to object? Any legal reason? Any moral reason? What about a 19 year old woman and a 27 year old man? Or an 18 year old with a 30 year old? Or 17 and 35? I mean where do you draw the line? The current 16 seems reasonable because by then probably 95% of people are capable of knowing what they are doing. At 14 maybe only 60%. Do you see what I mean by an increasing continuum?

    “2) So the boys and girls that were 14 years old and up “knew what was going on” with those priests?”

    Yeah, at least some anyway at least enough to report it, which they did.

    “So what would be the conclusions you would draw from that sg? I am curious. So if a pastor got with your 14 year old you would hold your 14 year old equally responsible?”

    It depends. Does the 14 year old believe he/she is in a relationship, and does he/she think it is voluntary? If so, then the 14 year old is responsible for his/her actions. If he/she reports being coerced, threatened, intimidated, seduced, etc., then I would believe him/her and not hold him/her as responsible as the pastor, but I would hold him her responsible for reporting it. Since a pastor by his position basically promises to observe Biblical commands, I would blame the pastor if it were my son in any case. If it were a daughter and the (unmarried) Pastor refused to marry her, I would blame him. If he married her, I would be uneasy at first, but would give it a chance. If he were married, I would blame him in any case.

    “So, guys who like boys are not like guys who like men. They are just different, but not hetero.”
    “Your basis for saying they are not hetero SG?”

    Like I said, by definition same sex is not hetero. That is my basis.

    “If they are not hetero then they are gay?”

    Dunno, maybe some are and some aren’t.

    “Again, your basis for stating that?”

    If we define gay men as those who like men, then those who only like boys don’t fit that definition. But those who like both do. Since the observed reality is that all three types exist, it is not clear cut. I haven’t exactly pondered it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “1) Your logic seems to be this: “I was a certain way, so , based on that, everyone else is too.”

    Not exactly, but partly. While intellectual, physical and emotional development are not uniform for everyone, they do increase with age. I just don’t seen anything wrong with a 20 year old woman with a 40 year old man. Is there any Biblical reason to object? Any legal reason? Any moral reason? What about a 19 year old woman and a 27 year old man? Or an 18 year old with a 30 year old? Or 17 and 35? I mean where do you draw the line? The current 16 seems reasonable because by then probably 95% of people are capable of knowing what they are doing. At 14 maybe only 60%. Do you see what I mean by an increasing continuum?

    “2) So the boys and girls that were 14 years old and up “knew what was going on” with those priests?”

    Yeah, at least some anyway at least enough to report it, which they did.

    “So what would be the conclusions you would draw from that sg? I am curious. So if a pastor got with your 14 year old you would hold your 14 year old equally responsible?”

    It depends. Does the 14 year old believe he/she is in a relationship, and does he/she think it is voluntary? If so, then the 14 year old is responsible for his/her actions. If he/she reports being coerced, threatened, intimidated, seduced, etc., then I would believe him/her and not hold him/her as responsible as the pastor, but I would hold him her responsible for reporting it. Since a pastor by his position basically promises to observe Biblical commands, I would blame the pastor if it were my son in any case. If it were a daughter and the (unmarried) Pastor refused to marry her, I would blame him. If he married her, I would be uneasy at first, but would give it a chance. If he were married, I would blame him in any case.

    “So, guys who like boys are not like guys who like men. They are just different, but not hetero.”
    “Your basis for saying they are not hetero SG?”

    Like I said, by definition same sex is not hetero. That is my basis.

    “If they are not hetero then they are gay?”

    Dunno, maybe some are and some aren’t.

    “Again, your basis for stating that?”

    If we define gay men as those who like men, then those who only like boys don’t fit that definition. But those who like both do. Since the observed reality is that all three types exist, it is not clear cut. I haven’t exactly pondered it.

  • kerner

    While we discussing age, I would point out that adult responsibility for criminal behavior attaches at age 17 in Wisconsin automatically. With the appropriate petition and decision by a court, a child can be held responsible for some crimes when the child is as young as 10. Thus, when we want to believe that children are responsible for their behavior, we don’t have any problem deciding that they are.

    Likewise, we “protect” adults from adult decisions with laws that prohibit 18-21 year olds from drinking alcohol or gambling, even though they can vote, enter into most contracts, marry, join the military and consent to sex.

  • kerner

    While we discussing age, I would point out that adult responsibility for criminal behavior attaches at age 17 in Wisconsin automatically. With the appropriate petition and decision by a court, a child can be held responsible for some crimes when the child is as young as 10. Thus, when we want to believe that children are responsible for their behavior, we don’t have any problem deciding that they are.

    Likewise, we “protect” adults from adult decisions with laws that prohibit 18-21 year olds from drinking alcohol or gambling, even though they can vote, enter into most contracts, marry, join the military and consent to sex.

  • kerner

    sg:

    “Does the 14 year old believe he/she is in a relationship?”

    Back in the day, the only appropriate “relationship” for that kind of thing was marriage. This made the question of whether the 14 year old believed he/she was is one much simpler.

    Oh, and I forgot something. Until recently, a girl old enough to be pregnant could get an abortion without any adult saying yes or no. In some states that is still true, I think. Why would such a girl be presumed to “have control over her body” for the purposes of abortion, but not for sex?

  • kerner

    sg:

    “Does the 14 year old believe he/she is in a relationship?”

    Back in the day, the only appropriate “relationship” for that kind of thing was marriage. This made the question of whether the 14 year old believed he/she was is one much simpler.

    Oh, and I forgot something. Until recently, a girl old enough to be pregnant could get an abortion without any adult saying yes or no. In some states that is still true, I think. Why would such a girl be presumed to “have control over her body” for the purposes of abortion, but not for sex?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 70

    Lutherans would point to those laws as reason guided by love. those are good examples of what I and stephen are talking about when we are talking. You are taking things into a different direction…. sort of love as what feels good.

    try this: the Lutherans said that nothing can be demanded as to earthly morality beyond the ethical system of Aristototle. You went to try to see what he said specifically about homosexuality. try to avoid casuistry and think about what he broadly says. which is this:

    People become moral people by practicing virtue until it becomes second nature, until it becomes a “habit”.

    And what does virtue look like? it looks like neither too much or too little in a situational context. It is to exchange one “good” for what we can reason is a higher good. Example: It is good for me to steal. I get someone elses stuff to enjoy. But I forfeit that good in favor of the higher good of not having to put bars on my windows and keep a gun under my pillow. I gain peace to enjoy what I have.

    So what does the practice of virtue look like? It is to employ man´s “higher powers”, those that “separate man from beast” that are reason and the ability to love to control the emotions that drive and are driven by man´s “natural appetites”, “baser instincts”, “animal instincts”.

    The reason to do this is the belief that in practicing these virtues until they become second nature, we will experience “flourishing”. That is , our lives will become happier (emotions…) because we employ what we have as humans in a way that is useful in the pursuit of happiness.

    The reason Aristotle was and still is like crack for western philosophy is that he fully included love and the emotions in his schema, yet all could be comprehended in his system by reason.

    Why did the Lutheran Church aim at exactly this philosophy and Luther call Aristotle things like “whore, devil” etc? Because this system all runs perfectly well without any Christ at all.

    So if THIS is how mankind gets back to “paradise” or that blessed state that everyone , even athiests , long for, then no Christ is needed. Saint Thomas Aquinas (whom I adore and think is the best commentator on Aristotle that is…) was understood by the scholastics to say that Aristotles process, of course with the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, is how we again gain the Image of God which was horribly shattered but not entirely lost with the fall.

    Lutherans say that the Image of God was alone, faith alone in Christ alone. Alone. So that Image was entirely lost and is entirely and completely restored in the waters of Holy Baptism, by faith alone.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 70

    Lutherans would point to those laws as reason guided by love. those are good examples of what I and stephen are talking about when we are talking. You are taking things into a different direction…. sort of love as what feels good.

    try this: the Lutherans said that nothing can be demanded as to earthly morality beyond the ethical system of Aristototle. You went to try to see what he said specifically about homosexuality. try to avoid casuistry and think about what he broadly says. which is this:

    People become moral people by practicing virtue until it becomes second nature, until it becomes a “habit”.

    And what does virtue look like? it looks like neither too much or too little in a situational context. It is to exchange one “good” for what we can reason is a higher good. Example: It is good for me to steal. I get someone elses stuff to enjoy. But I forfeit that good in favor of the higher good of not having to put bars on my windows and keep a gun under my pillow. I gain peace to enjoy what I have.

    So what does the practice of virtue look like? It is to employ man´s “higher powers”, those that “separate man from beast” that are reason and the ability to love to control the emotions that drive and are driven by man´s “natural appetites”, “baser instincts”, “animal instincts”.

    The reason to do this is the belief that in practicing these virtues until they become second nature, we will experience “flourishing”. That is , our lives will become happier (emotions…) because we employ what we have as humans in a way that is useful in the pursuit of happiness.

    The reason Aristotle was and still is like crack for western philosophy is that he fully included love and the emotions in his schema, yet all could be comprehended in his system by reason.

    Why did the Lutheran Church aim at exactly this philosophy and Luther call Aristotle things like “whore, devil” etc? Because this system all runs perfectly well without any Christ at all.

    So if THIS is how mankind gets back to “paradise” or that blessed state that everyone , even athiests , long for, then no Christ is needed. Saint Thomas Aquinas (whom I adore and think is the best commentator on Aristotle that is…) was understood by the scholastics to say that Aristotles process, of course with the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, is how we again gain the Image of God which was horribly shattered but not entirely lost with the fall.

    Lutherans say that the Image of God was alone, faith alone in Christ alone. Alone. So that Image was entirely lost and is entirely and completely restored in the waters of Holy Baptism, by faith alone.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 70

    feel free then to imagine that when the Lutheran Confessions identify Divinely Revealed Law as being Reason, aka Natural Law, they mean this.

    Whereever you read Luther or the Confessions say “natural law”, you can exactly substitute “reason” in that place. St Thomas´understanding of “natural law” that the Confessions both reject and oppose, is of course an entirely different animal with the same name.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 70

    feel free then to imagine that when the Lutheran Confessions identify Divinely Revealed Law as being Reason, aka Natural Law, they mean this.

    Whereever you read Luther or the Confessions say “natural law”, you can exactly substitute “reason” in that place. St Thomas´understanding of “natural law” that the Confessions both reject and oppose, is of course an entirely different animal with the same name.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    comment 73 continued…

    so morality and aristotle are strictly about horizontal relationships in the earthly kingdom.

    In the heavenly kingdom , morality is found,”peculiarly” (ap art III love and keeping the law, ap art VI “justification”) in the first table of the Decalog, which deals with what? “Movements of the Heart”

    and what are those movements of the heart? Faith alone in Christ Alone! Reason cannot know about this morality. Only those who are regenerated can know this. And so the Law uniquely and peculiarly “terrifies” someone who is “regenerated”. Why? we see that sin is of the heart. it is not in what we do. What we do is a symptom.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    comment 73 continued…

    so morality and aristotle are strictly about horizontal relationships in the earthly kingdom.

    In the heavenly kingdom , morality is found,”peculiarly” (ap art III love and keeping the law, ap art VI “justification”) in the first table of the Decalog, which deals with what? “Movements of the Heart”

    and what are those movements of the heart? Faith alone in Christ Alone! Reason cannot know about this morality. Only those who are regenerated can know this. And so the Law uniquely and peculiarly “terrifies” someone who is “regenerated”. Why? we see that sin is of the heart. it is not in what we do. What we do is a symptom.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Back in the day, the only appropriate “relationship” for that kind of thing was marriage. This made the question of whether the 14 year old believed he/she was is one much simpler.”

    Okay, but before she marries, she has to want to. For her to want to marry, there has to be some relationship albeit not necessarily consummated yet. People who marry as virgins have a relationship before they marry often including quite a bit of physical contact.

    Fws asked, ” So if a pastor got with your 14 year old you would hold your 14 year old equally responsible?”

    I would say no in the case of the (rare) prepubescent 14 year old, but the physically mature 14 year old, I would say has quite a bit of responsibility at least to report it if it abusive and not just mutual normal attraction.

    For an unusual (14 year old girl), but normal, case of two people falling in love, I am hard pressed to say that a mature willing 14 year old and the pastor are really doing anything wrong especially if they are just in a relationship but not having sex. As a parent, I would be concerned if my 14 year old daughter were extremely seriously interested in any guy, but I would be less worried if the guy were over 20 than if he were under 20. A guy over 20 may actually be interested in a wife, but much under 20, he is much more likely looking for uh, some fun, and no way willing to commit to loving and marrying her. In short the older guy worries me less than the younger guy.

    I think the same sex situations are a little easier to call, but the fact is some teens are attracted to the same sex, so it is hard to say for absolute certain that such a relationship is abusive or coercive on the part of the older guy. Obviously both parties fail on Biblical standards, but it seems ridiculous for society to condone same sex relationships for anyone except those involving a Catholic priest. I mean, why would such a society have a problem with it? Is there a hue and cry against teen gay guys otherwise? I mean their preference is affirmed up and until they are attracted to a Catholic priest at which point they become victims? Obviously I am only referring to any hypothetical gay teens who fit this description, not to those who claim rape abuse, seduction, intimidation, etc.

    Did anyone else read that the incidence rate of abuse by Catholic priests is lower than other denominations and lower that the general population? I can’t find it, but I think I read that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Back in the day, the only appropriate “relationship” for that kind of thing was marriage. This made the question of whether the 14 year old believed he/she was is one much simpler.”

    Okay, but before she marries, she has to want to. For her to want to marry, there has to be some relationship albeit not necessarily consummated yet. People who marry as virgins have a relationship before they marry often including quite a bit of physical contact.

    Fws asked, ” So if a pastor got with your 14 year old you would hold your 14 year old equally responsible?”

    I would say no in the case of the (rare) prepubescent 14 year old, but the physically mature 14 year old, I would say has quite a bit of responsibility at least to report it if it abusive and not just mutual normal attraction.

    For an unusual (14 year old girl), but normal, case of two people falling in love, I am hard pressed to say that a mature willing 14 year old and the pastor are really doing anything wrong especially if they are just in a relationship but not having sex. As a parent, I would be concerned if my 14 year old daughter were extremely seriously interested in any guy, but I would be less worried if the guy were over 20 than if he were under 20. A guy over 20 may actually be interested in a wife, but much under 20, he is much more likely looking for uh, some fun, and no way willing to commit to loving and marrying her. In short the older guy worries me less than the younger guy.

    I think the same sex situations are a little easier to call, but the fact is some teens are attracted to the same sex, so it is hard to say for absolute certain that such a relationship is abusive or coercive on the part of the older guy. Obviously both parties fail on Biblical standards, but it seems ridiculous for society to condone same sex relationships for anyone except those involving a Catholic priest. I mean, why would such a society have a problem with it? Is there a hue and cry against teen gay guys otherwise? I mean their preference is affirmed up and until they are attracted to a Catholic priest at which point they become victims? Obviously I am only referring to any hypothetical gay teens who fit this description, not to those who claim rape abuse, seduction, intimidation, etc.

    Did anyone else read that the incidence rate of abuse by Catholic priests is lower than other denominations and lower that the general population? I can’t find it, but I think I read that.

  • kerner

    But Frank,

    If we, like Aristotle, think we can keep the Law by practicing Love and Reason till it seems to be second nature, we will, like Aristotle, come to believe that we are virtuous without Christ. How will we ever know we are separated from God without a law which condemns us, not in the abstract, but in the specific?

    If I cannot identify my specific sins, how am I to know that I am a Sinner? And without some objective rule of right and wrong, how can I identify sins? And if I don’t know that I am a sinner, how is my sin to terrify me?

    Your rule of practicing Love and Reason, with no specific guidance as to where those things should lead in practical and specific cases, is far too close to the Wiccan rede for me:

    “An it harm none, do as ye will.” (As opposed to the supreme commandment of Satanism: Do what thou wilt)

    Wiccanism is pretty much: do whatever makes you happy as long as you don’t harm others. But who decides whether others are being harmed? Is it you? Is it the “others” affected by what you do? Is your reason, or the collective reason of these “others”, sufficient to decide whether harm is being done based on how it “looks” or it “feels”?

    I don’t think so. And this is why you are right about me in this respect. When I read the general principles of Aristotle, the Confessions, or anybody else, I tend to also read what they said about specific matters to see how they applied those principles. I feel this process is important. Not only does it help us learn what the articulated principles mean, it helps us test whether the principles are valid and can be consistently applied without leading to crazy results.

    Maybe that’s casuistry. I don’t know. I am not a philosopher. I am a practical man. And however much our capacity to love and reason may help us understand God’s Law, at some point the law also comes down to: “You can eat from every other tree in this garden, but not from that one.”

    The time we start trying to find the law entirely on our ability to Love and Reason is the time when we figure out a way to decide that it’s OK to eat from the wrong tree.

  • kerner

    But Frank,

    If we, like Aristotle, think we can keep the Law by practicing Love and Reason till it seems to be second nature, we will, like Aristotle, come to believe that we are virtuous without Christ. How will we ever know we are separated from God without a law which condemns us, not in the abstract, but in the specific?

    If I cannot identify my specific sins, how am I to know that I am a Sinner? And without some objective rule of right and wrong, how can I identify sins? And if I don’t know that I am a sinner, how is my sin to terrify me?

    Your rule of practicing Love and Reason, with no specific guidance as to where those things should lead in practical and specific cases, is far too close to the Wiccan rede for me:

    “An it harm none, do as ye will.” (As opposed to the supreme commandment of Satanism: Do what thou wilt)

    Wiccanism is pretty much: do whatever makes you happy as long as you don’t harm others. But who decides whether others are being harmed? Is it you? Is it the “others” affected by what you do? Is your reason, or the collective reason of these “others”, sufficient to decide whether harm is being done based on how it “looks” or it “feels”?

    I don’t think so. And this is why you are right about me in this respect. When I read the general principles of Aristotle, the Confessions, or anybody else, I tend to also read what they said about specific matters to see how they applied those principles. I feel this process is important. Not only does it help us learn what the articulated principles mean, it helps us test whether the principles are valid and can be consistently applied without leading to crazy results.

    Maybe that’s casuistry. I don’t know. I am not a philosopher. I am a practical man. And however much our capacity to love and reason may help us understand God’s Law, at some point the law also comes down to: “You can eat from every other tree in this garden, but not from that one.”

    The time we start trying to find the law entirely on our ability to Love and Reason is the time when we figure out a way to decide that it’s OK to eat from the wrong tree.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I found it.

    You gotta love actuaries.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I found it.

    You gotta love actuaries.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

  • kerner

    sg:

    Well, we know that you love them. But I have to admit that your fascination with numbers has often come in handy.

  • kerner

    sg:

    Well, we know that you love them. But I have to admit that your fascination with numbers has often come in handy.

  • Grace

    I find it very interesting that the “Gay & Lesbian Political Action & Support Groups” put this up. The pain and suffering from all who have endured such tragic abuse from those to whom they should be able to trust. How many with sorrow and pain, have chosen another path after such abuse?

    Victims Abused by Lutheran Minister
    Win $37 Million Award
    By AP from the NYTimes on the Web, April 22, 2004
    MARSHALL, Texas — Victims of a former Lutheran minister who sexually molested boys won a jury award of nearly $37 million Thursday, bringing the total payout in the case to about $69 million.

    The case is the most serious to hit the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which has about 5 million members, and has drawn comparisons to the worst abuses committed during the Roman Catholic molestation crisis.

    In addition to Thursday’s verdict, an attorney for the plaintiffs disclosed that separate settlements reached before the trial were worth $32 million. Those deals were struck with the Chicago-based denomination and the seminary in Columbus, Ohio, that Gerald Patrick Thomas Jr. attended.

    The lawsuit charged that former Bishop Mark Herbener of the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod, and former bishop’s assistant Earl Eliason, ignored warnings about Thomas’ behavior.

    http://www.gaypasg.org/gaypasg/PressClippings/2004/April%202004/victims_abused_by_lutheran_minis.htm

  • Grace

    I find it very interesting that the “Gay & Lesbian Political Action & Support Groups” put this up. The pain and suffering from all who have endured such tragic abuse from those to whom they should be able to trust. How many with sorrow and pain, have chosen another path after such abuse?

    Victims Abused by Lutheran Minister
    Win $37 Million Award
    By AP from the NYTimes on the Web, April 22, 2004
    MARSHALL, Texas — Victims of a former Lutheran minister who sexually molested boys won a jury award of nearly $37 million Thursday, bringing the total payout in the case to about $69 million.

    The case is the most serious to hit the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which has about 5 million members, and has drawn comparisons to the worst abuses committed during the Roman Catholic molestation crisis.

    In addition to Thursday’s verdict, an attorney for the plaintiffs disclosed that separate settlements reached before the trial were worth $32 million. Those deals were struck with the Chicago-based denomination and the seminary in Columbus, Ohio, that Gerald Patrick Thomas Jr. attended.

    The lawsuit charged that former Bishop Mark Herbener of the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod, and former bishop’s assistant Earl Eliason, ignored warnings about Thomas’ behavior.

    http://www.gaypasg.org/gaypasg/PressClippings/2004/April%202004/victims_abused_by_lutheran_minis.htm

  • Grace

    I believe strongly, that there should be a roster, with names of those who have been found guilty of any sexual crime, be it children or adults, made AVAILABLE to all congregants, and those who allow their children to join any kind of youth club.

    The statement below holds true for anyone looking for children, the most trusting.
    “By their nature, congregations are the most trusting of organizations, so that makes them attractive targets for predators,” he said. “If you’re a predator, where do you go? You go to a congregation that will welcome you.”

    June 14, 2007, The Houston Chronicle

    3 insurers shed light on Protestant church sex abuse

    By ROSE FRENCH
    Associated Press

    An excerpt _________

    “When insurance companies first started getting reports of abuse from churches nearly two decades ago, the cases usually involved abuse that happened many years earlier. But over the past several years, the alleged abuse is more recent — which could reflect a greater awareness about reporting abuse, insurance companies said.

    Insurance officials said the number of sex abuse cases has remained steady over the past two decades, but they also said churches are working harder to prevent child sex abuse by conducting background checks, installing windows in nurseries and play areas and requiring at least two adults in a room with a child.

    Patrick Moreland, vice president of marketing for Church Mutual, said churches are particularly susceptible to abusers.

    “By their nature, congregations are the most trusting of organizations, so that makes them attractive targets for predators,” he said. “If you’re a predator, where do you go? You go to a congregation that will welcome you.”

    http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/article07/three_insurers_shed_light.html

  • Grace

    I believe strongly, that there should be a roster, with names of those who have been found guilty of any sexual crime, be it children or adults, made AVAILABLE to all congregants, and those who allow their children to join any kind of youth club.

    The statement below holds true for anyone looking for children, the most trusting.
    “By their nature, congregations are the most trusting of organizations, so that makes them attractive targets for predators,” he said. “If you’re a predator, where do you go? You go to a congregation that will welcome you.”

    June 14, 2007, The Houston Chronicle

    3 insurers shed light on Protestant church sex abuse

    By ROSE FRENCH
    Associated Press

    An excerpt _________

    “When insurance companies first started getting reports of abuse from churches nearly two decades ago, the cases usually involved abuse that happened many years earlier. But over the past several years, the alleged abuse is more recent — which could reflect a greater awareness about reporting abuse, insurance companies said.

    Insurance officials said the number of sex abuse cases has remained steady over the past two decades, but they also said churches are working harder to prevent child sex abuse by conducting background checks, installing windows in nurseries and play areas and requiring at least two adults in a room with a child.

    Patrick Moreland, vice president of marketing for Church Mutual, said churches are particularly susceptible to abusers.

    “By their nature, congregations are the most trusting of organizations, so that makes them attractive targets for predators,” he said. “If you’re a predator, where do you go? You go to a congregation that will welcome you.”

    http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/article07/three_insurers_shed_light.html

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Kerner @ 76

    KERNER If we, like Aristotle, think we can keep the Law by practicing Love and Reason till it seems to be second nature, we will, like Aristotle, come to believe that we are virtuous without Christ.

    FWS I suggest that the Lutheran answer to this is in the Apology of the Lutheran Confessions , Art III titled “Love and the Fulfilling of the Law”. Article IV on “Justification ” should be considered a part of this article.

    The Lutheran Confessions answer that there is only one Law that is for Christians and pagans alike:

    9] Although, therefore, ‘civil works’ , by which we mean the outward works of the Law [towards our neighbor], can be done, in a measure, without Christ and without the Holy Ghost from our inborn light [ reason aka natural law],

    But there is a Revealed Law of God that is veiled to Reason:

    9 cont´d] nevertheless it appears from what we have said that those things which belong peculiarly to the divine Law: the affections of the heart towards God, which are commanded in the first table, cannot be rendered without the Holy Ghost. ” (emphasis mine) http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php#para9

    This Law always accuses and condemns us:

    7]…how can the human heart love God while it knows that He is terribly angry, and is oppressing us with temporal and perpetual calamities? But the Law always accuses us, always shows that God is angry…. 8] God therefore is not loved until we apprehend mercy by faith. Not until then does He become a lovable object. (emphasis mine) http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php#para7

    Reason is veiled to this understanding of the Divinely Revealed Law:

    13] Paul understands by the veil the human opinion concerning the entire Law, the Decalog and the ceremonies, namely, that hypocrites think that external and civil works satisfy the Law of God, and that sacrifices and observances justify before God ex opere operato. 14] But then this veil is removed from us, i.e., we are freed from this error when God shows to our hearts our uncleanness and the heinousness of sin. Then, for the first time, we see that we are far from fulfilling the Law. Then we learn to know how flesh, in security and indifference, does not fear God, and is not fully certain that we are regarded by God, but imagines that men are born and die by chance. Then we experience that we do not believe that God forgives and hears us. (ibid)

    KERNER How will we ever know we are separated from God without a law which condemns us, not in the abstract, but in the specific?

    FWS Kerner, the Law is Divinely Revealed in the minds of all men, in their reason that is. That Law specifically informs men of their condemnation. That is what makes missionary work possible Kerner. Even pagans agree with the Decalog when they read it. Why is that? The Confessions suggest that this is because it is the same Law God reveals in man´s reason.

    Here is the specific sin list in article III of the Apology:

    46]…Otherwise the Law always accuses us. For who loves or fears God sufficiently? Who with sufficient patience bears the afflictions imposed by God? Who does not frequently doubt whether human affairs are ruled by God’s counsel or by chance? Who does not frequently doubt whether he be heard by God? Who is not frequently enraged because the wicked enjoy a better lot than the pious, because the pious are oppressed by the wicked? Who does satisfaction to his own calling? Who loves his neighbor as himself? Who is not tempted 47] by lust? …48] …More than blind are those who do not perceive that wicked desires in the flesh are sins, of which Paul, Gal. 5:17, says: The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. 49] The flesh distrusts God, trusts in present things, seeks human aid in calamities, even contrary to God’s will, flees from afflictions, which it ought to bear because of God’s commands, doubts concerning God’s mercy, etc.

    The Holy Ghost in our hearts contends with such dispositions [with Adam's sin] in order to suppress and mortify them [this poison of the old Adam, this desperately wicked disposition], 50] and to produce new spiritual movements.

    KERNER If I cannot identify my specific sins, how am I to know that I am a Sinner? And without some objective rule of right and wrong, how can I identify sins? And if I don’t know that I am a sinner, how is my sin to terrify me?

    FWS The confessions say indeed, that the Law in Man´s reason wants those rules. You are suggesting that reason wants or needs s those “specific” rules not to know they are sinners. That they know. Remember “the Law always accuses” . So why does Old Adam make Pharisaical lists of rules? for this reason:

    85] Moreover, this godless opinion concerning works always has existed in the world [sticks to the world quite tightly]. The heathen had sacrifices, derived from the fathers. They imitated their works. Their faith they did not retain, but thought that the works were a propitiation and price on account of which God would be reconciled to them. 86] The people in the Law [the Israelites] imitated sacrifices with the opinion that by means of these works they would appease God, so to say, ex opere operato. We see here how earnestly the prophets rebuke the people: Ps. 50:8: I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices, and Jer. 7:22: I spake not unto your fathers concerning burnt offerings. Such passages condemn not works, which God certainly had commanded as outward exercises in this government, but they condemn the godless opinion according to which they thought that by these works they appeased the wrath of God, and 87] thus cast away faith.

    and this…

    38] The adversaries are right in thinking that love is the fulfilling of the Law, and obedience to the Law is certainly righteousness. Therefore it would be true that love justifies us if we would keep the Law. …But they make a mistake in this that they think that we are justified by the Law. The adversaries…miss the main issue, for in this business they only behold the Law.

    For all men’s reason and wisdom cannot but hold that we must become pious by the Law, and that a person externally observing the Law is holy and pious. (ibid) (emphasis mine)

    KERNER Your rule of practicing Love and Reason, with no specific guidance as to where those things should lead in practical and specific cases, is far too close to the Wiccan rede for me:
    “An it harm none, do as ye will.” (As opposed to the supreme commandment of Satanism: Do what thou wilt)

    FWS First you are reducing the Law to a) “do no harm” and b) our outward actions. This is the way the Law works in the courtrooms that you work in as an attorney but in God´s courtroom things are different. There God judges us not according to our outward acts but according to our heart Kerner. That is one important point you are not seeing. You are treating earthly Law in the Second Table (which too IS God´s Law) as being the same as what God “peculiarly ” demands in the First Table. And you are turning the second table law into a matter of faith, where St James says that the Law there is a matter of what we do.

    I will again BEG you to get your pen out and sit down and try to outline the argument in the first part of art III of the Apology until it is clear to you. This would make you understand what I am trying to say.

    KERNER Wiccanism is pretty much: do whatever makes you happy as long as you don’t harm others. But who decides whether others are being harmed? Is it you? Is it the “others” affected by what you do? Is your reason, or the collective reason of these “others”, sufficient to decide whether harm is being done based on how it “looks” or it “feels”?

    FWS Ok. Wiccans teach this. This is not what the Lutheran Confessions teach. So your point is?

    KERNER I don’t think so. And this is why you are right about me in this respect. When I read the general principles of Aristotle, the Confessions, or anybody else, I tend to also read what they said about specific matters to see how they applied those principles. I feel this process is important. Not only does it help us learn what the articulated principles mean, it helps us test whether the principles are valid and can be consistently applied without leading to crazy results.

    FWS Ok Kerner. Here is how Luther would respond to you. First he would state God´s purpose in the Law. Then he discusses how we know that Law. I quote Luther in his sermon that is the basis for the FC Art VI “The [Lutheran] Third Use of the Law” :

    There is a righteousness that is here on earth. This righteousness is willed and ordered by God and is included in the second table of the ten commandments. This is called “man´s righteousness” or “the world´s righteousness”. The only purpose of this righteousness is to help us live together and enjoy the gifts God gives us.

    It is God´s desire that our present life be kept under restraint, and lived in peace, tranquility and harmony. God here wants each person to attend to his own affairs and not interfere with the business, property or person of anyone else.
    Now on the other hand, if men are not willing to voluntarily practice being righteous, God sends dictatorships, armed police and brute force to restrain and check those who refuse to be righteous. Where even this is not enough and government can no longer restrain anyone, then God sends famine, war and other terrible things, to subvert the government and destroy evil men. This has happened to the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

    From all this, we can learn God´s Will: earthly righteousness is to be practiced and maintained. We can also know that God will provide what is necessary to make this happen. If it does not happen, God will take it away and instead destroy everything. What this all should tell us is that God is very serious about earthly righteousness!

    This is the entire short sum and substance of this righteousness on earth.

    So it is necessary to encourage and urge everyone to voluntarily be diligent and even zealous in the exercise of this earthly and outward righteousness rather than having him be driven to it by force and punishment.

    This encouragement looks like setting out what is nicely summarized in the second table of the 10 commandments and then applying it in the context of the all the various relationships one finds himself in in his life. This includes every earthly responsibility, duty, role, profession, trade, career, occupation, job, vocation, work, or task, in the context of family, friends, work, and larger society, however great or seemingly trivial. We can be confident that God himself has ordered and appointed these things.

    What we do with these relationships, our vocations, are to be respected and highly honored. We should find pleasure in them and be happy to do what is required on the different spheres of life. For example when we are told to honor our mother and father, every child, employee, employer, citizen and whoever should feel joy in this and have no greater treasure on earth. It should feel like heaven to do this.

    This should be taught in this way for the one purpose of assuring everyone without any doubt at all: Any human being, of any faith, should be able to say: “now I know that such a work life or position is right and proper and should have full assurance that God is really and truly pleased with it.” If I am Christian, I further have his word and command as a sure witness, which never deceives of fails me.

    Earthly Righteousness is only visible works. This means it excludes faith and Christ. It has rewards here on earth. It also ends with this life. http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

    KERNER Maybe that’s casuistry. I don’t know. I am not a philosopher. I am a practical man. And however much our capacity to love and reason may help us understand God’s Law, at some point the law also comes down to: “You can eat from every other tree in this garden, but not from that one.”

    FWS Casuistry is important Kerner. Agreed. But it is not about being practical vs theoretical. That is a false choice. As with anything in life, it is good to first understand the purpose of something. God´s purpose in the Law here in earth is not to give us a way to please him with our obedience (this is called “sacrifice” in the Confessions and is condemned). Rather God´s purpose of the Law is to serve man with Goodness and Mercy.

    This is exactly our Lord´s point when he broke the letter of the Law in the Decalog. “The sabbath (ie the Law) was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. ” and “Go and find out what it means when God says “I would have mercy rather than sacrifice”.

    KERNER The time we start trying to find the law entirely on our ability to Love and Reason is the time when we figure out a way to decide that it’s OK to eat from the wrong tree.

    FWS Again, I would beg you to outline the Apology Art III up to section 61] Bless you dear brother in Christ!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Kerner @ 76

    KERNER If we, like Aristotle, think we can keep the Law by practicing Love and Reason till it seems to be second nature, we will, like Aristotle, come to believe that we are virtuous without Christ.

    FWS I suggest that the Lutheran answer to this is in the Apology of the Lutheran Confessions , Art III titled “Love and the Fulfilling of the Law”. Article IV on “Justification ” should be considered a part of this article.

    The Lutheran Confessions answer that there is only one Law that is for Christians and pagans alike:

    9] Although, therefore, ‘civil works’ , by which we mean the outward works of the Law [towards our neighbor], can be done, in a measure, without Christ and without the Holy Ghost from our inborn light [ reason aka natural law],

    But there is a Revealed Law of God that is veiled to Reason:

    9 cont´d] nevertheless it appears from what we have said that those things which belong peculiarly to the divine Law: the affections of the heart towards God, which are commanded in the first table, cannot be rendered without the Holy Ghost. ” (emphasis mine) http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php#para9

    This Law always accuses and condemns us:

    7]…how can the human heart love God while it knows that He is terribly angry, and is oppressing us with temporal and perpetual calamities? But the Law always accuses us, always shows that God is angry…. 8] God therefore is not loved until we apprehend mercy by faith. Not until then does He become a lovable object. (emphasis mine) http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php#para7

    Reason is veiled to this understanding of the Divinely Revealed Law:

    13] Paul understands by the veil the human opinion concerning the entire Law, the Decalog and the ceremonies, namely, that hypocrites think that external and civil works satisfy the Law of God, and that sacrifices and observances justify before God ex opere operato. 14] But then this veil is removed from us, i.e., we are freed from this error when God shows to our hearts our uncleanness and the heinousness of sin. Then, for the first time, we see that we are far from fulfilling the Law. Then we learn to know how flesh, in security and indifference, does not fear God, and is not fully certain that we are regarded by God, but imagines that men are born and die by chance. Then we experience that we do not believe that God forgives and hears us. (ibid)

    KERNER How will we ever know we are separated from God without a law which condemns us, not in the abstract, but in the specific?

    FWS Kerner, the Law is Divinely Revealed in the minds of all men, in their reason that is. That Law specifically informs men of their condemnation. That is what makes missionary work possible Kerner. Even pagans agree with the Decalog when they read it. Why is that? The Confessions suggest that this is because it is the same Law God reveals in man´s reason.

    Here is the specific sin list in article III of the Apology:

    46]…Otherwise the Law always accuses us. For who loves or fears God sufficiently? Who with sufficient patience bears the afflictions imposed by God? Who does not frequently doubt whether human affairs are ruled by God’s counsel or by chance? Who does not frequently doubt whether he be heard by God? Who is not frequently enraged because the wicked enjoy a better lot than the pious, because the pious are oppressed by the wicked? Who does satisfaction to his own calling? Who loves his neighbor as himself? Who is not tempted 47] by lust? …48] …More than blind are those who do not perceive that wicked desires in the flesh are sins, of which Paul, Gal. 5:17, says: The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. 49] The flesh distrusts God, trusts in present things, seeks human aid in calamities, even contrary to God’s will, flees from afflictions, which it ought to bear because of God’s commands, doubts concerning God’s mercy, etc.

    The Holy Ghost in our hearts contends with such dispositions [with Adam's sin] in order to suppress and mortify them [this poison of the old Adam, this desperately wicked disposition], 50] and to produce new spiritual movements.

    KERNER If I cannot identify my specific sins, how am I to know that I am a Sinner? And without some objective rule of right and wrong, how can I identify sins? And if I don’t know that I am a sinner, how is my sin to terrify me?

    FWS The confessions say indeed, that the Law in Man´s reason wants those rules. You are suggesting that reason wants or needs s those “specific” rules not to know they are sinners. That they know. Remember “the Law always accuses” . So why does Old Adam make Pharisaical lists of rules? for this reason:

    85] Moreover, this godless opinion concerning works always has existed in the world [sticks to the world quite tightly]. The heathen had sacrifices, derived from the fathers. They imitated their works. Their faith they did not retain, but thought that the works were a propitiation and price on account of which God would be reconciled to them. 86] The people in the Law [the Israelites] imitated sacrifices with the opinion that by means of these works they would appease God, so to say, ex opere operato. We see here how earnestly the prophets rebuke the people: Ps. 50:8: I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices, and Jer. 7:22: I spake not unto your fathers concerning burnt offerings. Such passages condemn not works, which God certainly had commanded as outward exercises in this government, but they condemn the godless opinion according to which they thought that by these works they appeased the wrath of God, and 87] thus cast away faith.

    and this…

    38] The adversaries are right in thinking that love is the fulfilling of the Law, and obedience to the Law is certainly righteousness. Therefore it would be true that love justifies us if we would keep the Law. …But they make a mistake in this that they think that we are justified by the Law. The adversaries…miss the main issue, for in this business they only behold the Law.

    For all men’s reason and wisdom cannot but hold that we must become pious by the Law, and that a person externally observing the Law is holy and pious. (ibid) (emphasis mine)

    KERNER Your rule of practicing Love and Reason, with no specific guidance as to where those things should lead in practical and specific cases, is far too close to the Wiccan rede for me:
    “An it harm none, do as ye will.” (As opposed to the supreme commandment of Satanism: Do what thou wilt)

    FWS First you are reducing the Law to a) “do no harm” and b) our outward actions. This is the way the Law works in the courtrooms that you work in as an attorney but in God´s courtroom things are different. There God judges us not according to our outward acts but according to our heart Kerner. That is one important point you are not seeing. You are treating earthly Law in the Second Table (which too IS God´s Law) as being the same as what God “peculiarly ” demands in the First Table. And you are turning the second table law into a matter of faith, where St James says that the Law there is a matter of what we do.

    I will again BEG you to get your pen out and sit down and try to outline the argument in the first part of art III of the Apology until it is clear to you. This would make you understand what I am trying to say.

    KERNER Wiccanism is pretty much: do whatever makes you happy as long as you don’t harm others. But who decides whether others are being harmed? Is it you? Is it the “others” affected by what you do? Is your reason, or the collective reason of these “others”, sufficient to decide whether harm is being done based on how it “looks” or it “feels”?

    FWS Ok. Wiccans teach this. This is not what the Lutheran Confessions teach. So your point is?

    KERNER I don’t think so. And this is why you are right about me in this respect. When I read the general principles of Aristotle, the Confessions, or anybody else, I tend to also read what they said about specific matters to see how they applied those principles. I feel this process is important. Not only does it help us learn what the articulated principles mean, it helps us test whether the principles are valid and can be consistently applied without leading to crazy results.

    FWS Ok Kerner. Here is how Luther would respond to you. First he would state God´s purpose in the Law. Then he discusses how we know that Law. I quote Luther in his sermon that is the basis for the FC Art VI “The [Lutheran] Third Use of the Law” :

    There is a righteousness that is here on earth. This righteousness is willed and ordered by God and is included in the second table of the ten commandments. This is called “man´s righteousness” or “the world´s righteousness”. The only purpose of this righteousness is to help us live together and enjoy the gifts God gives us.

    It is God´s desire that our present life be kept under restraint, and lived in peace, tranquility and harmony. God here wants each person to attend to his own affairs and not interfere with the business, property or person of anyone else.
    Now on the other hand, if men are not willing to voluntarily practice being righteous, God sends dictatorships, armed police and brute force to restrain and check those who refuse to be righteous. Where even this is not enough and government can no longer restrain anyone, then God sends famine, war and other terrible things, to subvert the government and destroy evil men. This has happened to the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

    From all this, we can learn God´s Will: earthly righteousness is to be practiced and maintained. We can also know that God will provide what is necessary to make this happen. If it does not happen, God will take it away and instead destroy everything. What this all should tell us is that God is very serious about earthly righteousness!

    This is the entire short sum and substance of this righteousness on earth.

    So it is necessary to encourage and urge everyone to voluntarily be diligent and even zealous in the exercise of this earthly and outward righteousness rather than having him be driven to it by force and punishment.

    This encouragement looks like setting out what is nicely summarized in the second table of the 10 commandments and then applying it in the context of the all the various relationships one finds himself in in his life. This includes every earthly responsibility, duty, role, profession, trade, career, occupation, job, vocation, work, or task, in the context of family, friends, work, and larger society, however great or seemingly trivial. We can be confident that God himself has ordered and appointed these things.

    What we do with these relationships, our vocations, are to be respected and highly honored. We should find pleasure in them and be happy to do what is required on the different spheres of life. For example when we are told to honor our mother and father, every child, employee, employer, citizen and whoever should feel joy in this and have no greater treasure on earth. It should feel like heaven to do this.

    This should be taught in this way for the one purpose of assuring everyone without any doubt at all: Any human being, of any faith, should be able to say: “now I know that such a work life or position is right and proper and should have full assurance that God is really and truly pleased with it.” If I am Christian, I further have his word and command as a sure witness, which never deceives of fails me.

    Earthly Righteousness is only visible works. This means it excludes faith and Christ. It has rewards here on earth. It also ends with this life. http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

    KERNER Maybe that’s casuistry. I don’t know. I am not a philosopher. I am a practical man. And however much our capacity to love and reason may help us understand God’s Law, at some point the law also comes down to: “You can eat from every other tree in this garden, but not from that one.”

    FWS Casuistry is important Kerner. Agreed. But it is not about being practical vs theoretical. That is a false choice. As with anything in life, it is good to first understand the purpose of something. God´s purpose in the Law here in earth is not to give us a way to please him with our obedience (this is called “sacrifice” in the Confessions and is condemned). Rather God´s purpose of the Law is to serve man with Goodness and Mercy.

    This is exactly our Lord´s point when he broke the letter of the Law in the Decalog. “The sabbath (ie the Law) was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. ” and “Go and find out what it means when God says “I would have mercy rather than sacrifice”.

    KERNER The time we start trying to find the law entirely on our ability to Love and Reason is the time when we figure out a way to decide that it’s OK to eat from the wrong tree.

    FWS Again, I would beg you to outline the Apology Art III up to section 61] Bless you dear brother in Christ!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Kerner @ 76

    Here is another work, Luther´s preface to his 1545 Translation of St Paul´s Epistle to the Romans that is referenced by our Confessions and so carries some Confessional Authority with it. It will help I think…

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    and here is Luther´s Commentary on Galatians. This is considered by many to be Luther´s finest work after the Catechisms. I would encourage you to read it. It starts out slow, but after the first few sections it gets very lively….

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.txt

    I would really encourage SG to read Luther´s commentary on Galatians as well…..

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Kerner @ 76

    Here is another work, Luther´s preface to his 1545 Translation of St Paul´s Epistle to the Romans that is referenced by our Confessions and so carries some Confessional Authority with it. It will help I think…

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    and here is Luther´s Commentary on Galatians. This is considered by many to be Luther´s finest work after the Catechisms. I would encourage you to read it. It starts out slow, but after the first few sections it gets very lively….

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.txt

    I would really encourage SG to read Luther´s commentary on Galatians as well…..

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Kerner @ 76

    “…at some point the law also comes down to: “You can eat from every other tree in this garden, but not from that one.”

    Ok Kerner. Was this a Law that Adam and Eve kept with the purpose of showing their obedience to God, or was this about faith in Christ?

    Do you understand my question?

    One could postulate from that, that God´s Law exists “just because”? Or that the point of keeping the Law is to render obedience to God? Is that where you are going? That would be a conjecture wouldn´t it? What about the writings of St Paul and Christ and the rest of Scripture? How would they see that?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Kerner @ 76

    “…at some point the law also comes down to: “You can eat from every other tree in this garden, but not from that one.”

    Ok Kerner. Was this a Law that Adam and Eve kept with the purpose of showing their obedience to God, or was this about faith in Christ?

    Do you understand my question?

    One could postulate from that, that God´s Law exists “just because”? Or that the point of keeping the Law is to render obedience to God? Is that where you are going? That would be a conjecture wouldn´t it? What about the writings of St Paul and Christ and the rest of Scripture? How would they see that?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Not to be a jerk, but when it isn’t reported for years and then a person gets a big payout, I am kinda suspicious.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Not to be a jerk, but when it isn’t reported for years and then a person gets a big payout, I am kinda suspicious.

  • Stephen

    Grace -

    Just as note, I was a youth director in the ELCA beginning in 1990 and was vetted through a background check before I could go to work in my job. There is an attempt to address this. I’m curious why you think this is interesting that gays would post this news item. Why shouldn’t they be concerned? My gay neighbor alerted me to two sex offenders living in my neighborhood. She is a sweet woman who goes to church and looks out for her neighbors.

    Anyway, I need to be off and don’t have time right now to jump in on this stuff. Thanks to all for commenting and staying interested. Busy weekend getting ready for the next kid!

  • Stephen

    Grace -

    Just as note, I was a youth director in the ELCA beginning in 1990 and was vetted through a background check before I could go to work in my job. There is an attempt to address this. I’m curious why you think this is interesting that gays would post this news item. Why shouldn’t they be concerned? My gay neighbor alerted me to two sex offenders living in my neighborhood. She is a sweet woman who goes to church and looks out for her neighbors.

    Anyway, I need to be off and don’t have time right now to jump in on this stuff. Thanks to all for commenting and staying interested. Busy weekend getting ready for the next kid!

  • Stephen

    Showered, dressed, ready for church . . .

    Grace,

    I can see why there is political motivation for gays to mention this when they are being attacked by church people and lumped together with pedophiles. So I understand that if that is what you are indicating.

    My point would be that gay people are not secretly sinister or so obviously motivated by prurient sexual motives. This is the stereotype they are fighting against. This is why when Frank says you would have to lump him together with the people of Sodom and Gomorrah to get that scripture to equate with what it means to be a gay person, that this reading is grossly incorrect.

    I don’t expect you to agree, but the next time you see some middle-aged lesbians shopping together, ask yourself if they are the picture of sexual deviance that gay people are often portrayed being by Christians. It is also true that these people have to deal with some of the more “flaming” and outgoing displays of homosexuality as not necessarily being about them in the same way that I do not wish to see myself reflected in the misogynistic activities of a lot of males who denigrate women as sex objects and bimbos for sport.

    I hope that makes sense.

    By the way, the sex offender living in my neighborhood is married. He liked(s) little boys. He also has a steady stream of young, down and out men living in his home. He rarely is seen as he uses his automatic garage door to come and go. What do I make of all that? Strange, sad, a little scary and creepy and needing of prayers – I don’t know. I’m still trying to figure out how to be a neighbor to that guy. But I am keeping my kids FAAAAAR away!!!!!

  • Stephen

    Showered, dressed, ready for church . . .

    Grace,

    I can see why there is political motivation for gays to mention this when they are being attacked by church people and lumped together with pedophiles. So I understand that if that is what you are indicating.

    My point would be that gay people are not secretly sinister or so obviously motivated by prurient sexual motives. This is the stereotype they are fighting against. This is why when Frank says you would have to lump him together with the people of Sodom and Gomorrah to get that scripture to equate with what it means to be a gay person, that this reading is grossly incorrect.

    I don’t expect you to agree, but the next time you see some middle-aged lesbians shopping together, ask yourself if they are the picture of sexual deviance that gay people are often portrayed being by Christians. It is also true that these people have to deal with some of the more “flaming” and outgoing displays of homosexuality as not necessarily being about them in the same way that I do not wish to see myself reflected in the misogynistic activities of a lot of males who denigrate women as sex objects and bimbos for sport.

    I hope that makes sense.

    By the way, the sex offender living in my neighborhood is married. He liked(s) little boys. He also has a steady stream of young, down and out men living in his home. He rarely is seen as he uses his automatic garage door to come and go. What do I make of all that? Strange, sad, a little scary and creepy and needing of prayers – I don’t know. I’m still trying to figure out how to be a neighbor to that guy. But I am keeping my kids FAAAAAR away!!!!!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Kerner @ 76

    Question: Where do you think all those laws in all those thick books that are very specific and detailed that make up what you do in your career come from dear Kerner?

    Do they sound like the wiccan code?

    Lutherans say that all those Laws come from the Law that God Divinely reveals in the Reason of men guided, hopefully, to the end result of love being done. Love in your professions would be that perfect combination of justice and mercy. You don´t think that even pagans recongnize this when it (rarely) happens? And you do not think that they too are often moved to tears by the beauty of that?

    So who is behind all this Kerner? Lutherans say that God is. Reason guided by love.

    So what do you propose instead? That we base all our civil laws upon something out of the bible? Like some sort of christian sharia law? Or… are you saying that there is some set of laws that is just for christians to follow like rules about sex etc, and that the only purpose of those laws is that God has provided by them a way for man to prove his faithful obedience to God?

    Where are you going with this?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Kerner @ 76

    Question: Where do you think all those laws in all those thick books that are very specific and detailed that make up what you do in your career come from dear Kerner?

    Do they sound like the wiccan code?

    Lutherans say that all those Laws come from the Law that God Divinely reveals in the Reason of men guided, hopefully, to the end result of love being done. Love in your professions would be that perfect combination of justice and mercy. You don´t think that even pagans recongnize this when it (rarely) happens? And you do not think that they too are often moved to tears by the beauty of that?

    So who is behind all this Kerner? Lutherans say that God is. Reason guided by love.

    So what do you propose instead? That we base all our civil laws upon something out of the bible? Like some sort of christian sharia law? Or… are you saying that there is some set of laws that is just for christians to follow like rules about sex etc, and that the only purpose of those laws is that God has provided by them a way for man to prove his faithful obedience to God?

    Where are you going with this?

  • Grace

    Stephen – 84

    YOU WROTE: “I’m curious why you think this is interesting that gays would post this news item. Why shouldn’t they be concerned?”

    I believe that many homosexuals were molested as children. They wanted the news piece to be read, to be understood, that what is done, has lasting effects.

    Children who are molested either girls or boys suffer from the dastardly deeds done to them, it doesn’t go away. I know this because I have talked to MANY, the pain and anguish, distorted sex lives that result from sexual abuse is heartbreaking. Only God can heal the pain. The problem with many of these children who grow into adulthood? .. they have very low opinions of themselves, and live out their pain with sexual problems, in many areas.

  • Grace

    Stephen – 84

    YOU WROTE: “I’m curious why you think this is interesting that gays would post this news item. Why shouldn’t they be concerned?”

    I believe that many homosexuals were molested as children. They wanted the news piece to be read, to be understood, that what is done, has lasting effects.

    Children who are molested either girls or boys suffer from the dastardly deeds done to them, it doesn’t go away. I know this because I have talked to MANY, the pain and anguish, distorted sex lives that result from sexual abuse is heartbreaking. Only God can heal the pain. The problem with many of these children who grow into adulthood? .. they have very low opinions of themselves, and live out their pain with sexual problems, in many areas.

  • Grace

    Stephen – 85

    YOU WROTE: “I don’t expect you to agree, but the next time you see some middle-aged lesbians shopping together, ask yourself if they are the picture of sexual deviance that gay people are often portrayed being by Christians.”

    Homosexuals, be it men or women living that life are the picture of “sexual deviance” – those in Sodom were no different, as they surrounded the home of Lot, banging on the door. Homosexuality is repugnant, the Bible is clear, Paul was clear in Romans 1, but those who purport to be Christian Believers delude themselves, and therefore try and convince others that it’s not sinful or wrong, mock God.
    YOU WROTE: “By the way, the sex offender living in my neighborhood is married. He liked(s) little boys. He also has a steady stream of young, down and out men living in his home. He rarely is seen as he uses his automatic garage door to come and go. What do I make of all that? Strange, sad, a little scary and creepy and needing of prayers – I don’t know. I’m still trying to figure out how to be a neighbor to that guy. But I am keeping my kids FAAAAAR away!!!!!”

  • Grace

    Stephen – 85

    YOU WROTE: “I don’t expect you to agree, but the next time you see some middle-aged lesbians shopping together, ask yourself if they are the picture of sexual deviance that gay people are often portrayed being by Christians.”

    Homosexuals, be it men or women living that life are the picture of “sexual deviance” – those in Sodom were no different, as they surrounded the home of Lot, banging on the door. Homosexuality is repugnant, the Bible is clear, Paul was clear in Romans 1, but those who purport to be Christian Believers delude themselves, and therefore try and convince others that it’s not sinful or wrong, mock God.
    YOU WROTE: “By the way, the sex offender living in my neighborhood is married. He liked(s) little boys. He also has a steady stream of young, down and out men living in his home. He rarely is seen as he uses his automatic garage door to come and go. What do I make of all that? Strange, sad, a little scary and creepy and needing of prayers – I don’t know. I’m still trying to figure out how to be a neighbor to that guy. But I am keeping my kids FAAAAAR away!!!!!”

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @ 88

    most gays regard you just as stephen regards the child molester living near him. it is because of your words and actions. It is not because you are christian or heterosexual. the words sad strange a little scary and creepy and needing of prayers would come to their minds.

    so you have talked to many of them . great.

    Now you know what they were tbinking of you. I bet you did not know at the time. they were probably polite for the most part to tell you that part….

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @ 88

    most gays regard you just as stephen regards the child molester living near him. it is because of your words and actions. It is not because you are christian or heterosexual. the words sad strange a little scary and creepy and needing of prayers would come to their minds.

    so you have talked to many of them . great.

    Now you know what they were tbinking of you. I bet you did not know at the time. they were probably polite for the most part to tell you that part….

  • Grace

    fws — 89

    YOU WROTE: “most gays regard you just as stephen regards the child molester living near him. it is because of your words and actions. It is not because you are christian or heterosexual. the words sad strange a little scary and creepy and needing of prayers would come to their minds.”

    Those who have been abused are grateful when someone will listen to their story, that includes me, the listener. You presume to know that which you are ignorant. Too many grown men and women are afraid to tell how they were molested, and what their lives have become, becaue of the pain and shame they had to live with.

    YOU WROTE: “so you have talked to many of them . great.

    Now you know what they were tbinking of you. I bet you did not know at the time. they were probably polite for the most part to tell you that part….”

    WRONG, the reason? – they came back to talk more, to share their grief. You are so steamed off, you’ve forgotten to turn off the fire under your heap of coals. It’s astounding to read much of your drivel concerning the pain others go through and the pain they cause through sexual sin.

  • Grace

    fws — 89

    YOU WROTE: “most gays regard you just as stephen regards the child molester living near him. it is because of your words and actions. It is not because you are christian or heterosexual. the words sad strange a little scary and creepy and needing of prayers would come to their minds.”

    Those who have been abused are grateful when someone will listen to their story, that includes me, the listener. You presume to know that which you are ignorant. Too many grown men and women are afraid to tell how they were molested, and what their lives have become, becaue of the pain and shame they had to live with.

    YOU WROTE: “so you have talked to many of them . great.

    Now you know what they were tbinking of you. I bet you did not know at the time. they were probably polite for the most part to tell you that part….”

    WRONG, the reason? – they came back to talk more, to share their grief. You are so steamed off, you’ve forgotten to turn off the fire under your heap of coals. It’s astounding to read much of your drivel concerning the pain others go through and the pain they cause through sexual sin.

  • Grace

    Stephen – 85

    Sorry, I posted your comment, and then had to leave, not commenting on my post @88

    YOU WROTE: “By the way, the sex offender living in my neighborhood is married. He liked(s) little boys. He also has a steady stream of young, down and out men living in his home. He rarely is seen as he uses his automatic garage door to come and go. What do I make of all that? Strange, sad, a little scary and creepy and needing of prayers – I don’t know. I’m still trying to figure out how to be a neighbor to that guy. But I am keeping my kids FAAAAAR away!!!!!”

    I would stay away and keep my kids away as well!

  • Grace

    Stephen – 85

    Sorry, I posted your comment, and then had to leave, not commenting on my post @88

    YOU WROTE: “By the way, the sex offender living in my neighborhood is married. He liked(s) little boys. He also has a steady stream of young, down and out men living in his home. He rarely is seen as he uses his automatic garage door to come and go. What do I make of all that? Strange, sad, a little scary and creepy and needing of prayers – I don’t know. I’m still trying to figure out how to be a neighbor to that guy. But I am keeping my kids FAAAAAR away!!!!!”

    I would stay away and keep my kids away as well!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, I can’t resist. It is sad, ridiculous and funny all at the same time.

    New Gallup Poll.

    87% of Americans grossly overestimate gay population.

    “U.S. Adults Estimate That 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian
    Those with lower incomes, the less educated, women, and young people give the highest estimates.

    “More specifically, over half of Americans (52%) estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian, including 35% who estimate that more than one in four are. Thirty percent put the figure at less than 15%.”

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/Adults-Estimate-Americans-Gay-Lesbian.aspx

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, I can’t resist. It is sad, ridiculous and funny all at the same time.

    New Gallup Poll.

    87% of Americans grossly overestimate gay population.

    “U.S. Adults Estimate That 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian
    Those with lower incomes, the less educated, women, and young people give the highest estimates.

    “More specifically, over half of Americans (52%) estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian, including 35% who estimate that more than one in four are. Thirty percent put the figure at less than 15%.”

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/Adults-Estimate-Americans-Gay-Lesbian.aspx

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 93

    the article says something I dont understand. it says that there is some survey by a guy named gates that “estimates” that 3.5 of the population identifies as gay. is that adults? assume it is. so what about adolescent gays?

    now lets assume, and it is a big assumption that is probably false, that 3.5 percent would actually identify themselves as gay to a survey taker, and that there is statistical validity to the survey…. I am not seeing anything that solid in the article but lets assume that for arguments sake here…

    whatever that number of “self identified as gay ” percentage is… I would conservatively triple that number , at least, to arrive at the actual gay population. Why? the vast majority of gays, in my observations are not “out”. actually I would estimate that conservatively only about 1 in 5 gay men and lesbians are actually out to family work or more than just a very small handful of friends who are not gay.

    so consider that even if you have contact with alot of men or women who self identify as gay, that population will be far far far from representative of the population. and this means that the vast majority of gays blend into the general population so very well, that most stereotypes about what it looks like to be gay would probably be wrong.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 93

    the article says something I dont understand. it says that there is some survey by a guy named gates that “estimates” that 3.5 of the population identifies as gay. is that adults? assume it is. so what about adolescent gays?

    now lets assume, and it is a big assumption that is probably false, that 3.5 percent would actually identify themselves as gay to a survey taker, and that there is statistical validity to the survey…. I am not seeing anything that solid in the article but lets assume that for arguments sake here…

    whatever that number of “self identified as gay ” percentage is… I would conservatively triple that number , at least, to arrive at the actual gay population. Why? the vast majority of gays, in my observations are not “out”. actually I would estimate that conservatively only about 1 in 5 gay men and lesbians are actually out to family work or more than just a very small handful of friends who are not gay.

    so consider that even if you have contact with alot of men or women who self identify as gay, that population will be far far far from representative of the population. and this means that the vast majority of gays blend into the general population so very well, that most stereotypes about what it looks like to be gay would probably be wrong.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    fws, Based on what I have read about anonymous polling, the estimates of lying even about very personal things are pretty low. So, I would not be quick to say that there is a big underreporting effect by folks who don’t wish to self identify. Basically social scientists have actually investigated the rate at which folks lie about such things, and while it is not zero, it also is not huge. So, no, I would not triple the number. I would believe that could be a little low, maybe 10%.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    fws, Based on what I have read about anonymous polling, the estimates of lying even about very personal things are pretty low. So, I would not be quick to say that there is a big underreporting effect by folks who don’t wish to self identify. Basically social scientists have actually investigated the rate at which folks lie about such things, and while it is not zero, it also is not huge. So, no, I would not triple the number. I would believe that could be a little low, maybe 10%.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    We ought to remember the third use of the law.

    “Therefore, because of these lusts of the flesh the truly believing, elect, and regenerate children of God need in this life not only the daily instruction and admonition, warning, and threatening of the Law, but also frequently punishments, that they may be roused [the old man is driven out of them] and follow the Spirit of God, as it is written Ps. 119:71: It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn Thy statutes.”

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    We ought to remember the third use of the law.

    “Therefore, because of these lusts of the flesh the truly believing, elect, and regenerate children of God need in this life not only the daily instruction and admonition, warning, and threatening of the Law, but also frequently punishments, that they may be roused [the old man is driven out of them] and follow the Spirit of God, as it is written Ps. 119:71: It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn Thy statutes.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    One other thing, if the self identify rate is 5%, then it would be reported that the self identify rate is 5%. Generally it is respectful to take folks at their word. So, it would be reasonable for folks who don’t know better to assume that the 5% rate is accurate or nearly accurate, or at least to recognize that it is the self identify rate. The Gallup poll just shows folks have no idea at all. Since there is reporting on gay issues, it would seem reasonable to report the self identify rate just as part of informing the public. The fact that so many people have no idea at all points out that the reporting is not informing.

    I particularly like polls that ask people verifiable facts like the News poll. http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/quiz/index.php I like it because it shows that most folks do not know what is going on and it undermines the value of polls in general.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    One other thing, if the self identify rate is 5%, then it would be reported that the self identify rate is 5%. Generally it is respectful to take folks at their word. So, it would be reasonable for folks who don’t know better to assume that the 5% rate is accurate or nearly accurate, or at least to recognize that it is the self identify rate. The Gallup poll just shows folks have no idea at all. Since there is reporting on gay issues, it would seem reasonable to report the self identify rate just as part of informing the public. The fact that so many people have no idea at all points out that the reporting is not informing.

    I particularly like polls that ask people verifiable facts like the News poll. http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/quiz/index.php I like it because it shows that most folks do not know what is going on and it undermines the value of polls in general.

  • Booklover

    I don’t understand the desire to label these priests. Their actions were wrong, period. Why do we feel the need to affix a label to them?

    We might feel better identifying the problem as being with “those Catholics.” But every Christian branch is infiltrated with sin.

  • Booklover

    I don’t understand the desire to label these priests. Their actions were wrong, period. Why do we feel the need to affix a label to them?

    We might feel better identifying the problem as being with “those Catholics.” But every Christian branch is infiltrated with sin.

  • Grace

    Booklover – 98

    “I don’t understand the desire to label these priests. Their actions were wrong, period. Why do we feel the need to affix a label to them?”

    Why not? Why shouldn’t everyone know how lax those above the priests were, when the problems were brought to their attention. Those above were negligent, often times transfering those accused to a new parrish. That not only happens in the RCC but other Church denominations as well.

    ANYONE who molests children should be brought to attention. Their church affiliation, the area of leadership made mention of. This is a serious situation. If we don’t protect the children, we as adults, parents, whether pastors, youth leaders, teachers, etc., are held accountable…. are we to keep their church a secret? – is this what you are suggesting? Hasn’t there been enough secrecy regarding abused, molested children? …… it’s time for it to STOP! Standing up for the lives our our little ones, and those who could fall into the trap of someone who could harm them.

  • Grace

    Booklover – 98

    “I don’t understand the desire to label these priests. Their actions were wrong, period. Why do we feel the need to affix a label to them?”

    Why not? Why shouldn’t everyone know how lax those above the priests were, when the problems were brought to their attention. Those above were negligent, often times transfering those accused to a new parrish. That not only happens in the RCC but other Church denominations as well.

    ANYONE who molests children should be brought to attention. Their church affiliation, the area of leadership made mention of. This is a serious situation. If we don’t protect the children, we as adults, parents, whether pastors, youth leaders, teachers, etc., are held accountable…. are we to keep their church a secret? – is this what you are suggesting? Hasn’t there been enough secrecy regarding abused, molested children? …… it’s time for it to STOP! Standing up for the lives our our little ones, and those who could fall into the trap of someone who could harm them.

  • Grace

    Those who keep the secret of molestation a secret in any way is contributing to those who hurt children.

    God bless the children who have fallen prey to those who would harm, and destroy their little lives.

    Let’s remember them in prayer!

  • Grace

    Those who keep the secret of molestation a secret in any way is contributing to those who hurt children.

    God bless the children who have fallen prey to those who would harm, and destroy their little lives.

    Let’s remember them in prayer!

  • Booklover

    Grace, you misunderstood my post. Like I said, the priests’ actions were wrong. I didn’t understand why some felt it had to be clarified that they were homosexuals. I didn’t see the need to label them. Just call their actions wrong without trying to analyze why they sinned.

  • Booklover

    Grace, you misunderstood my post. Like I said, the priests’ actions were wrong. I didn’t understand why some felt it had to be clarified that they were homosexuals. I didn’t see the need to label them. Just call their actions wrong without trying to analyze why they sinned.

  • Grace

    Booklover – 101

    YOU WRITE: “I didn’t understand why some felt it had to be clarified that they were homosexuals. I didn’t see the need to label them. Just call their actions wrong without trying to analyze why they sinned.”

    Why not? – Should their identification be witheld? Ask any individual who has been molested what they believe, they live a life of pain, shame and a feeling that most people either hold them accoutable for what happened, OR, it should be kept secret, …. to shield the molester from either losing their position or reputation…

    I believe those who molest children should be EXPOSED, be they heterosexual or homosexual, either way, they have taken an innocent child and abused the very core of their person.

  • Grace

    Booklover – 101

    YOU WRITE: “I didn’t understand why some felt it had to be clarified that they were homosexuals. I didn’t see the need to label them. Just call their actions wrong without trying to analyze why they sinned.”

    Why not? – Should their identification be witheld? Ask any individual who has been molested what they believe, they live a life of pain, shame and a feeling that most people either hold them accoutable for what happened, OR, it should be kept secret, …. to shield the molester from either losing their position or reputation…

    I believe those who molest children should be EXPOSED, be they heterosexual or homosexual, either way, they have taken an innocent child and abused the very core of their person.

  • Grace

    Booklover – 101

    YOU WROTE: “Like I said, the priests’ actions were wrong. I didn’t understand why some felt it had to be clarified that they were homosexuals.”

    OK, I’ll take it on another level.

    Males who molest other males are not heterosexual, I don’t give one fig, what anyone says to the contrary. Homosexuals molest their own sex, they aren’t interested in females. Even those who are married and molest their own sex are homosexual. The minute they molest either their sex or the opposite sex they have lost their rights, once they are PROVEN GUILTY!
    Talking to those who have been molested is painful, it’s painful to hear what happened, and how they feel they were either to blame, or that they were just ignorant. This isn’t right, … children, their parents and authorities have a RIGHT to expose those who molest, their occupation, …. if it’s a church, their church affiliation and any other information.

  • Grace

    Booklover – 101

    YOU WROTE: “Like I said, the priests’ actions were wrong. I didn’t understand why some felt it had to be clarified that they were homosexuals.”

    OK, I’ll take it on another level.

    Males who molest other males are not heterosexual, I don’t give one fig, what anyone says to the contrary. Homosexuals molest their own sex, they aren’t interested in females. Even those who are married and molest their own sex are homosexual. The minute they molest either their sex or the opposite sex they have lost their rights, once they are PROVEN GUILTY!
    Talking to those who have been molested is painful, it’s painful to hear what happened, and how they feel they were either to blame, or that they were just ignorant. This isn’t right, … children, their parents and authorities have a RIGHT to expose those who molest, their occupation, …. if it’s a church, their church affiliation and any other information.

  • Grace

    Booklover – 101

    YOU WROTE: “I didn’t understand why some felt it had to be clarified that they were homosexuals. I didn’t see the need to label them”

    Do you think male homosexuals molest girls?

    IF in fact, male homosexuals molest boys, why shouldn’t the distinction be made of their homosexuality, why HIDE the homosexual sin, therefore protecting their sin even further?

  • Grace

    Booklover – 101

    YOU WROTE: “I didn’t understand why some felt it had to be clarified that they were homosexuals. I didn’t see the need to label them”

    Do you think male homosexuals molest girls?

    IF in fact, male homosexuals molest boys, why shouldn’t the distinction be made of their homosexuality, why HIDE the homosexual sin, therefore protecting their sin even further?

  • Stephen

    Booklover -

    It would seem your answer lies, as I am sure can observe, in Grace’s “graceless” response. We want to lump gays together with whatever deviant behavior we find. How many black males have been arrested, jailed and imprisoned simply for being nearby when a crime was committed and they “fit” the description? Proximity and appearances mean everything when judging the outsider, the “them” in our midst. Did Jesus have anything to say about “such as these.” I have to wonder.

  • Stephen

    Booklover -

    It would seem your answer lies, as I am sure can observe, in Grace’s “graceless” response. We want to lump gays together with whatever deviant behavior we find. How many black males have been arrested, jailed and imprisoned simply for being nearby when a crime was committed and they “fit” the description? Proximity and appearances mean everything when judging the outsider, the “them” in our midst. Did Jesus have anything to say about “such as these.” I have to wonder.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “How many black males have been arrested, jailed and imprisoned simply for being nearby when a crime was committed and they “fit” the description?”

    This is really a terrible thing to claim. Of course there are cases of mistake identity, but to imply it is disproportionate based on race is an unwarranted charge especially because it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This comment unfairly vilifies police who are trying to protect the public. It is not possible to always arrest the exact right person. That is why we have courts and trials and appeals.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “How many black males have been arrested, jailed and imprisoned simply for being nearby when a crime was committed and they “fit” the description?”

    This is really a terrible thing to claim. Of course there are cases of mistake identity, but to imply it is disproportionate based on race is an unwarranted charge especially because it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This comment unfairly vilifies police who are trying to protect the public. It is not possible to always arrest the exact right person. That is why we have courts and trials and appeals.

  • Grace

    Stephen

    Blacks arrested have nothing to do with homosexual men and women or pedophilia – your analogy is lame at best.

  • Grace

    Stephen

    Blacks arrested have nothing to do with homosexual men and women or pedophilia – your analogy is lame at best.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 106 and grace @ 107

    Steve is making the point that it would be wrong to treat individuals without discrimination because they are part of a group with shared characteristics. I don’t think his point was to assert anything about the police or blacks.

    grace he is saying that pedophilia has as much to do with being gay as it does with being heterosexual or black.

    Steve: people who think this way consider the classification called “gay” a behavioral classification that is a compulsive disorder or other kind of pathology and not an ontological class. “black” is an ontological rather than a behaviioral class. That is indeed a disagreement.

    If “gay” is a class that is a pathological identification, then it would be proper to identify gays by a common pattern of behavior. But then what is that behavior that is unique to homosexuals and would be diagnostic of them?

    starting with hooker, psychiatrists have not been able to identify what those diagnostic characteristics would be that define homosexuality as a pathology. that is precisely why the apa removed homosexuality from their list of pathologies. given a stack of subjects with detailed psychological profiles, doctors could not distinguish in any way between the gay profiles and the heterosexual ones. They COULD pick out those with addictive and compulsive behavioral issues.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 106 and grace @ 107

    Steve is making the point that it would be wrong to treat individuals without discrimination because they are part of a group with shared characteristics. I don’t think his point was to assert anything about the police or blacks.

    grace he is saying that pedophilia has as much to do with being gay as it does with being heterosexual or black.

    Steve: people who think this way consider the classification called “gay” a behavioral classification that is a compulsive disorder or other kind of pathology and not an ontological class. “black” is an ontological rather than a behaviioral class. That is indeed a disagreement.

    If “gay” is a class that is a pathological identification, then it would be proper to identify gays by a common pattern of behavior. But then what is that behavior that is unique to homosexuals and would be diagnostic of them?

    starting with hooker, psychiatrists have not been able to identify what those diagnostic characteristics would be that define homosexuality as a pathology. that is precisely why the apa removed homosexuality from their list of pathologies. given a stack of subjects with detailed psychological profiles, doctors could not distinguish in any way between the gay profiles and the heterosexual ones. They COULD pick out those with addictive and compulsive behavioral issues.

  • Grace

    Stephen @105“How many black males have been arrested, jailed and imprisoned simply for being nearby when a crime was committed and they “fit” the description? Proximity and appearances mean everything when judging the outsider, the “them” in our midst. ”

    Now you fws claim:

    fws @ “Steve is making the point that it would be wrong to treat individuals without discrimination because they are part of a group with shared characteristics. I don’t think his point was to assert anything about the police or blacks.”

    What a joke – it isn’t a sin to be black, it is a sin to engage in homosexality – fws, your constant attempts to justify homosexuality are but a farce!

  • Grace

    Stephen @105“How many black males have been arrested, jailed and imprisoned simply for being nearby when a crime was committed and they “fit” the description? Proximity and appearances mean everything when judging the outsider, the “them” in our midst. ”

    Now you fws claim:

    fws @ “Steve is making the point that it would be wrong to treat individuals without discrimination because they are part of a group with shared characteristics. I don’t think his point was to assert anything about the police or blacks.”

    What a joke – it isn’t a sin to be black, it is a sin to engage in homosexality – fws, your constant attempts to justify homosexuality are but a farce!

  • Grace

    “If “gay” is a class that is a pathological identification, then it would be proper to identify gays by a common pattern of behavior. But then what is that behavior that is unique to homosexuals and would be diagnostic of them? “

    SEXUAL SIN!

  • Grace

    “If “gay” is a class that is a pathological identification, then it would be proper to identify gays by a common pattern of behavior. But then what is that behavior that is unique to homosexuals and would be diagnostic of them? “

    SEXUAL SIN!

  • Tom Hering

    SEXUAL SIN!

    Poor Grace, you got the bold and all-caps right, but forgot to italicize, too.

  • Tom Hering

    SEXUAL SIN!

    Poor Grace, you got the bold and all-caps right, but forgot to italicize, too.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “pedophilia has as much to do with being gay as it does with being heterosexual”

    This is not immediately apparent.

    Bike bubba @ 35

    “It’s not 81% post-pubescent boys, but rather 81% boys altogether. It’s also about half pre-pubescent kids, as if we needed to increase the “ick” factor.”

    Assuming all abusers are male Catholic priests.
    Assuming that 5% of priests are homosexual as in the general population.

    Then the 81% of victims were abused by a subset of the 5%.

    And the other 19% were abused by a subset of the 95%.

    The assumption here is that homosexuals are involved in homosexual cases.

    And heterosexuals are involved in the heterosexual cases.

    Since only half of the victims are pre-pubescent, then it can’t be assumed that all of abusers are child molesters. Rather they are in violation of the age of consent law and church teaching on chastity.

    I will add that women below the age of consent manage to have quite a few babies each and every year. So, the laws are somewhat arbitrary.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “pedophilia has as much to do with being gay as it does with being heterosexual”

    This is not immediately apparent.

    Bike bubba @ 35

    “It’s not 81% post-pubescent boys, but rather 81% boys altogether. It’s also about half pre-pubescent kids, as if we needed to increase the “ick” factor.”

    Assuming all abusers are male Catholic priests.
    Assuming that 5% of priests are homosexual as in the general population.

    Then the 81% of victims were abused by a subset of the 5%.

    And the other 19% were abused by a subset of the 95%.

    The assumption here is that homosexuals are involved in homosexual cases.

    And heterosexuals are involved in the heterosexual cases.

    Since only half of the victims are pre-pubescent, then it can’t be assumed that all of abusers are child molesters. Rather they are in violation of the age of consent law and church teaching on chastity.

    I will add that women below the age of consent manage to have quite a few babies each and every year. So, the laws are somewhat arbitrary.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “starting with hooker, psychiatrists have not been able to identify what those diagnostic characteristics would be that define homosexuality as a pathology.”

    The diagnostic manual is not the standard for Christians. We can’t usurp authority just because we can’t understand it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “starting with hooker, psychiatrists have not been able to identify what those diagnostic characteristics would be that define homosexuality as a pathology.”

    The diagnostic manual is not the standard for Christians. We can’t usurp authority just because we can’t understand it.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @113

    the bible deals with homosexuality in exactly the same way it deals with left handedness and albinoism.

    The diagnostic manual is the standard for doctors who are diagnosing. much as the dictionary is for those who write.

    The definition of the word “homosexual” for doctors bears no resemblance to anything described in the bible. to use the word “homosexual ” which is a medical term to translate some word in the NT is the same anachronism as trying to translate the biblical command to “be joyfful always” as “never be clinically depressed” .

    the bible no where defines homosexuality or specifically deals with it. no big deal really. Sexual sin is still condemned. it is equally wrong for a homo or a hetero to covet the sex or body that belongs to another and is not theirs to have.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @113

    the bible deals with homosexuality in exactly the same way it deals with left handedness and albinoism.

    The diagnostic manual is the standard for doctors who are diagnosing. much as the dictionary is for those who write.

    The definition of the word “homosexual” for doctors bears no resemblance to anything described in the bible. to use the word “homosexual ” which is a medical term to translate some word in the NT is the same anachronism as trying to translate the biblical command to “be joyfful always” as “never be clinically depressed” .

    the bible no where defines homosexuality or specifically deals with it. no big deal really. Sexual sin is still condemned. it is equally wrong for a homo or a hetero to covet the sex or body that belongs to another and is not theirs to have.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg 113
    are you even aware of what i was referencing with the Hooker studies?

    What happened was this: Dr Hooker took a random sample of men and women who were not being treated for mental illness and prepared an extremely detailed psychological profile and history for each person.

    It was assumed by Hooker and all Psychiatrists that it would be easy to identify which persons in the stack were homosexuals. It turns out that there was no way to differentiate between the homosexuals in the blind study and the heterosexuals. Later studies confirmed those results.

    It turns out that all studies that had been done up until that point on homosexuals were done with the population that were in mental institutions.

    What happened from there is that the professional community decided that they really did not actually know or understand much about homosexuality and needed to conduct more studies to understand it better.

    As a result the APA removed homosexuality from the list of pathologies and this is the current definition of homosexuality. I would be interested, SG for you te tell me exactly where you see the APA definition to be in opposition to the teachings of the Bible.

    here ya go:

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg 113
    are you even aware of what i was referencing with the Hooker studies?

    What happened was this: Dr Hooker took a random sample of men and women who were not being treated for mental illness and prepared an extremely detailed psychological profile and history for each person.

    It was assumed by Hooker and all Psychiatrists that it would be easy to identify which persons in the stack were homosexuals. It turns out that there was no way to differentiate between the homosexuals in the blind study and the heterosexuals. Later studies confirmed those results.

    It turns out that all studies that had been done up until that point on homosexuals were done with the population that were in mental institutions.

    What happened from there is that the professional community decided that they really did not actually know or understand much about homosexuality and needed to conduct more studies to understand it better.

    As a result the APA removed homosexuality from the list of pathologies and this is the current definition of homosexuality. I would be interested, SG for you te tell me exactly where you see the APA definition to be in opposition to the teachings of the Bible.

    here ya go:

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

  • Grace

    fws – 114

    “the bible deals with homosexuality in exactly the same way it deals with left handedness and albinoism.”

    WRONG! — the Bible does condemn homosexuality. Romans 1 is explicit.

    26 For this cause<b. God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1

    A “reprobate mind” in Greek is defined as: unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally):–castaway, rejected, reprobate. That is the reason so many are unable to see any longer, they are blinded by the sin of homosexuality. In many ways, they have made an idol of their sinful desire.

    “the bible no where defines homosexuality or specifically deals with it. no big deal really. Sexual sin is still condemned. it is equally wrong for a homo or a hetero to covet the sex or body that belongs to another and is not theirs to have.”

    Oh yes it does, in Romans 1.

  • Grace

    fws – 114

    “the bible deals with homosexuality in exactly the same way it deals with left handedness and albinoism.”

    WRONG! — the Bible does condemn homosexuality. Romans 1 is explicit.

    26 For this cause<b. God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1

    A “reprobate mind” in Greek is defined as: unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally):–castaway, rejected, reprobate. That is the reason so many are unable to see any longer, they are blinded by the sin of homosexuality. In many ways, they have made an idol of their sinful desire.

    “the bible no where defines homosexuality or specifically deals with it. no big deal really. Sexual sin is still condemned. it is equally wrong for a homo or a hetero to covet the sex or body that belongs to another and is not theirs to have.”

    Oh yes it does, in Romans 1.

  • Grace

    Doctors may have a different belief regarding sin, sexual sin, fornication, and homosexuality – it doesn’t matter what they believe. After all these same individuals provide abortions, and sex changes, their godless acts don’t line up with Scripture.

    Usinging medical studies to argue for sinful lifestyles comes straught from the pit.

  • Grace

    Doctors may have a different belief regarding sin, sexual sin, fornication, and homosexuality – it doesn’t matter what they believe. After all these same individuals provide abortions, and sex changes, their godless acts don’t line up with Scripture.

    Usinging medical studies to argue for sinful lifestyles comes straught from the pit.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “are you even aware of what i was referencing with the Hooker studies?”

    Yes.

    “What happened from there is that the professional community decided that they really did not actually know or understand much about homosexuality and needed to conduct more studies to understand it better.”

    “As a result the APA removed homosexuality from the list of pathologies and this is the current definition of homosexuality.”

    That is what is called a non-sequitur.

    Just because they couldn’t pick gays out by reading some papers, it does not follow that it is not a pathology.

    One could argue that continent chastity is a pathological condition, or loss of libido, etc.
    Indeed some see it as such.

    But so what?

    What if psychiatrists get together and develop a rubric that identifies religionists as suffering a pathology? They are probably clever enough to do it.

    Again, so what?

    My trust is in the Bible and anything that contradicts it is wrong, even if I don’t know why. Even if no one knows why.

    Anyway, the psychiatric diagnostic manual only addresses the psychological disposition not the psychological outcomes or physiological outcomes.

    Rates for psychological and physiological problems among homosexuals and heterosexuals are different.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_suicide
    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “are you even aware of what i was referencing with the Hooker studies?”

    Yes.

    “What happened from there is that the professional community decided that they really did not actually know or understand much about homosexuality and needed to conduct more studies to understand it better.”

    “As a result the APA removed homosexuality from the list of pathologies and this is the current definition of homosexuality.”

    That is what is called a non-sequitur.

    Just because they couldn’t pick gays out by reading some papers, it does not follow that it is not a pathology.

    One could argue that continent chastity is a pathological condition, or loss of libido, etc.
    Indeed some see it as such.

    But so what?

    What if psychiatrists get together and develop a rubric that identifies religionists as suffering a pathology? They are probably clever enough to do it.

    Again, so what?

    My trust is in the Bible and anything that contradicts it is wrong, even if I don’t know why. Even if no one knows why.

    Anyway, the psychiatric diagnostic manual only addresses the psychological disposition not the psychological outcomes or physiological outcomes.

    Rates for psychological and physiological problems among homosexuals and heterosexuals are different.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_suicide
    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

  • Grace

    Sin is a disease, there is only one cure, Christ is the answer. The agony He suffered for our sins, the stripes He took upon Himself, the pain He endured, should wake all to going back into sin, after being forgiven and washed clean.

    24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 1 Peter 2:24

    Sin is a disease, a natural and hereditary one, an epidemic distemper, that reaches to all men, and to all the powers and faculties of their souls, and members of their bodies; and which is nauseous and loathsome, and in itself mortal and incurable; nor can it be healed by any creature, or anything that a creature can do. Christ is the only physician, and his blood the balm and sovereign medicine; this cleanses from all sin; through it is the remission of sin, which is meant by healing; for healing of diseases, and forgiving iniquities, is one and the same thing; – John Gill

    One can be cleansed from sin, but that doesn’t mean you can return back to the pig pen and receive in yourself the lusts and idols of your sin, partaking again, thinking God doesn’t see.

    Remember when Jesus said: “go and sin no more” – it should stand as a warning to everyone.

  • Grace

    Sin is a disease, there is only one cure, Christ is the answer. The agony He suffered for our sins, the stripes He took upon Himself, the pain He endured, should wake all to going back into sin, after being forgiven and washed clean.

    24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 1 Peter 2:24

    Sin is a disease, a natural and hereditary one, an epidemic distemper, that reaches to all men, and to all the powers and faculties of their souls, and members of their bodies; and which is nauseous and loathsome, and in itself mortal and incurable; nor can it be healed by any creature, or anything that a creature can do. Christ is the only physician, and his blood the balm and sovereign medicine; this cleanses from all sin; through it is the remission of sin, which is meant by healing; for healing of diseases, and forgiving iniquities, is one and the same thing; – John Gill

    One can be cleansed from sin, but that doesn’t mean you can return back to the pig pen and receive in yourself the lusts and idols of your sin, partaking again, thinking God doesn’t see.

    Remember when Jesus said: “go and sin no more” – it should stand as a warning to everyone.

  • Stephen

    I wasn’t vilifying the police, I was making an analogy. However, why else would it be so easy for a woman to claim that a black man stole her children and have everyone believing it until it was later discovered she sent them to their watery grave herself. This is not an uncommon ploy. There are plenty of cases of black men serving time for crimes they didn’t commit. I know of one case in Texas of a young man of 19 (we were exactly the same age) who was finally acquitted of rape by his accuser posthumously. There is a reason black males have an uneasy relationship with law enforcement, and it isn’t just because they are mostly criminals. We also have a history in this country of lynching young black men for doing absolutely nothing – guilt by association, which was my point.

    In the case of gay people, anything that can be placed within the proximity of gays is then set forward as proof they are somehow involved with it across the board. This is no more true than to say that every time some beastly man reflects upon every other one, like the one who kidnapped a girl and kept her in his yard to father three children with her. It’s ridiculous, and yet it is a veritable cottage industry of specious connections to make gay people look sinister as much as possible.

    Simply put, men who rape children reflects badly on all of us in the same way that all sin does. We’d like to think that it is reserved for “them” so we can mark them and put them outside. We do have laws to put people in prison who violate our sense of the public good and the inviolable nature of individuals, but what we are after her is some rubric that will give us a new “holiness code” I think, so that we can mark gay people as deviants who should have their rights taken away before they actually commit any crimes. We treated black people the same way and thought we were doing what was good for them. If we gave them too much freedom, they’d just rob and rape and steal, and we can’t have that.

  • Stephen

    I wasn’t vilifying the police, I was making an analogy. However, why else would it be so easy for a woman to claim that a black man stole her children and have everyone believing it until it was later discovered she sent them to their watery grave herself. This is not an uncommon ploy. There are plenty of cases of black men serving time for crimes they didn’t commit. I know of one case in Texas of a young man of 19 (we were exactly the same age) who was finally acquitted of rape by his accuser posthumously. There is a reason black males have an uneasy relationship with law enforcement, and it isn’t just because they are mostly criminals. We also have a history in this country of lynching young black men for doing absolutely nothing – guilt by association, which was my point.

    In the case of gay people, anything that can be placed within the proximity of gays is then set forward as proof they are somehow involved with it across the board. This is no more true than to say that every time some beastly man reflects upon every other one, like the one who kidnapped a girl and kept her in his yard to father three children with her. It’s ridiculous, and yet it is a veritable cottage industry of specious connections to make gay people look sinister as much as possible.

    Simply put, men who rape children reflects badly on all of us in the same way that all sin does. We’d like to think that it is reserved for “them” so we can mark them and put them outside. We do have laws to put people in prison who violate our sense of the public good and the inviolable nature of individuals, but what we are after her is some rubric that will give us a new “holiness code” I think, so that we can mark gay people as deviants who should have their rights taken away before they actually commit any crimes. We treated black people the same way and thought we were doing what was good for them. If we gave them too much freedom, they’d just rob and rape and steal, and we can’t have that.

  • Stephen

    This statement:

    “There is a reason black males have an uneasy relationship with law enforcement, and it isn’t just because they are mostly criminals.”

    does not mean that I think most black males are criminals. I was being tongue in cheek.

  • Stephen

    This statement:

    “There is a reason black males have an uneasy relationship with law enforcement, and it isn’t just because they are mostly criminals.”

    does not mean that I think most black males are criminals. I was being tongue in cheek.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “There is a reason black males have an uneasy relationship with law enforcement, and it isn’t just because they are mostly criminals.”

    Uh huh. So, what is the reason?

    After all, you brought it up. And, won’t let it go.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “There is a reason black males have an uneasy relationship with law enforcement, and it isn’t just because they are mostly criminals.”

    Uh huh. So, what is the reason?

    After all, you brought it up. And, won’t let it go.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I wasn’t vilifying the police, I was making an analogy.”

    So, who were you vilifying? The analogy makes no sense.

    “However, why else would it be so easy for a woman to claim that a black man stole her children and have everyone believing it until it was later discovered she sent them to their watery grave herself. This is not an uncommon ploy.”

    Yes, it is. It is profoundly rare if it even exists at all. I have never heard of such a thing.

    “There are plenty of cases of black men serving time for crimes they didn’t commit.”

    Okay, but that happens to all races, not blacks disproportionally.

    “We also have a history in this country of lynching young black men for doing absolutely nothing – guilt by association, which was my point.”

    That is not true. Individuals of all races got lynched when folks were enraged by their crimes and didn’t want to wait for justice or didn’t believe justice would be served. Go look up lynching. Research specific instances. Seriously.

    “In the case of gay people, anything that can be placed within the proximity of gays is then set forward as proof they are somehow involved with it across the board.”

    Where are you getting this? This is an outrageous statement.

    This thread is about clergy sexual abuse. All abusers discussed were male and 81% of victims were male. No one is grasping at straws. Same sex relations are by definition homosexual.

    “It’s ridiculous, and yet it is a veritable cottage industry of specious connections to make gay people look sinister as much as possible.”

    This comment is ridiculous. The specious assertions aim to vilify the Catholic Church instead of the abusers and the individuals with supervisory authority over those abusers.

    “men who rape children reflects badly on all of us in the same way that all sin does.”

    No, it only reflects badly on the guilty. The rest of us are not to blame for the actions of a few. Just like all the other gay people in the world are not to blame for the actions of a few. Basically, if we aren’t going to lump all gays in with gay priests or priests who sexually abuse boys, then we aren’t going to lump in all the rest of humanity, which would even include the victims. It is non sensical and unjust.

    “we can mark gay people as deviants who should have their rights taken away before they actually commit any crimes.”

    No one is advocating that.

    “We treated black people the same way and thought we were doing what was good for them.”

    No, “we” didn’t. A few people imported slaves and they didn’t do it for the benefit of slaves. They did it to get rich quick. Many of the rest of “us” complained that slavery was evil and worked to end it. First, by banning the importation of more slaves in 1807, then a national crisis and war in which many of “our” sons gave their lives.

    “If we gave them too much freedom, they’d just rob and rape and steal, and we can’t have that.”

    We do have that. Sadly, blacks have very high crime rates and they suffer because of it, but it isn’t because “we gave them too much freedom.”

    Really, these were stunningly terrible things for you to say, Stephen.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I wasn’t vilifying the police, I was making an analogy.”

    So, who were you vilifying? The analogy makes no sense.

    “However, why else would it be so easy for a woman to claim that a black man stole her children and have everyone believing it until it was later discovered she sent them to their watery grave herself. This is not an uncommon ploy.”

    Yes, it is. It is profoundly rare if it even exists at all. I have never heard of such a thing.

    “There are plenty of cases of black men serving time for crimes they didn’t commit.”

    Okay, but that happens to all races, not blacks disproportionally.

    “We also have a history in this country of lynching young black men for doing absolutely nothing – guilt by association, which was my point.”

    That is not true. Individuals of all races got lynched when folks were enraged by their crimes and didn’t want to wait for justice or didn’t believe justice would be served. Go look up lynching. Research specific instances. Seriously.

    “In the case of gay people, anything that can be placed within the proximity of gays is then set forward as proof they are somehow involved with it across the board.”

    Where are you getting this? This is an outrageous statement.

    This thread is about clergy sexual abuse. All abusers discussed were male and 81% of victims were male. No one is grasping at straws. Same sex relations are by definition homosexual.

    “It’s ridiculous, and yet it is a veritable cottage industry of specious connections to make gay people look sinister as much as possible.”

    This comment is ridiculous. The specious assertions aim to vilify the Catholic Church instead of the abusers and the individuals with supervisory authority over those abusers.

    “men who rape children reflects badly on all of us in the same way that all sin does.”

    No, it only reflects badly on the guilty. The rest of us are not to blame for the actions of a few. Just like all the other gay people in the world are not to blame for the actions of a few. Basically, if we aren’t going to lump all gays in with gay priests or priests who sexually abuse boys, then we aren’t going to lump in all the rest of humanity, which would even include the victims. It is non sensical and unjust.

    “we can mark gay people as deviants who should have their rights taken away before they actually commit any crimes.”

    No one is advocating that.

    “We treated black people the same way and thought we were doing what was good for them.”

    No, “we” didn’t. A few people imported slaves and they didn’t do it for the benefit of slaves. They did it to get rich quick. Many of the rest of “us” complained that slavery was evil and worked to end it. First, by banning the importation of more slaves in 1807, then a national crisis and war in which many of “our” sons gave their lives.

    “If we gave them too much freedom, they’d just rob and rape and steal, and we can’t have that.”

    We do have that. Sadly, blacks have very high crime rates and they suffer because of it, but it isn’t because “we gave them too much freedom.”

    Really, these were stunningly terrible things for you to say, Stephen.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 123

    “Same sex relations are by definition homosexual.”

    Prison rape is not homosexual sex. By medical definition.
    It is a form of same sex relations.
    Sex between adults and prepubescent children (a form of rape) is not homosexual sex. By medical defintion.
    Two young boys experimenting sexually at an early age is not homosexual sex. By medical definition.

    Did you read the APA link I sent you SG? Apparently you could find nothing unscriptural about the current medical defintion of “homosexuality”. Could you?

    “homosexual” is a medical and technical term. Let doctors define it. Don´t invent your own definition of a medical term.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 123

    “Same sex relations are by definition homosexual.”

    Prison rape is not homosexual sex. By medical definition.
    It is a form of same sex relations.
    Sex between adults and prepubescent children (a form of rape) is not homosexual sex. By medical defintion.
    Two young boys experimenting sexually at an early age is not homosexual sex. By medical definition.

    Did you read the APA link I sent you SG? Apparently you could find nothing unscriptural about the current medical defintion of “homosexuality”. Could you?

    “homosexual” is a medical and technical term. Let doctors define it. Don´t invent your own definition of a medical term.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “homosexual” is a medical and technical term. Let doctors define it.”

    This is just silly.

    I do not defer to their definition.

    Same = homo, therefore sexual contact between two people of the same sex is homo sexual.

    A man raping a woman or girl is heterosexual rape.

    A man raping a man or a boy is homosexual rape.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “homosexual” is a medical and technical term. Let doctors define it.”

    This is just silly.

    I do not defer to their definition.

    Same = homo, therefore sexual contact between two people of the same sex is homo sexual.

    A man raping a woman or girl is heterosexual rape.

    A man raping a man or a boy is homosexual rape.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 123

    A man raping a woman or girl is heterosexual rape.

    No SG. This is not heterosexuality. Rape is not what heterosexual sex looks like if you were to describe what heterosexual sex characteristically is. Rape is not definitional of heterosexual sex . It is not characteristic of “heterosexual sex”. Nor is it of homosexual sex.

    Now , of course we are not talking here in a biblical context are we. If we insist the the Bible define everything, then in that case what you are calling rape is contrary to “Holy Scripture” isn´t it? Biblically speaking, “rape” is strictly defined as a property violation. Women are property of the male.

    The biblical definition of^that word “rape” therefore totally disregards the volition of the female since she has none biblically as to sex or to marriage does she? And then too there is no such thing as a male “molesting” a female. The biblical model looks much like modern islamic practices doesn´t it?

    If your idea is that the Bible has to define all these things to the point that we are conscience bound to ignore other definitions, then I am saying that is a really insane position to hold. So I assume that you do not hold that position since I know you to be sane. So what is your point then?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 123

    A man raping a woman or girl is heterosexual rape.

    No SG. This is not heterosexuality. Rape is not what heterosexual sex looks like if you were to describe what heterosexual sex characteristically is. Rape is not definitional of heterosexual sex . It is not characteristic of “heterosexual sex”. Nor is it of homosexual sex.

    Now , of course we are not talking here in a biblical context are we. If we insist the the Bible define everything, then in that case what you are calling rape is contrary to “Holy Scripture” isn´t it? Biblically speaking, “rape” is strictly defined as a property violation. Women are property of the male.

    The biblical definition of^that word “rape” therefore totally disregards the volition of the female since she has none biblically as to sex or to marriage does she? And then too there is no such thing as a male “molesting” a female. The biblical model looks much like modern islamic practices doesn´t it?

    If your idea is that the Bible has to define all these things to the point that we are conscience bound to ignore other definitions, then I am saying that is a really insane position to hold. So I assume that you do not hold that position since I know you to be sane. So what is your point then?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 123

    Let´s get really “biblical” here:

    According to the “bible”, if a priest has sex with another guy he would need to be put to death. If he were to have sex with a girl of any age , with her consent or raping her, and she were unmarried and not a slave, he would be required to marry that girl. If the girl were a slave…. well that rule would not apply today….

    If the priest were to have sex with a married 10 or 12 year old, the girl would be stoned for adultery and the priest too… but in practice it would usually be just the girl… they would respect that the man has a family and kids to support…so he would end up paying punitive damages according to OT law.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 123

    Let´s get really “biblical” here:

    According to the “bible”, if a priest has sex with another guy he would need to be put to death. If he were to have sex with a girl of any age , with her consent or raping her, and she were unmarried and not a slave, he would be required to marry that girl. If the girl were a slave…. well that rule would not apply today….

    If the priest were to have sex with a married 10 or 12 year old, the girl would be stoned for adultery and the priest too… but in practice it would usually be just the girl… they would respect that the man has a family and kids to support…so he would end up paying punitive damages according to OT law.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 123

    and by the way, the “biblical” definition of marriage would need to include polygamy. If your husband died, you would be required to sleep with his brother and make babies . and you should arrange the marriage for your daughters and teach them that they have no choice in who they will marry. Your husband will sell her off.

    Ah yes… back to the bible for christian living. There is actually a group that believes all this stuff. they are called “restorationists”. google em!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 123

    and by the way, the “biblical” definition of marriage would need to include polygamy. If your husband died, you would be required to sleep with his brother and make babies . and you should arrange the marriage for your daughters and teach them that they have no choice in who they will marry. Your husband will sell her off.

    Ah yes… back to the bible for christian living. There is actually a group that believes all this stuff. they are called “restorationists”. google em!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If your husband died, you would be required to sleep with his brother and make babies”

    Poor guy, he would be stuck with an old woman and her children to support and her children would inherit the older brother’s property. Looks like a better deal for the woman than the poor younger brother. Here he was all happy with his own wife and kids, when his brother up and dies and now he has all the drama of this other woman and her kids always wanting something.

    ” . and you should arrange the marriage for your daughters and teach them that they have no choice in who they will marry.”

    Where is the evidence for this “no choice” in the Bible? Are you talking about the royal families?

    Anyway, arranged marriages are actually a good idea and responsible parents try to help their kids pick good spouses.

    “Your husband will sell her off.”

    Evidence? Anyway, if the guy isn’t willing to pay anything, how committed is he? Payment is an indication of good faith. Those OT chicks probably bragged to each other about how much their husbands paid for them. A loving father wants to know the guy is sincere and prosperous enough to take care of his little girl the family.

    How about putting the best construction on the Old Testament Laws? Gee, who authored those anyway? Does he understand human nature, or what?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If your husband died, you would be required to sleep with his brother and make babies”

    Poor guy, he would be stuck with an old woman and her children to support and her children would inherit the older brother’s property. Looks like a better deal for the woman than the poor younger brother. Here he was all happy with his own wife and kids, when his brother up and dies and now he has all the drama of this other woman and her kids always wanting something.

    ” . and you should arrange the marriage for your daughters and teach them that they have no choice in who they will marry.”

    Where is the evidence for this “no choice” in the Bible? Are you talking about the royal families?

    Anyway, arranged marriages are actually a good idea and responsible parents try to help their kids pick good spouses.

    “Your husband will sell her off.”

    Evidence? Anyway, if the guy isn’t willing to pay anything, how committed is he? Payment is an indication of good faith. Those OT chicks probably bragged to each other about how much their husbands paid for them. A loving father wants to know the guy is sincere and prosperous enough to take care of his little girl the family.

    How about putting the best construction on the Old Testament Laws? Gee, who authored those anyway? Does he understand human nature, or what?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If the priest were to have sex with a married 10 or 12 year old, the girl would be stoned for adultery and the priest too… but in practice it would usually be just the girl… they would respect that the man has a family and kids to support…so he would end up paying punitive damages according to OT law.”

    It sounds cruel, but with those swift severe penalties, just one or two examples and the husbands would learn to keep their hot young wives in the house.

    What happens nowadays when a 10-12 year old is raped? Even if the guy is not married, he doesn’t get the death penalty. The only one to get the death penalty is the totally innocent child conceived in rape. Are we so much more just in practice?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If the priest were to have sex with a married 10 or 12 year old, the girl would be stoned for adultery and the priest too… but in practice it would usually be just the girl… they would respect that the man has a family and kids to support…so he would end up paying punitive damages according to OT law.”

    It sounds cruel, but with those swift severe penalties, just one or two examples and the husbands would learn to keep their hot young wives in the house.

    What happens nowadays when a 10-12 year old is raped? Even if the guy is not married, he doesn’t get the death penalty. The only one to get the death penalty is the totally innocent child conceived in rape. Are we so much more just in practice?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If your husband died, you would be required to sleep with his brother and make babies”

    What, I can’t run off to the city and be a prostitute? Oh wait, I am too old, no one wants and old fat prostitute. Face it, under the circumstances, the woman is getting a good deal. She gets the dignity and security of marriage for herself and her children. The brother gets the burden of more people and stuff to have to manage, and he does it on behalf of his brother’s kids. He gets very little. It is an obligation, a duty. She is not some great prize.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If your husband died, you would be required to sleep with his brother and make babies”

    What, I can’t run off to the city and be a prostitute? Oh wait, I am too old, no one wants and old fat prostitute. Face it, under the circumstances, the woman is getting a good deal. She gets the dignity and security of marriage for herself and her children. The brother gets the burden of more people and stuff to have to manage, and he does it on behalf of his brother’s kids. He gets very little. It is an obligation, a duty. She is not some great prize.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If your husband died, you would be required to sleep with his brother and make babies”

    Contrary to 20th century feminist brainwashing, women actually like making babies.

    “If your husband died, you would be required to sleep with his brother and make babies”

    Poor sucker. Here he is in love with the neighbor’s daughter. He has finally saved up enough to get married. But, no, bro dies, and suddenly he is saddled with twice as much soil to till and this old bag he never liked that much and instant fatherhood of her kids. Now his true love will probably marry someone else because she doesn’t want to get in line behind his new ball and chain and her dad knows some nice guys he’ll be inviting for dinner. I hope he has plenty of wine to drown his sorrows. I hope the widow has some boys old enough to help with those fields.

    Contrary to 20th century feminist brainwashing, life was hard for everyone back then, not just the poor victim women, waaaaaaa.

    How would you like to be the brother obligated to marry her?

    Sound fun?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If your husband died, you would be required to sleep with his brother and make babies”

    Contrary to 20th century feminist brainwashing, women actually like making babies.

    “If your husband died, you would be required to sleep with his brother and make babies”

    Poor sucker. Here he is in love with the neighbor’s daughter. He has finally saved up enough to get married. But, no, bro dies, and suddenly he is saddled with twice as much soil to till and this old bag he never liked that much and instant fatherhood of her kids. Now his true love will probably marry someone else because she doesn’t want to get in line behind his new ball and chain and her dad knows some nice guys he’ll be inviting for dinner. I hope he has plenty of wine to drown his sorrows. I hope the widow has some boys old enough to help with those fields.

    Contrary to 20th century feminist brainwashing, life was hard for everyone back then, not just the poor victim women, waaaaaaa.

    How would you like to be the brother obligated to marry her?

    Sound fun?

  • Stephen

    Maybe I can temper some of what I said with some explanations. I still do not expect you to agree, but I will make and attempt at least for the sake of clarification and not seeming so terrible.

    S:“I wasn’t vilifying the police, I was making an analogy.”

    sg: “So, who were you vilifying? The analogy makes no sense.”
    You are characterizing my statements in a way that I disagree with. Vilifying? Making villains? What I am describing has to do with the cultural memory and continued experience of African Americans. It is akin, I think, to the prejudice leveled against gays. Since you like links, here’s one about something that happened in my town last night:

    http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/index.html

    I’m thankful the cops are okay. I see these guys and gals everyday on their bikes and they help us out a lot downtown. They are great people. I’m sad about this stupid kid who did a dumb thing and paid with his life. What does it tell me about African Americans and their community in my town? A lot of complex things are going on that feed into it. I refuse to shave with Occam’s Razor and thereby make some logical positivist statement that fits the entire black population. Misconceptions abound. However, it doesn’t excuse this particular crime.

    S: “However, why else would it be so easy for a woman to claim that a black man stole her children and have everyone believing it until it was later discovered she sent them to their watery grave herself. This is not an uncommon ploy.”

    sg: “Yes, it is. It is profoundly rare if it even exists at all. I have never heard of such a thing.”

    I was referring to the Susan Smith case. Here’s another recent use of this ploy:

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/119511134.html

    Growing up in the south, it was certainly the case that it was easier to pin bad behavior on black kids than it was white kids. This was my experience. It does not surprise me to wee this trick being used to dupe law enforcement and that they fall for it, even if for a short time.

    S: “There are plenty of cases of black men serving time for crimes they didn’t commit.”
    Sg: Okay, but that happens to all races, not blacks disproportionally.

    You are right, and either way, there is not conclusive data to make some kind of “asymmetrical” argument, something I wasn’t trying to do on this particular point. I was citing this as part of the overall picture that, again, feeds into a larger one that has to do with racial discrimination before the law as a cultural narrative of which blacks have both historical and firsthand knowledge.

    S:“We also have a history in this country of lynching young black men for doing absolutely nothing – guilt by association, which was my point.”
    Sg: “That is not true. Individuals of all races got lynched when folks were enraged by their crimes and didn’t want to wait for justice or didn’t believe justice would be served. Go look up lynching. Research specific instances. Seriously.”

    I understand about the justice of the west such as the lynching that occurred in Ada, OK in1909. I get that. But you can see on the Wikipedia page that the numbers are 2/3 higher for blacks than whites, while their population is a minority one. Were white white people lynched in the way blacks were in the 50s and early 60s. This too is part of the cultural narrative of African Americans. The lynching of James Byrd in 1998 brings this up again. And now we have this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

    S:“In the case of gay people, anything that can be placed within the proximity of gays is then set forward as proof they are somehow involved with it across the board.”
    Sg: “Where are you getting this? This is an outrageous statement.”

    I think the analysis in the article is another shot fired in the culture wars. Why is that so outrageous? Is it outrageous to see that when psychologists, who gave us the term “homosexual” in the first place, tell us that this has nothing to do with homosexuality, there are those who want to look for logical flaws because that answer does not fit their cultural narrative, one in which gays must be understood as “intrinsically” perverse. So, we (Christians in the broad sense) will use that term when it suits an agenda, like sticking it right in our Holy Scriptures to name sin, but when the experts who defined that term in the first place tell us that this behavior (pedophilia) is unrelated, we say they are wrong. Now whose logic is fuzzy?

    Sg: “This thread is about clergy sexual abuse. All abusers discussed were male and 81% of victims were male. No one is grasping at straws. Same sex relations are by definition homosexual.”
    It is about way more than that. Take about ten steps back.
    S: “It’s ridiculous, and yet it is a veritable cottage industry of specious connections to make gay people look sinister as much as possible.”

    Sg: This comment is ridiculous. The specious assertions aim to vilify the Catholic Church instead of the abusers and the individuals with supervisory authority over those abusers.

    I refer you to what I just said. Hopefully it will help what I said seem a little less than ridiculous. Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle. My argument is that broader interests are at stake, hence the interpretations.

    S: “men who rape children reflects badly on all of us in the same way that all sin does.”
    Sg: “No, it only reflects badly on the guilty. The rest of us are not to blame for the actions of a few. Just like all the other gay people in the world are not to blame for the actions of a few. Basically, if we aren’t going to lump all gays in with gay priests or priests who sexually abuse boys, then we aren’t going to lump in all the rest of humanity, which would even include the victims. It is non sensical and unjust.”

    You are sort of getting what I am trying to say. This was a statement about Original Sin. You used something like this defense for Ayn Rand as I recall when I tried to make a connection between her life and her ideas. The point here is that I think the author of this article is straining to implicate homosexuality and set it apart, as is often the case it seems to me, as an identifiable problem directly associated with these deeper, more monstrous things like pedophilia. What I am saying her is that the problem of pedophilia – sin against children – is about our sinful nature. I wasn’t talking about the guilt of individuals. For that, we have the law, which in this case, I hope it buries them up to their eyeballs. That is the consequence for our acts in this life sometimes, like it was for that young man who got himself shot last night in my city.

    S: “we can mark gay people as deviants who should have their rights taken away before they actually commit any crimes.”
    Sg: No one is advocating that.

    I think that is exactly the project underway. And so, with articles like this, it is one more take on homosexuals that draws that distinction. They come back with “oh yeah, well look at the wicked things that Christians do” and we have a culture war that achieves nothing. I don’t blame them. They are under siege just as much as the “institution” of the church (as Kerner called my argument, part #3) is from cultural forces telling new and different narratives of what is actually going on. The problem, as I see it, is that we are all enmeshed in cultural narratives of our own. Some are more conservative and some are more liberal, but these labels are broad and not helpful. They usually become tools for bracketing certain code words or ideas and limiting real conversations.
    As people, even here on this blog, we battle for some kind of foundationalism and cannot have conversations anymore that agree upon a shared meaning. This is postmodernism. That is what we live in. So when I write things and you get flustered or misunderstand them, I think it is because of the underlying cultural narratives that we both assume have ascendency (or should). If you can get the data to support it you win the competition (your word from the other thread). Anything else is simply emotional. Maybe so, but I don’t think so. You have said you believe the bible no matter what others say. People believe the narratives they live by no matter what others say, and they have good reasons. Even if those reasons are purely from personal experience, that experience is tied to larger experiences and frames of meaning and not to be dismissed out of hand.

    S: “We treated black people the same way and thought we were doing what was good for them.”
    Sg; No, “we” didn’t. A few people imported slaves and they didn’t do it for the benefit of slaves. They did it to get rich quick. Many of the rest of “us” complained that slavery was evil and worked to end it. First, by banning the importation of more slaves in 1807, then a national crisis and war in which many of “our” sons gave their lives.

    Where were you when we discussed the Civil War? I had in my mind also things like Jim Crow. In my city, it was built into the first city plan in 1928 to move blacks and Mexicans to the east side of town, which was in fact done, for their good. That became I35 and still cuts the city in two and causes an ingrained division that is palpable and difficult to bridge. Were you in Austin I could take you into an archive to read the letters of people who lived here during the Civil War who made this very kind of argument even though they were unionists – that Mr. Lincoln would not be helping the Negro. They were thought of like “children” and kept in their place through legal and cultural custom until not so long ago. While conservative whites do not see it this way and are tired of hearing it, they still see this persisting institutionally to this day.

    S:“If we gave them too much freedom, they’d just rob and rape and steal, and we can’t have that.”
    Sg:We do have that. Sadly, blacks have very high crime rates and they suffer because of it, but it isn’t because “we gave them too much freedom.”

    This is a misunderstanding of what I was saying. I was indicating what was and is still believed about them. I have heard sentiments like this myself in not so polite and unmixed company.

    sg: “Really, these were stunningly terrible things for you to say, Stephen.”

    I regret you feel that way but I think the analogy fits. Granting gays full humanity in the eyes of the status quo would mean unleashing all kinds of wickedness, or so the implication goes that underlies the kinds of assessments in this article. There are well-meaning people who are dealing from a place of fear and ignorance. Linking homosexuality to pederasty, even in this small example, is like another nail in the coffin. It would make it that much more easy to discriminate against gays in various ways. The same kinds of arguments have been attempted against people of color and Jews. Point out that they are intrinsically flawed and they can justifiably be set apart. I see that happening here.

    PS Ask a woman who has been raped if she had sex. Is that even fair question?

  • Stephen

    Maybe I can temper some of what I said with some explanations. I still do not expect you to agree, but I will make and attempt at least for the sake of clarification and not seeming so terrible.

    S:“I wasn’t vilifying the police, I was making an analogy.”

    sg: “So, who were you vilifying? The analogy makes no sense.”
    You are characterizing my statements in a way that I disagree with. Vilifying? Making villains? What I am describing has to do with the cultural memory and continued experience of African Americans. It is akin, I think, to the prejudice leveled against gays. Since you like links, here’s one about something that happened in my town last night:

    http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/index.html

    I’m thankful the cops are okay. I see these guys and gals everyday on their bikes and they help us out a lot downtown. They are great people. I’m sad about this stupid kid who did a dumb thing and paid with his life. What does it tell me about African Americans and their community in my town? A lot of complex things are going on that feed into it. I refuse to shave with Occam’s Razor and thereby make some logical positivist statement that fits the entire black population. Misconceptions abound. However, it doesn’t excuse this particular crime.

    S: “However, why else would it be so easy for a woman to claim that a black man stole her children and have everyone believing it until it was later discovered she sent them to their watery grave herself. This is not an uncommon ploy.”

    sg: “Yes, it is. It is profoundly rare if it even exists at all. I have never heard of such a thing.”

    I was referring to the Susan Smith case. Here’s another recent use of this ploy:

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/119511134.html

    Growing up in the south, it was certainly the case that it was easier to pin bad behavior on black kids than it was white kids. This was my experience. It does not surprise me to wee this trick being used to dupe law enforcement and that they fall for it, even if for a short time.

    S: “There are plenty of cases of black men serving time for crimes they didn’t commit.”
    Sg: Okay, but that happens to all races, not blacks disproportionally.

    You are right, and either way, there is not conclusive data to make some kind of “asymmetrical” argument, something I wasn’t trying to do on this particular point. I was citing this as part of the overall picture that, again, feeds into a larger one that has to do with racial discrimination before the law as a cultural narrative of which blacks have both historical and firsthand knowledge.

    S:“We also have a history in this country of lynching young black men for doing absolutely nothing – guilt by association, which was my point.”
    Sg: “That is not true. Individuals of all races got lynched when folks were enraged by their crimes and didn’t want to wait for justice or didn’t believe justice would be served. Go look up lynching. Research specific instances. Seriously.”

    I understand about the justice of the west such as the lynching that occurred in Ada, OK in1909. I get that. But you can see on the Wikipedia page that the numbers are 2/3 higher for blacks than whites, while their population is a minority one. Were white white people lynched in the way blacks were in the 50s and early 60s. This too is part of the cultural narrative of African Americans. The lynching of James Byrd in 1998 brings this up again. And now we have this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

    S:“In the case of gay people, anything that can be placed within the proximity of gays is then set forward as proof they are somehow involved with it across the board.”
    Sg: “Where are you getting this? This is an outrageous statement.”

    I think the analysis in the article is another shot fired in the culture wars. Why is that so outrageous? Is it outrageous to see that when psychologists, who gave us the term “homosexual” in the first place, tell us that this has nothing to do with homosexuality, there are those who want to look for logical flaws because that answer does not fit their cultural narrative, one in which gays must be understood as “intrinsically” perverse. So, we (Christians in the broad sense) will use that term when it suits an agenda, like sticking it right in our Holy Scriptures to name sin, but when the experts who defined that term in the first place tell us that this behavior (pedophilia) is unrelated, we say they are wrong. Now whose logic is fuzzy?

    Sg: “This thread is about clergy sexual abuse. All abusers discussed were male and 81% of victims were male. No one is grasping at straws. Same sex relations are by definition homosexual.”
    It is about way more than that. Take about ten steps back.
    S: “It’s ridiculous, and yet it is a veritable cottage industry of specious connections to make gay people look sinister as much as possible.”

    Sg: This comment is ridiculous. The specious assertions aim to vilify the Catholic Church instead of the abusers and the individuals with supervisory authority over those abusers.

    I refer you to what I just said. Hopefully it will help what I said seem a little less than ridiculous. Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle. My argument is that broader interests are at stake, hence the interpretations.

    S: “men who rape children reflects badly on all of us in the same way that all sin does.”
    Sg: “No, it only reflects badly on the guilty. The rest of us are not to blame for the actions of a few. Just like all the other gay people in the world are not to blame for the actions of a few. Basically, if we aren’t going to lump all gays in with gay priests or priests who sexually abuse boys, then we aren’t going to lump in all the rest of humanity, which would even include the victims. It is non sensical and unjust.”

    You are sort of getting what I am trying to say. This was a statement about Original Sin. You used something like this defense for Ayn Rand as I recall when I tried to make a connection between her life and her ideas. The point here is that I think the author of this article is straining to implicate homosexuality and set it apart, as is often the case it seems to me, as an identifiable problem directly associated with these deeper, more monstrous things like pedophilia. What I am saying her is that the problem of pedophilia – sin against children – is about our sinful nature. I wasn’t talking about the guilt of individuals. For that, we have the law, which in this case, I hope it buries them up to their eyeballs. That is the consequence for our acts in this life sometimes, like it was for that young man who got himself shot last night in my city.

    S: “we can mark gay people as deviants who should have their rights taken away before they actually commit any crimes.”
    Sg: No one is advocating that.

    I think that is exactly the project underway. And so, with articles like this, it is one more take on homosexuals that draws that distinction. They come back with “oh yeah, well look at the wicked things that Christians do” and we have a culture war that achieves nothing. I don’t blame them. They are under siege just as much as the “institution” of the church (as Kerner called my argument, part #3) is from cultural forces telling new and different narratives of what is actually going on. The problem, as I see it, is that we are all enmeshed in cultural narratives of our own. Some are more conservative and some are more liberal, but these labels are broad and not helpful. They usually become tools for bracketing certain code words or ideas and limiting real conversations.
    As people, even here on this blog, we battle for some kind of foundationalism and cannot have conversations anymore that agree upon a shared meaning. This is postmodernism. That is what we live in. So when I write things and you get flustered or misunderstand them, I think it is because of the underlying cultural narratives that we both assume have ascendency (or should). If you can get the data to support it you win the competition (your word from the other thread). Anything else is simply emotional. Maybe so, but I don’t think so. You have said you believe the bible no matter what others say. People believe the narratives they live by no matter what others say, and they have good reasons. Even if those reasons are purely from personal experience, that experience is tied to larger experiences and frames of meaning and not to be dismissed out of hand.

    S: “We treated black people the same way and thought we were doing what was good for them.”
    Sg; No, “we” didn’t. A few people imported slaves and they didn’t do it for the benefit of slaves. They did it to get rich quick. Many of the rest of “us” complained that slavery was evil and worked to end it. First, by banning the importation of more slaves in 1807, then a national crisis and war in which many of “our” sons gave their lives.

    Where were you when we discussed the Civil War? I had in my mind also things like Jim Crow. In my city, it was built into the first city plan in 1928 to move blacks and Mexicans to the east side of town, which was in fact done, for their good. That became I35 and still cuts the city in two and causes an ingrained division that is palpable and difficult to bridge. Were you in Austin I could take you into an archive to read the letters of people who lived here during the Civil War who made this very kind of argument even though they were unionists – that Mr. Lincoln would not be helping the Negro. They were thought of like “children” and kept in their place through legal and cultural custom until not so long ago. While conservative whites do not see it this way and are tired of hearing it, they still see this persisting institutionally to this day.

    S:“If we gave them too much freedom, they’d just rob and rape and steal, and we can’t have that.”
    Sg:We do have that. Sadly, blacks have very high crime rates and they suffer because of it, but it isn’t because “we gave them too much freedom.”

    This is a misunderstanding of what I was saying. I was indicating what was and is still believed about them. I have heard sentiments like this myself in not so polite and unmixed company.

    sg: “Really, these were stunningly terrible things for you to say, Stephen.”

    I regret you feel that way but I think the analogy fits. Granting gays full humanity in the eyes of the status quo would mean unleashing all kinds of wickedness, or so the implication goes that underlies the kinds of assessments in this article. There are well-meaning people who are dealing from a place of fear and ignorance. Linking homosexuality to pederasty, even in this small example, is like another nail in the coffin. It would make it that much more easy to discriminate against gays in various ways. The same kinds of arguments have been attempted against people of color and Jews. Point out that they are intrinsically flawed and they can justifiably be set apart. I see that happening here.

    PS Ask a woman who has been raped if she had sex. Is that even fair question?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “What I am describing has to do with the cultural memory and continued experience of African Americans.”

    What you describe is your perception of such.

    “I was citing this as part of the overall picture that, again, feeds into a larger one that has to do with racial discrimination before the law as a cultural narrative of which blacks have both historical and firsthand knowledge.”

    The problem is that you are slandering everyone for the failings of some.

    Just as it is unfair to stereotype “them”, it is also unfair to stereotype “us.”

    “What does it tell me about African Americans and their community in my town? A lot of complex things are going on that feed into it. I refuse to shave with Occam’s Razor and thereby make some logical positivist statement that fits the entire black population.”

    So, why are you willing to do it to the rest of us?

    “While conservative whites do not see it this way and are tired of hearing it, they still see this persisting institutionally to this day.”

    Just because they see it, doesn’t make it so. However, this statement is so vague, it is hard to really know what you are referring to.

    “There are well-meaning people who are dealing from a place of fear and ignorance.”

    I could say that about this about your statements.

    “This is a misunderstanding of what I was saying.”

    Well, it sure seemed like you were talking about crime.

    “I was indicating what was and is still believed about them.”

    Which is what? Just say it.

    “I have heard sentiments like this myself in not so polite and unmixed company.”

    Ugh, everything you say is a sentiment with no examples or explanation.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “What I am describing has to do with the cultural memory and continued experience of African Americans.”

    What you describe is your perception of such.

    “I was citing this as part of the overall picture that, again, feeds into a larger one that has to do with racial discrimination before the law as a cultural narrative of which blacks have both historical and firsthand knowledge.”

    The problem is that you are slandering everyone for the failings of some.

    Just as it is unfair to stereotype “them”, it is also unfair to stereotype “us.”

    “What does it tell me about African Americans and their community in my town? A lot of complex things are going on that feed into it. I refuse to shave with Occam’s Razor and thereby make some logical positivist statement that fits the entire black population.”

    So, why are you willing to do it to the rest of us?

    “While conservative whites do not see it this way and are tired of hearing it, they still see this persisting institutionally to this day.”

    Just because they see it, doesn’t make it so. However, this statement is so vague, it is hard to really know what you are referring to.

    “There are well-meaning people who are dealing from a place of fear and ignorance.”

    I could say that about this about your statements.

    “This is a misunderstanding of what I was saying.”

    Well, it sure seemed like you were talking about crime.

    “I was indicating what was and is still believed about them.”

    Which is what? Just say it.

    “I have heard sentiments like this myself in not so polite and unmixed company.”

    Ugh, everything you say is a sentiment with no examples or explanation.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    PS Ask a woman who has been raped if she had sex. Is that even fair question?

    Where does this come from?

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Rape is a sex crime. See the word ‘sex’ in there? It is also called sexual assault. Look, there it is again.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    PS Ask a woman who has been raped if she had sex. Is that even fair question?

    Where does this come from?

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Rape is a sex crime. See the word ‘sex’ in there? It is also called sexual assault. Look, there it is again.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “PS Ask a woman who has been raped if she had sex. Is that even fair question?”

    I am pretty sure the police do exactly that in order for her to press charges.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “PS Ask a woman who has been raped if she had sex. Is that even fair question?”

    I am pretty sure the police do exactly that in order for her to press charges.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Linking homosexuality to pederasty, even in this small example, is like another nail in the coffin.”

    What link?

    “It would make it that much more easy to discriminate against gays in various ways.”

    How?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Linking homosexuality to pederasty, even in this small example, is like another nail in the coffin.”

    What link?

    “It would make it that much more easy to discriminate against gays in various ways.”

    How?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “S: “we can mark gay people as deviants who should have their rights taken away before they actually commit any crimes.”
    Sg: No one is advocating that.

    “I think that is exactly the project underway.”

    Baseless defamatory accusation. Pure vilification.

    “I had in my mind also things like Jim Crow. In my city, it was built into the first city plan in 1928 to move blacks and Mexicans to the east side of town, which was in fact done, for their good. That became I35 and still cuts the city in two and causes an ingrained division that is palpable and difficult to bridge.”

    Maybe the ingrained division came first and motivated the design of the city. Why can’t that be the case? Why can’t the arrow of causality point the other way? I mean look at the ways that groups organize themselves and identify themselves. They form their own organizations based on identity, aka homophily.

    The thing is, that given free choice, folks tend self segregate. This is pretty much true for all groups.

    I know you say you aren’t interested in data, but this is a pretty cool data visualization tool that shows which ethnic groups live where. You can enter your zip code to look at your neighborhood.
    http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “S: “we can mark gay people as deviants who should have their rights taken away before they actually commit any crimes.”
    Sg: No one is advocating that.

    “I think that is exactly the project underway.”

    Baseless defamatory accusation. Pure vilification.

    “I had in my mind also things like Jim Crow. In my city, it was built into the first city plan in 1928 to move blacks and Mexicans to the east side of town, which was in fact done, for their good. That became I35 and still cuts the city in two and causes an ingrained division that is palpable and difficult to bridge.”

    Maybe the ingrained division came first and motivated the design of the city. Why can’t that be the case? Why can’t the arrow of causality point the other way? I mean look at the ways that groups organize themselves and identify themselves. They form their own organizations based on identity, aka homophily.

    The thing is, that given free choice, folks tend self segregate. This is pretty much true for all groups.

    I know you say you aren’t interested in data, but this is a pretty cool data visualization tool that shows which ethnic groups live where. You can enter your zip code to look at your neighborhood.
    http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp

  • Stephen

    sg @ 134

    “What you describe is your perception of such.”

    Well, no. Read W.E. B. DuBois and work your way up to today.

    “The problem is that you are slandering everyone for the failings of some. Just as it is unfair to stereotype “them”, it is also unfair to stereotype “us.”

    No again. That is perhaps how you hear it, but that is not what I am doing. I am allowing for a plurality of stories and their significance for people to enter into the discussion. I am not setting up a dichotomy. In the way we are discussing things, simply because someone presents a reality as true from experience it does not then necessarily negate the experiences of others or cast them in a negative light.

    “Just because they see it, doesn’t make it so. However, this statement is so vague, it is hard to really know what you are referring to.”

    Well yes, in a way it does. I am refrring again to the experienc eof African Americans.

    “I could say that about this about your statements.”

    Certainly you could and sort of already have. I have been trying to explain the agenda which I see afoot. You don’t see it or agree with it. That’s fine.

    “Well, it sure seemed like you were talking about crime.”

    I was commenting on a perception that exists about black people. It is less overt than it used to be, but where I live, it is still there. When crimes like the one I linked to happen, there is still typically a racial component in their somewhere that surfaces at several levels, from “this has nothing to do with race” all the way to “see what those people do?” and everything in between. I’m not saying this particular crime is or isn’t about that, but it cerainly will be debated, and that signals to me that we still have a problem. Part of the problem, as I see it, is not allowing for everyone’s expereince to be given some kind of open hearing. Our city is trying to do that, but it is tough because some people just feel accused and don’t want to hear it.

    “Which is what? Just say it.”

    That black people will never amount to anything. I did say this, but not in so many words, because I do want to give most people the benefit of the doubt, that they want to get past things and work towards a better society and the goals of our democracy. I dont’ try to lump people together, but I do think we are operating at times under cultural forces we don’t always recognize. I event hink they infiltrate our church, our theology, and our sense of what it means to love our neighbor. But that’s part of the reason I like coming here even though I often feel out numbered.

    “Ugh, everything you say is a sentiment with no examples or explanation.”

    Everything? No explanations? Is that fair? Seems extreme to me. I gave you some links :) You decide.

    As for my PS, that was reference to what fws has been talking about. I realize how the police describe “sex crimes” but my point was this – isn’t there a fundamental difference between what happens between lovers and what happens between a criminal and his victim? Is it fair to put them in the same category? I realize how we use the language seems to do this, but conceptually, when we think about these things, are they really so related? That was what I was aiming at.

    “Linking homosexuality to pederasty, even in this small example, is like another nail in the coffin.”

    What link?

    It is my opinon that this article is attempting to do just that. It is searching for flaws in the data, characterizing things using words like “downplay” and statements like “determined to deny the obvious” for me are an indication of this. This seems disingenuous, as I said, when we have relied on psychology to describe homosexuality for us in the first place.

    “It would make it that much more easy to discriminate against gays in various ways.”

    How?

    By somehow proving they are lesser or more devaint than “normal” people. I thought I explained that.

    “Baseless defamatory accusation. Pure vilification.”

    C’mon, it is an observation and an opinon I explained, and it isn’t baseless. How many other such articles that try to make these kinds of “baseless” links do I need to achieve asymetry? I am not trying to make people out to be villians. But I do think people have an agenda, and are working very hard on it.

    “Maybe the ingrained division came first and motivated the design of the city. Why can’t that be the case? Why can’t the arrow of causality point the other way? I mean look at the ways that groups organize themselves and identify themselves. They form their own organizations based on identity, aka homophily.

    The thing is, that given free choice, folks tend self segregate. This is pretty much true for all groups.

    I know you say you aren’t interested in data, but this is a pretty cool data visualization tool that shows which ethnic groups live where. You can enter your zip code to look at your neighborhood.”
    http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp

    Now I like all this. Why can’t we talk more like this? I see where you are coming from, and that would make sense, except that at the time, in 1928, the people who had to move and give uop their neighborhoods and businesses were all people of color and none of them had representation in local government. So, that being the case, I am disinclined to believe your assessment. But you make some other good points.

    Thanks for the link. It’s not that I don’t like data. I am more moved by people’s stories and what truths can be gleaned from them. I heard one once about a gal whose family lived in mud huts somewhere and dug a living out of the ground. I think she lives in Arizona now. She used to be Baptist, but now she’s a Lutheran. She’s got abunch of kids and loves to dig up facts and figures. Smart as a whip. I’ll bet that’s a great story.

  • Stephen

    sg @ 134

    “What you describe is your perception of such.”

    Well, no. Read W.E. B. DuBois and work your way up to today.

    “The problem is that you are slandering everyone for the failings of some. Just as it is unfair to stereotype “them”, it is also unfair to stereotype “us.”

    No again. That is perhaps how you hear it, but that is not what I am doing. I am allowing for a plurality of stories and their significance for people to enter into the discussion. I am not setting up a dichotomy. In the way we are discussing things, simply because someone presents a reality as true from experience it does not then necessarily negate the experiences of others or cast them in a negative light.

    “Just because they see it, doesn’t make it so. However, this statement is so vague, it is hard to really know what you are referring to.”

    Well yes, in a way it does. I am refrring again to the experienc eof African Americans.

    “I could say that about this about your statements.”

    Certainly you could and sort of already have. I have been trying to explain the agenda which I see afoot. You don’t see it or agree with it. That’s fine.

    “Well, it sure seemed like you were talking about crime.”

    I was commenting on a perception that exists about black people. It is less overt than it used to be, but where I live, it is still there. When crimes like the one I linked to happen, there is still typically a racial component in their somewhere that surfaces at several levels, from “this has nothing to do with race” all the way to “see what those people do?” and everything in between. I’m not saying this particular crime is or isn’t about that, but it cerainly will be debated, and that signals to me that we still have a problem. Part of the problem, as I see it, is not allowing for everyone’s expereince to be given some kind of open hearing. Our city is trying to do that, but it is tough because some people just feel accused and don’t want to hear it.

    “Which is what? Just say it.”

    That black people will never amount to anything. I did say this, but not in so many words, because I do want to give most people the benefit of the doubt, that they want to get past things and work towards a better society and the goals of our democracy. I dont’ try to lump people together, but I do think we are operating at times under cultural forces we don’t always recognize. I event hink they infiltrate our church, our theology, and our sense of what it means to love our neighbor. But that’s part of the reason I like coming here even though I often feel out numbered.

    “Ugh, everything you say is a sentiment with no examples or explanation.”

    Everything? No explanations? Is that fair? Seems extreme to me. I gave you some links :) You decide.

    As for my PS, that was reference to what fws has been talking about. I realize how the police describe “sex crimes” but my point was this – isn’t there a fundamental difference between what happens between lovers and what happens between a criminal and his victim? Is it fair to put them in the same category? I realize how we use the language seems to do this, but conceptually, when we think about these things, are they really so related? That was what I was aiming at.

    “Linking homosexuality to pederasty, even in this small example, is like another nail in the coffin.”

    What link?

    It is my opinon that this article is attempting to do just that. It is searching for flaws in the data, characterizing things using words like “downplay” and statements like “determined to deny the obvious” for me are an indication of this. This seems disingenuous, as I said, when we have relied on psychology to describe homosexuality for us in the first place.

    “It would make it that much more easy to discriminate against gays in various ways.”

    How?

    By somehow proving they are lesser or more devaint than “normal” people. I thought I explained that.

    “Baseless defamatory accusation. Pure vilification.”

    C’mon, it is an observation and an opinon I explained, and it isn’t baseless. How many other such articles that try to make these kinds of “baseless” links do I need to achieve asymetry? I am not trying to make people out to be villians. But I do think people have an agenda, and are working very hard on it.

    “Maybe the ingrained division came first and motivated the design of the city. Why can’t that be the case? Why can’t the arrow of causality point the other way? I mean look at the ways that groups organize themselves and identify themselves. They form their own organizations based on identity, aka homophily.

    The thing is, that given free choice, folks tend self segregate. This is pretty much true for all groups.

    I know you say you aren’t interested in data, but this is a pretty cool data visualization tool that shows which ethnic groups live where. You can enter your zip code to look at your neighborhood.”
    http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp

    Now I like all this. Why can’t we talk more like this? I see where you are coming from, and that would make sense, except that at the time, in 1928, the people who had to move and give uop their neighborhoods and businesses were all people of color and none of them had representation in local government. So, that being the case, I am disinclined to believe your assessment. But you make some other good points.

    Thanks for the link. It’s not that I don’t like data. I am more moved by people’s stories and what truths can be gleaned from them. I heard one once about a gal whose family lived in mud huts somewhere and dug a living out of the ground. I think she lives in Arizona now. She used to be Baptist, but now she’s a Lutheran. She’s got abunch of kids and loves to dig up facts and figures. Smart as a whip. I’ll bet that’s a great story.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “That black people will never amount to anything.”

    People aren’t saying that. They note that blacks have different rates on health, crime, family, social and achievement indicators. And they say they don’t want to be blamed for the disparities between blacks and other groups.

    “I did say this, but not in so many words, because I do want to give most people the benefit of the doubt, that they want to get past things and work towards a better society and the goals of our democracy.”

    I don’t see the benefit of the doubt being given.

    “By somehow proving they are lesser or more devaint than “normal” people.”

    What if they are more deviant than some other group?

    The rates of social pathologies of different groups are different. That has already been established. Turns out, as a society, we have actually gone out of our way to try to help those groups. When it doesn’t work, society is blamed rather than the group that suffers the problem. That is why it is so atrocious to continue to assert that society is trying to harm them. There is a profound lack of evidence that anyone is trying to disadvantage them. In fact the evidence shows our society keeps trying to help groups with their problems. But come on, we are only human, too.

    Back to the point. What if they are more deviant? We cannot honestly assert a priori that they aren’t. We have to be willing to face the truth no matter what it is. Otherwise we are dishonest.

    “we have relied on psychology to describe homosexuality for us in the first place.”

    I have not relied on it. The action defines itself. I have stated that clearly.

    “at the time, in 1928, the people who had to move and give uop their neighborhoods and businesses were all people of color and none of them had representation in local government.”

    I am not familiar with this particular situation. So, I am taking what you say at face value. The situation reminds me of South Africa. They had a white controlled government and very explicit discrimination against different groups. You would think that those groups would want to leave South Africa to go to a place where they would be treated as equals. But no, rather these groups kept coming and coming to a country that treated them as second and third class. Why? Likewise, why didn’t the groups in the town you describe, just pack up and go to another town or even country? Why did they stay to endure that? Maybe it was the economic opportunity provided by those folks who were discriminating against them. If they had the confidence and competence to make their own economic opportunities, why would they put up with discrimination?

    “So, that being the case, I am disinclined to believe your assessment.”

    It is not an assessment. It is a question. See the question marks? Those questions are not rhetorical.

    “Ugh, everything you say is a sentiment with no examples or explanation.”

    Sorry about that. I was exasperated.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “That black people will never amount to anything.”

    People aren’t saying that. They note that blacks have different rates on health, crime, family, social and achievement indicators. And they say they don’t want to be blamed for the disparities between blacks and other groups.

    “I did say this, but not in so many words, because I do want to give most people the benefit of the doubt, that they want to get past things and work towards a better society and the goals of our democracy.”

    I don’t see the benefit of the doubt being given.

    “By somehow proving they are lesser or more devaint than “normal” people.”

    What if they are more deviant than some other group?

    The rates of social pathologies of different groups are different. That has already been established. Turns out, as a society, we have actually gone out of our way to try to help those groups. When it doesn’t work, society is blamed rather than the group that suffers the problem. That is why it is so atrocious to continue to assert that society is trying to harm them. There is a profound lack of evidence that anyone is trying to disadvantage them. In fact the evidence shows our society keeps trying to help groups with their problems. But come on, we are only human, too.

    Back to the point. What if they are more deviant? We cannot honestly assert a priori that they aren’t. We have to be willing to face the truth no matter what it is. Otherwise we are dishonest.

    “we have relied on psychology to describe homosexuality for us in the first place.”

    I have not relied on it. The action defines itself. I have stated that clearly.

    “at the time, in 1928, the people who had to move and give uop their neighborhoods and businesses were all people of color and none of them had representation in local government.”

    I am not familiar with this particular situation. So, I am taking what you say at face value. The situation reminds me of South Africa. They had a white controlled government and very explicit discrimination against different groups. You would think that those groups would want to leave South Africa to go to a place where they would be treated as equals. But no, rather these groups kept coming and coming to a country that treated them as second and third class. Why? Likewise, why didn’t the groups in the town you describe, just pack up and go to another town or even country? Why did they stay to endure that? Maybe it was the economic opportunity provided by those folks who were discriminating against them. If they had the confidence and competence to make their own economic opportunities, why would they put up with discrimination?

    “So, that being the case, I am disinclined to believe your assessment.”

    It is not an assessment. It is a question. See the question marks? Those questions are not rhetorical.

    “Ugh, everything you say is a sentiment with no examples or explanation.”

    Sorry about that. I was exasperated.

  • Stephen

    sg -

    I appreciate the kindness. I am suffering some exasperation too. I think I leave things out that you would like to see in there perhaps and what I say comes off as unfair. I don’t intend to be. My intention is to offer some other perspectives. And we are both entitled to our opinions and interpretations of what we read for whatever reasons we have and to offer them here. I will attempt to think the best of you.

    Something I thought about in regards to the asymmetry of data. I work in the archives world – data and primary source central. Right . . . me, Mr. Emotional Argument. Go figure. I do artistic stuff and sometimes drive archivists nuts, but that’s another story.

    I was thinking that a lot of the kinds of things you cite have their home in archives. What I can tell you about that world is that there is an imbalance there, one that is only recently being addressed. There is an issue of under documentation of the experience of minorities in our country. There simply are no records in many cases, and what is there is very sparse and not collected with as much focus, resources or organization over time.

    That said, it presents a problem when developing an accurate historical picture. This is why I like hearing the stories of people and giving them weight. I do not believe they exist in isolation. They are connected to deeper sets of meaning and I think we can listen for those.

    Along those lines I found this you might like to read:

    http://archivists.metapress.com/content/k2837h27wv1201hv/

    You will notice it also talks about the undocumented experience of the poor as well as ethnic minorities. This is a real problem for accurate research. If you use your imagination, you can come up with a dozen reasons why certain populations would likely not be very well represented in the primary source materials that exist from which our history is told. There are lots of other articles and things out there on this issue.

    We are also losing this stuff too. The digital world is actually hastening its demise in some sense because the mediums keep changing. Things cannot be retrieved that were archived digitally a dozen years ago so easily as it might seem. This is especially an issue for smaller archives with small budgets that have local history collections. If you like terra firma of info, got to one of these near you and snoop around. The Internet is vast and seemingly endless, but for some things, it is just surface and repetition, not to mention questionable as an information resource, though it is improving.

    Anyway, paper actually worked well for so many years because it was static longer. Books don’t need to be upgraded very often, for instance, but they too decay over time. So then, if you never collected the documentation, all you have are oral histories – stories people tell. How do we preserve that? You might find this fun:

    http://www.archives.gov/preservation/

    I was thinking you might make a good archivist actually and I wonder why it didn’t occur to me before. Has anyone ever told you that? Two years of grad school. Information is the future. :)

    As for relying on psychologists to tell us what homosexuality is, well, they gave us the term. It is a clinical one, distinct from pedophile, another clinical one, distinct again from heterosexual. So like it or not, we do “rely” on them for it because it is their term, just like any other technical or clinical term from any other profession would be “their term.” But here, the author of the article wants it to mean more as I see it. That is not to “vilify” him, but to say he is mistaken, for one thing, and that I think he is after this point using the language he does because he seems to have an agenda. Another shot fired in the culture war. That is my opinion. Well-intentioned person that he is, he is ignorant of what the term actually means, stretching it in fact, and furthermore, he seems to me to be going to pains to pin something on gay people regardless of what clinicians, who developed these categories, distinguish about these categories.

    Not expecting you to agree with any of that. I’m restating it as another attempt at clarity. The analogy I made we can let go for now. You and I have very different ways of thinking, and I am still working on how to bring my epistemological plane in for a landing for your sake. Can you at least see how much work I am putting into this and the number of smiley emoticons? :)

    Hey, I got so interested in Ayn Rand again I got the new biography on her life “Goddess of the Market” from the library. I’ve gotten about 1/3 through. Yup, I think she was a psychotic. But that is why she’s so wickedly fascinating. ;)

  • Stephen

    sg -

    I appreciate the kindness. I am suffering some exasperation too. I think I leave things out that you would like to see in there perhaps and what I say comes off as unfair. I don’t intend to be. My intention is to offer some other perspectives. And we are both entitled to our opinions and interpretations of what we read for whatever reasons we have and to offer them here. I will attempt to think the best of you.

    Something I thought about in regards to the asymmetry of data. I work in the archives world – data and primary source central. Right . . . me, Mr. Emotional Argument. Go figure. I do artistic stuff and sometimes drive archivists nuts, but that’s another story.

    I was thinking that a lot of the kinds of things you cite have their home in archives. What I can tell you about that world is that there is an imbalance there, one that is only recently being addressed. There is an issue of under documentation of the experience of minorities in our country. There simply are no records in many cases, and what is there is very sparse and not collected with as much focus, resources or organization over time.

    That said, it presents a problem when developing an accurate historical picture. This is why I like hearing the stories of people and giving them weight. I do not believe they exist in isolation. They are connected to deeper sets of meaning and I think we can listen for those.

    Along those lines I found this you might like to read:

    http://archivists.metapress.com/content/k2837h27wv1201hv/

    You will notice it also talks about the undocumented experience of the poor as well as ethnic minorities. This is a real problem for accurate research. If you use your imagination, you can come up with a dozen reasons why certain populations would likely not be very well represented in the primary source materials that exist from which our history is told. There are lots of other articles and things out there on this issue.

    We are also losing this stuff too. The digital world is actually hastening its demise in some sense because the mediums keep changing. Things cannot be retrieved that were archived digitally a dozen years ago so easily as it might seem. This is especially an issue for smaller archives with small budgets that have local history collections. If you like terra firma of info, got to one of these near you and snoop around. The Internet is vast and seemingly endless, but for some things, it is just surface and repetition, not to mention questionable as an information resource, though it is improving.

    Anyway, paper actually worked well for so many years because it was static longer. Books don’t need to be upgraded very often, for instance, but they too decay over time. So then, if you never collected the documentation, all you have are oral histories – stories people tell. How do we preserve that? You might find this fun:

    http://www.archives.gov/preservation/

    I was thinking you might make a good archivist actually and I wonder why it didn’t occur to me before. Has anyone ever told you that? Two years of grad school. Information is the future. :)

    As for relying on psychologists to tell us what homosexuality is, well, they gave us the term. It is a clinical one, distinct from pedophile, another clinical one, distinct again from heterosexual. So like it or not, we do “rely” on them for it because it is their term, just like any other technical or clinical term from any other profession would be “their term.” But here, the author of the article wants it to mean more as I see it. That is not to “vilify” him, but to say he is mistaken, for one thing, and that I think he is after this point using the language he does because he seems to have an agenda. Another shot fired in the culture war. That is my opinion. Well-intentioned person that he is, he is ignorant of what the term actually means, stretching it in fact, and furthermore, he seems to me to be going to pains to pin something on gay people regardless of what clinicians, who developed these categories, distinguish about these categories.

    Not expecting you to agree with any of that. I’m restating it as another attempt at clarity. The analogy I made we can let go for now. You and I have very different ways of thinking, and I am still working on how to bring my epistemological plane in for a landing for your sake. Can you at least see how much work I am putting into this and the number of smiley emoticons? :)

    Hey, I got so interested in Ayn Rand again I got the new biography on her life “Goddess of the Market” from the library. I’ve gotten about 1/3 through. Yup, I think she was a psychotic. But that is why she’s so wickedly fascinating. ;)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I was thinking that a lot of the kinds of things you cite have their home in archives. What I can tell you about that world is that there is an imbalance there, one that is only recently being addressed. There is an issue of under documentation of the experience of minorities in our country. There simply are no records in many cases, and what is there is very sparse and not collected with as much focus, resources or organization over time.”

    The question in my mind is why aren’t there records? Why didn’t these people keep records? I mean we have extensive records from folks who were extremely persecuted. Consider Anne Frank. She was just a kid, and she left a record. We have records from people in horrendous privation. Why so little from these folks? Why so little focus and allocation of resource and organization?

    “You will notice it also talks about the undocumented experience of the poor as well as ethnic minorities. This is a real problem for accurate research. If you use your imagination, you can come up with a dozen reasons why certain populations would likely not be very well represented in the primary source materials that exist from which our history is told. There are lots of other articles and things out there on this issue.”

    Consider the Jews. They were a poor ethnic minority. They kept records. Tons of records. Why? They were heavily discriminated against, but they were focused and organized themselves, and used their own resources. What makes them so different?

    “As for relying on psychologists to tell us what homosexuality is, well, they gave us the term.”

    Uh huh, they also invented adolescence. So what? That doesn’t make it real. There is childhood and adulthood. That is it. Appeals to authority are fallacies. I do not recognize their authority. Their evidence and arguments are not convincing. Millions of people can be wrong. Anyway, homosexual behavior has always been around. Psychologists haven’t offered any grand insights on it. They gave it a new label. Big deal.

    “I got so interested in Ayn Rand again I got the new biography on her”

    I don’t get it.

    Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
    Philipians 4:8

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I was thinking that a lot of the kinds of things you cite have their home in archives. What I can tell you about that world is that there is an imbalance there, one that is only recently being addressed. There is an issue of under documentation of the experience of minorities in our country. There simply are no records in many cases, and what is there is very sparse and not collected with as much focus, resources or organization over time.”

    The question in my mind is why aren’t there records? Why didn’t these people keep records? I mean we have extensive records from folks who were extremely persecuted. Consider Anne Frank. She was just a kid, and she left a record. We have records from people in horrendous privation. Why so little from these folks? Why so little focus and allocation of resource and organization?

    “You will notice it also talks about the undocumented experience of the poor as well as ethnic minorities. This is a real problem for accurate research. If you use your imagination, you can come up with a dozen reasons why certain populations would likely not be very well represented in the primary source materials that exist from which our history is told. There are lots of other articles and things out there on this issue.”

    Consider the Jews. They were a poor ethnic minority. They kept records. Tons of records. Why? They were heavily discriminated against, but they were focused and organized themselves, and used their own resources. What makes them so different?

    “As for relying on psychologists to tell us what homosexuality is, well, they gave us the term.”

    Uh huh, they also invented adolescence. So what? That doesn’t make it real. There is childhood and adulthood. That is it. Appeals to authority are fallacies. I do not recognize their authority. Their evidence and arguments are not convincing. Millions of people can be wrong. Anyway, homosexual behavior has always been around. Psychologists haven’t offered any grand insights on it. They gave it a new label. Big deal.

    “I got so interested in Ayn Rand again I got the new biography on her”

    I don’t get it.

    Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
    Philipians 4:8

  • Stephen

    Well, the reasons why there are not so many records are manifold, much of it having to do with resources, some of it having to do with cultural norms, and others often having with access, education and the simple fact that efforts have not been made to collect the documentation. It is not about looking for blame, but it is to say that the problem of documentation is a reality, and it seasons what we know or think we know. That is all I meant to point out.

    As for the Jews, they have undergone a process of reclaiming their history since the Holocaust. There are plenty of Jews whose lives and part in history was simply annihilated forever. Part of what makes Anne Frank so special, I think, is that her amazing journal did survive when so much else was wiped out.

    You would have fun in an archive, a good local one, or maybe even one dedicated to something specific you are interested in that you can get access to.

    Argument from authority. Hmm? Maybe, but then maybe not. I am not sure that the general principle of my argument is a fallacy. I will try to explain.

    As we both know, defining terms in a debate is crucial to understanding. If you disagree with the definition of “homosexual” as clinicians developed it, then perhaps another term needs to be used like “same-sex activity.” Homosexuality is not only detached in your mind from clinical definitions, we are now only talking specifically about observed behaviors across the board. This falls outside the original definition. It seems to me, at this point, we’ve gone far beyond the bounds of the term’s initial definition and need a better term to describe what we are actually talking about.

    This is similar to your treatment of the term “adolescence.” You don’t believe in it, so you don’t use the term. It seems you don’t believe in the clinical, psychological idea identified as something called “homosexuality” so why use the term? Letting that one go also means you let go of the other term of “heterosexuality” as they are a set of shared meaning. They only have meaning when attached to a context of meaning. When they become detached from it, they are being undermined and redefined. Either that, or you are asserting a new context and new definition. How about, for clarity sake, a different term for a different context and set of realities than the term created by psychologists? How is doing so that different in kind than you eschewing the term “adolescence?”

    This is also why I think it is wrong that this word is in our Holy Scriptures.

    And as for the Ayn Rand thing, it was you who poked at my conscience a bit to put the best construction on her life. So I thought I would give it a go. I find I do have much more compassion for her. The book is very well written and well researched. It gives some great insights into some early libertarian thinkers. And I like history and stories. She has such an enormous influence and pull on people that it seems worthwhile to take another look. And so I think this is not counter to what Paul says in Philipians. I don’t think I will read The Fountainhead again though.

  • Stephen

    Well, the reasons why there are not so many records are manifold, much of it having to do with resources, some of it having to do with cultural norms, and others often having with access, education and the simple fact that efforts have not been made to collect the documentation. It is not about looking for blame, but it is to say that the problem of documentation is a reality, and it seasons what we know or think we know. That is all I meant to point out.

    As for the Jews, they have undergone a process of reclaiming their history since the Holocaust. There are plenty of Jews whose lives and part in history was simply annihilated forever. Part of what makes Anne Frank so special, I think, is that her amazing journal did survive when so much else was wiped out.

    You would have fun in an archive, a good local one, or maybe even one dedicated to something specific you are interested in that you can get access to.

    Argument from authority. Hmm? Maybe, but then maybe not. I am not sure that the general principle of my argument is a fallacy. I will try to explain.

    As we both know, defining terms in a debate is crucial to understanding. If you disagree with the definition of “homosexual” as clinicians developed it, then perhaps another term needs to be used like “same-sex activity.” Homosexuality is not only detached in your mind from clinical definitions, we are now only talking specifically about observed behaviors across the board. This falls outside the original definition. It seems to me, at this point, we’ve gone far beyond the bounds of the term’s initial definition and need a better term to describe what we are actually talking about.

    This is similar to your treatment of the term “adolescence.” You don’t believe in it, so you don’t use the term. It seems you don’t believe in the clinical, psychological idea identified as something called “homosexuality” so why use the term? Letting that one go also means you let go of the other term of “heterosexuality” as they are a set of shared meaning. They only have meaning when attached to a context of meaning. When they become detached from it, they are being undermined and redefined. Either that, or you are asserting a new context and new definition. How about, for clarity sake, a different term for a different context and set of realities than the term created by psychologists? How is doing so that different in kind than you eschewing the term “adolescence?”

    This is also why I think it is wrong that this word is in our Holy Scriptures.

    And as for the Ayn Rand thing, it was you who poked at my conscience a bit to put the best construction on her life. So I thought I would give it a go. I find I do have much more compassion for her. The book is very well written and well researched. It gives some great insights into some early libertarian thinkers. And I like history and stories. She has such an enormous influence and pull on people that it seems worthwhile to take another look. And so I think this is not counter to what Paul says in Philipians. I don’t think I will read The Fountainhead again though.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “This is similar to your treatment of the term “adolescence.” You don’t believe in it, so you don’t use the term.”

    No one ever used the term until pseudoscientists invented it. The notion that there is an extended period of development between childhood and adulthood is not supported by our knowledge of biology or human experience in history. This is the problem with these soft sciences with low thresholds of evidence. They co opt the respect given real science that actually proves its theories and laws.

    “It seems you don’t believe in the clinical, psychological idea identified as something called “homosexuality” so why use the term?”

    Because everyone knows that it means same sex relations. You understood it.

    “Letting that one go also means you let go of the other term of “heterosexuality” as they are a set of shared meaning.”

    Yes, heterosexuality is redundant. In biology there is asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is just a subset of reproduction. “Homosexuality” is a specific kind of dysfunction because it doesn’t serve the purpose of reproduction.

    “[Rand] has such an enormous influence and pull on people”

    So does Newton, and some say he was a nut.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “This is similar to your treatment of the term “adolescence.” You don’t believe in it, so you don’t use the term.”

    No one ever used the term until pseudoscientists invented it. The notion that there is an extended period of development between childhood and adulthood is not supported by our knowledge of biology or human experience in history. This is the problem with these soft sciences with low thresholds of evidence. They co opt the respect given real science that actually proves its theories and laws.

    “It seems you don’t believe in the clinical, psychological idea identified as something called “homosexuality” so why use the term?”

    Because everyone knows that it means same sex relations. You understood it.

    “Letting that one go also means you let go of the other term of “heterosexuality” as they are a set of shared meaning.”

    Yes, heterosexuality is redundant. In biology there is asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is just a subset of reproduction. “Homosexuality” is a specific kind of dysfunction because it doesn’t serve the purpose of reproduction.

    “[Rand] has such an enormous influence and pull on people”

    So does Newton, and some say he was a nut.

  • Stephen

    “Because everyone knows that it means same sex relations. You understood it.”

    Certainly, to a degree, but I don’t also think it means pedophilia in any necessary way. They are distinct the same way rapists are not lovers. It is a category distinction.

    The pseudosciences invented these terms, just as you say. We need to be clear about what they mean.

  • Stephen

    “Because everyone knows that it means same sex relations. You understood it.”

    Certainly, to a degree, but I don’t also think it means pedophilia in any necessary way. They are distinct the same way rapists are not lovers. It is a category distinction.

    The pseudosciences invented these terms, just as you say. We need to be clear about what they mean.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t also think [homosexuality] means pedophilia in any necessary way.”

    Neither do I, as I explained first rattle out of the box.

    “They are distinct the same way rapists are not lovers. It is a category distinction.”

    I disagree. I think they would fit in a Venn diagram of sorts.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t also think [homosexuality] means pedophilia in any necessary way.”

    Neither do I, as I explained first rattle out of the box.

    “They are distinct the same way rapists are not lovers. It is a category distinction.”

    I disagree. I think they would fit in a Venn diagram of sorts.

  • Lisa G

    Dr Talarico Brian Neil North Bay Has been convicted of child molestation, an
    possession of child pornography on his computer. Sexually molesting a young boy.
    He had prior convictions for child molestation in 1990 and 2001. After his
    parole in 2006. Dr. Talarico Brian. Works for north east mental health centre,
    despite his background, and numerous complaints against him of abuse, fraud,
    negligence, and imprisonment. Address: North East Mental Health Centre
    North Bay Campus Highway 11 North North Bay Ontario P1B 8L1

  • Lisa G

    Dr Talarico Brian Neil North Bay Has been convicted of child molestation, an
    possession of child pornography on his computer. Sexually molesting a young boy.
    He had prior convictions for child molestation in 1990 and 2001. After his
    parole in 2006. Dr. Talarico Brian. Works for north east mental health centre,
    despite his background, and numerous complaints against him of abuse, fraud,
    negligence, and imprisonment. Address: North East Mental Health Centre
    North Bay Campus Highway 11 North North Bay Ontario P1B 8L1


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X