Posted on 05/02/2006 1:10:54 PM PDT by meandog
Thanks. Thanks for taking a minute to write in. I appreciate that.
It is quite true that some people need to live by the LotL because that is all that is in their capacity to do. Perhaps most people need to. And you have made clear that it is not a thing of shame to have that lesser capacity. For those who can live by the SotL it is certainly a downfall to hold themselves as higher because they can walk at that level. (And FWIW I don't think you have.)
I would like to butt in and clarify a point about living by the letter of the law though. You may have addressed it but I don't see it clearly. That is, when you point to Islamists as those who live by the LotL (and I think you particularly mean radical Islamists by your descriptions) they are not practicing in an appropriate and positive way.
That said, my point is that there is an appropriate and positive way to live by the LotL. IMO that is to apply it to oneself with great vigor and faith while concerning oneself with others uprightness with great trepidation and gentleness.
This is where the Islamists, and many others, fail by taking the view that it is the sins of others that must be dealt with harshly while finding endless justifications for one's own faults. That is not the right way to live by the LotL and there is a right way.
It seems to me that those who need to live by the law often are misled or mislead themselves into trying to live in the spirit while rigidly applying the law at the same time and great confusion results. That confusion often leads to calamity.
FWIW
Suit yourself. I certainly didn't expect anything different out of you.
That said, my point is that there is an appropriate and positive way to live by the LotL. IMO that is to apply it to oneself with great vigor and faith while concerning oneself with others uprightness with great trepidation and gentleness.
This is where the Islamists, and many others, fail by taking the view that it is the sins of others that must be dealt with harshly while finding endless justifications for one's own faults. That is not the right way to live by the LotL and there is a right way.
Thanks for your post. I appreciate you taking the time to correct and clarify here. I agree with these paragraphs and I am thankful to you for the clarification.
What you add here is stated so well and really quite eloquantly. Thank you so much!
That is nice of you to say so. I didn't think of it as correcting you but just filling in a possible gap in the overall theme. You seem agreeable about it so I guess I done good. ; )
Absolutely!
Here's the link again to the Mostert column, for those who missed it earlier in the thread:
Alan Keyes teaches sex education lesson to homosexual interviewer
It's the only honest analysis of the controvery that I am aware of.
You may be interested in this outstanding Keyes speech, given around the time Massachusetts legalized gay marriage:
Real sexuality is about the distinction between male and female, as expressed in the body and its differences. And the reason I say that the child isn't an accident, is because everything about those differences points in one direction: procreation!
Now, see, this is the kind of thinking, though, that we really have to take patiently because we use the word so carelessly most of the time, but the truth is that the sexual distinction as such--that is to say, human sexuality as such--exists for the sake of procreation and nothing else. It's that simple.
So, that means that the child's life is not accident, it's essential! It's not an incident, no. It is expressive, in fact, of the essence of human sexuality, and it is in consequence of that essential truth about human sexuality that the relations between men and women are always haunted by the possibility of procreation.
But haunted, in what sense? Haunted by that possibility in the sense that that life represents, what? It represents the possibility that there would be an obligation, a lifelong obligation that transcended the immediate and momentary satisfaction of the parties to any given sexual episode or relationship.
That is the truth, in fact, of human sexuality. It is haunted by that line which separates the choice of pleasure from the obligations and responsibilities that are the consequence of procreation.
Now, I go through this because that sets up a clear distinction--and it's not a distinction that prevails just between homosexuals and so-called heterosexuals. No. It's the distinction between what we could call an understanding of human sexuality that is based in the end upon hedonism and self-gratification, and an understanding that is based upon the essential acknowledgment of the responsibilities and obligations of procreation.
These are two distinct alternatives. And I use the word "hedonism," by the way--and some people will think that that's pejorative. It's not. The word "hedonism" comes from the Greek hedone, and it means "pleasure."
And I think that it would be kind of absurd on the face of it for people who advocate same-sex relationships to turn to us and say that those relationships are not about pleasure--the point being that, at one level, that's all they can be about.
The relationship between man and woman can be incidentally about pleasure, but essentially about procreation and family, and things that in fact transcend the immediate gratification of the parties involved. The same-sex relationship is haunted by no such necessities, no such obligations. It is essentially about fulfillment of the passions, the needs, the dreams, the ambitions, the this or that. You can put up any words you want, but at the end of the day, it's just the people that are there. It's about them!
It is not about the future! It is not about the society! It is not about that which at any given moment can transcend the pleasure of the individuals! It's not about that.
Now, wait. I'm walking through all of this, y'all, because I think it's important to remember, though. And that's why I call it the view of sexuality based on hedonism and self-gratification, but you and I both know that this understanding of human sexuality is not confined to same-sex couples.
It's the same sounds any crushed, brokenhearted but loving parent would make.
A book that has the blessing of both her parents.
Terry's embarrassment had nothing to do with any invasion of privacy concerns, but the embarrasment of having a homosexual son who came out. He wrote an opinion piece entitled "My Son, the Homosexual". Randall Terry had always campaigned against homosexuals, and could not take this public knowledge of a homosexual in his very own family. Real love, huh?
OK. I looked up the article you referenced (titled "My Prodigal Son, the Homosexual") which is at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37979
It strongly confirms what I wrote above. Terry repeatedly affirms his love and care for Jamiel, together with his anger and hurt over the Out Magazine episode.
Not at all. I just don't see how a rational adult can expect to be taken seriously when trying to draw equivalence between Jesus in the Temple, and the fate of Sodom.
It's quite obvious you have no interest in anything but winning, as you completely ignored what I posted. Your response should have been questions for clarification or refutation of my statements. You did neither. You are campaigning. You don't care whether you are wrong or not, you just want everyone to think like you do, and are willing to throw a tantrum until you get it.
Romans 1 is quite specific as to the causes and prevalence of homosexuality, and it has nothing to do with "threatened masculinity."
No, Terry's response is not understandable, given the high regards his son had for him. I saw nothing "in your face" in interviews with the son, but certainly did with the father. He rejected his son outright and told the world he is no longer welcome in his home. Randall Terry's hatred for his son and his lifestyle was the only "in your face" attitude.
My children all turned out straight, but if one of them hadn't, I would hope I would have emulated the Vice President's response, rather than that of a well known hate monger.
So far none of my kids is homosexual and I am thankful for that. Right now the whole issue is moot. If the time were to come and one of my children told me they had decided to become homosexual, I would do everything in my power to discourage them. I would still love them, no matter what. However, I would probably feel deep hurt, anger, disappointment and worry. I would absolutely feel like I was a failure as a parent. But again, so far it isn't an issue.
You resemble your remarks.
I absolutely think homosexuality is a choice. No doubt in my mind. So yes, I would take it personally. However, all of my children are at this point normal heterosexuals so I am not worried.
I never said I wouldn't love my kids. I just said I would be extremely disappointed if any of them chose the homosexual life. So far they haven't so it isn't an issue.
I know that. I just don't believe you should kid yourself into thinking it's the right one.
You should stop kidding yourself into thinking your hypothetical is parallel to your kid being a goth or somesuch. The parallel is your kid being a child molester, or a beatialist. It's just that you are a product of a society that has had most of its sensitivities dulled through forced familiarization.
Note how many on your side of this argument are not interested in discussing the matter. They don't have Scriptural support for their position so their entire argument is a variation on what's wrong with the people who don't agree with them.
The interview Terry gave attempted to demonstrate that he was a loving parent and anything that happened to his son must have happened before he took him in. He calls his son's story filled with fraud and deceit and says he is no longer welcome in his home. Did you read the interview given by his son? His son had nothing but compliments for his father.
Randall Terry is an admitted fraud, and this obviously embarrassed him beyond belief, given his anti-gay activities. As I said earlier, I will go with the Vice-President's reaction, and if one of my children were gay (which they are not), I would hope my response would be that of Mr. Cheney's. I think God understands love over hate any day of the week.
I've never heard this about GSA...if so, then Juliette Lowe is spinning in her Savannah, Ga. grave!
Exactly! Sin is rather black or white to God...and, with the possible exception of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, there is no degree to it!
I was really disappointed having spent many hears as a "Brownie" leader and supported GSA Cookie sales all of my life!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.