Comment Of The Day: “There’s Nothing Wrong With “Dwarf Pride,” But When It Means Making Sure Your Kids Don’t Grow, It’s Unethical”

The Kohn Family.

Here is Humble Talent’s Comment of the Day, an interesting perspective on the issue of parents opposing their children being treated for dwarfism when the parents are afflicted with the same disability, taking off from the post, “There’s Nothing Wrong With “Dwarf Pride,” But When It Means Making Sure Your Kids Don’t Grow, It’s Unethical”:

I think this is true of most things.

One of the (many) reasons I refer to Sally Kohn as “The Dumbest Lesbian on The Internet” is her op-ed opining that she would like her daughter to also be gay:“I’m gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too.”

Many of my straight friends, even the most liberal, see this logic as warped. It’s one thing for them to admit that they would prefer their kids to be straight, something they’ll only begrudgingly confess. But wanting my daughter to be a lesbian? I might as well say I want her to grow up to be lactose intolerant.

“Don’t you want her to be happy?” one friend asked. Perhaps he just meant that it’s easier to be straight in a homophobic culture. But this attitude complies with, even reinforces, that culture in the first place. A less-charitable interpretation is that he thinks being straight is superior.”

Can we cut straight to the quick? Being straight *is* superior. Not like…. a straight person is better than a gay person in any inherent way, but the experience of being straight is superior. Even if you could shoot yourself through time into a future where there is no homophobia, being straight is objectively better. Being straight gives you a wider pool with which to seek a companion that might reciprocate your attraction. Being straight means that you can naturally have a child with the person you care about. There are benefits to being straight. Being gay means…. Free birth control? I guess.

At this point in my life, I’m comfortable, and I’m settled into my identity well enough that even if a magical “fix the gay” pill came into the market, I probably wouldn’t take it. That might not have been true 40 years ago when gay people were being Chemically castrated in England or beaten to death in America. But now? I can take the current level of discourse. But if I had a kid? I would slingshot that pill into my kid’s mouth a la Dennis The Menace and not feel bad about it.

Because believe it or not, even administered by a slingshot, that’s the *less* psychopathic thing to do to your kid. “I want my kid to have less opportunity than his peers, because I did, and I turned out ok” is something, but it ain’t good parenting.

 

38 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “There’s Nothing Wrong With “Dwarf Pride,” But When It Means Making Sure Your Kids Don’t Grow, It’s Unethical”

  1. Thanks Jack, it’s an honor.

    I think editing the link into the paragraph (what’s the html code that does that?) ate a couple of quotation marks, but I think it’s relatively clear that I don’t have a daughter, I’m not a woman, and I’m not the dumbest lesbian on the internet.

    Stories like this hit me pretty hard in the feels because I’ve always wanted to have a kid, but life is what it is, and all these examples of wretched parents bragging about their borderline child abuse drives me up a wall.

    • . . .and I’m not the dumbest lesbian on the internet.

      True, but you’re not the brightest queerman I’ve run across either! 😂

      (I could not resist and, as you will have noticed, I am getting more and more bold in what I say. It is directly proportional to *stony silence*. God only knows what’s going to happen to me since this has all the signs of not letting up).

  2. The lesbian now ex-wife of my lesbian piano teacher friend was BITTERLY disappointed in her (the ex-wife’s) now a senior in high school daughter liking boys rather than girls, which always struck me as being a very selfish attitude to take. Aren’t straight parents urged (forced?) to “embrace” their gay or lesbian child’s sexual orientation? In this case, it was also tragic, verging on farce, insofar as the mother is a child psychologist and I’ve always suspected she had the child as a, I don’t know what, a laboratory experiment? The ultimate designer accessory?

    I’ve always admired gay guys or lesbians who are content to say to themselves, “Hey, you know what, I’m gay. And I’m fine with that.” And they can say to heterosexuals, “You’re straight. And I’m fine with that.” All my longtime and continuing gay and lesbian acquaintances fall into that category. I guess if they didn’t, they really wouldn’t want to be friends with me. Which, come to think of it, is probably why I’m no longer in touch with the more, I don’t know, aggressive, bitchy, queenie, gay acquaintances? They are too demanding and require too much deference and maintenance. But I do think since gay marriage was legalized, there has been a de-escalation of tension. Of course, the caravan loudly moved on immediately to transgender issues.

    • Oh the pre-COVID time when I ached to tell a cast mate, “Look, ‘Al’, I know how hard it was for you coming of age as a gay Catholic in 60s. But this is a *team* improv show, not Al’s Big Gay Drama. So work your stuff out in therapy or write your own one-man show and *quit being a freaking stage hog already*, you don’t get a pass on that in 21st century.” But I can’t go telling my elders how to live their lives.

        • Yes, but in this particular case it was wisest to let Al’s choices speak the truth for themselves and let the director handle the performance issue (and to the director’s credit, they tried).

          Of course a consequence is if everyone’s afraid to criticize Al, he never learns why people don’t like working with him.

    • I have a couple of friends who lurk here but don’t comment relate to me by DM how they’ve seen the same take as that of Kohn and your piano teacher’s ex-wife elsewhere in the wild. I didn’t realize this was a thing, so much as I thought Kohn was just incredibly stupid. But apparently it is. I make no apologies to Kohn.

      It is exceptionally strange, seeing as the common experience for gay people coming out (at least, until very recently) was to deal with at least a little disappointment from their parents (at least, something to the tune of “but where are my grandkids coming from?”) and I thought the experience would foster a little self awareness in that having expectations of your kids that they can’t change isn’t fair to them, particularly when you’re hoping for something that effects only approximately 3% of the population.

      But I’ve said it before; The left hates children until they’re old enough to vote. Most of the dehumanizing, agency removing behaviors we see come from that fundamental hatred; The over-medication of (particularly) boys, kids on leashes, and helicopter parenting to name a few. It ought not surprise that the next frontier to that would be using children as a designer accessory.

      • I always look forward to reading your comments, HT. Just thought I’d let you know that, I doubt if you realize what a pleasure it is to hear a voice that is as personal as yours, equidistant from both closet and GLBTQXYZ echo chamber. Thank you.

        • Until the last few weeks, I had no idea what HT’s sexual orientation was. I’ve just always enjoyed his lucidity, humor and eloquence. Just a really solid intellect in action.

            • I don’t think I’ve hidden it, but unless you have a person who is almost fully self-actualized through their sexuality, it doesn’t often come up outside of discussions explicitly about sexuality.

                • It might have been. I was still mostly closeted back then, so even admitting it pseudo-anonymously was kind of a step for me. I can’t remember exactly when this was, but the first time I brought it up, it was in response to a comment that a younger (this was probably close to 10 years ago), angrier (believe it or not) me took great offense to. As I recall, I think it characterized gay people as disgusting deviants that like to play in mud, but I’m a luddite when it comes to search features, so I can’t be sure.

                    • I was about to add in my own three cents worth but I read Jack’s request just in time, so I guess I’ll have to include myself in that “us” and not speak of it, no more, no more.

  3. I am interested in HTs anecdotes about his homosexual’s journey as it were, and his context on this blog. And in general about the processes for homosexuals generally.

    It will never be made absolutely *normal* and it will never be absolutely *accepted*. Nor should it be. HT more or less realizes this if I have read him right. It is a strange fate that he must live.

    Homosexuality as an *option* and as a *life-style* must necessarily be repressed and not encouraged. But homosexuals, and homosexuality, will always exist. Yet there are two levels I suppose, or two categories: those who are a) truly *born so* (if indeed this is true), and b) those who engage in it as a fornication-practice.

    The unleashing of a porn-culture, and certainly the Globo-Homo Culture, will cause all manner of havoc all over the world. It is linked to certain *acids* which destroy whatever they come in contact with. And these are tools of political and social control.

    It is absolutely imperative to see homosexuality for what it is: a rather sad fate for those who have to live with it. The relationships are, as HT makes plain, sterile in most senses and, under the typical unfavorable circumstances, tending toward all different manner of perversions.

    As Allan Ginsberg asked in one of his poems: “Who really wants to get f***cked in the ass?

    Yet there is a definite arrogance and a strange pretension in people like Kohn. They turn their sexual orientation into a radical project. Certainly ‘radical sexuality’ is part-and-parcel of those general social undermining projects that surround us — indeed they define us.

    This sort of activism has many levels and outlets — areas where it is expressed. But in general it tends to subvert and undermine. And because it must (generally) oppose traditional Christian sexual morality, it must either reject Christianity . . . or enter into it and transform it.

    Thus her activism, at least in my view, has links to what is known as ‘the Jewish revolutionary spirit’.

    • Man there is a lot of hate in one message!

      It will never be made absolutely *normal* and it will never be absolutely *accepted*. Nor should it be.

      Why? What harm are you trying to prevent?

      The unleashing of a porn-culture, and certainly the Globo-Homo Culture, will cause all manner of havoc all over the world.

      The bulk of that porn you’re bashing is a heterosexual thing. Yes, there is most definitely gay porn, but straight porn out does it by a huge margin.

      It is absolutely imperative to see homosexuality for what it is: a rather sad fate for those who have to live with it. The relationships are, as HT makes plain, sterile in most senses and, under the typical unfavorable circumstances, tending toward all different manner of perversions.

      You do realize that homosexuals often feel the same revulsion to heterosexual activities that heterosexuals feel towards homosexual acts? Further, as far as the “perversions” who’s place is it for one adult to judge the private, consenting activities between adults? Certainly not yours or mine.

      I would say there a plenty of activities that heterosexuals are involved in that do more damage to society than the homosexual community does. Number one is that it is quite easy for heterosexuals to reproduce. Even the most addle minded are quite capable, regardless of the level of responsibility for raising a human they’re willing to take on. AIDS is the one STD that the gay male community spreads more than homosexuals…. Lesbians are rarely implicated in the spread of STDs. The bulk of STD’s are spread by stupid, irresponsible heterosexuals.

      As Allan Ginsberg asked in one of his poems: “Who really wants to get f***cked in the ass?

      Not all gay men do that. There are plenty of heterosexuals who partake in such activities. You know who doesn’t do that? Lesbians.

      • “Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.”

        Actually there is no hate at all. Obviously *hate* is an emotion, a sentiment, and an exaggerated one. What has motivated my ideas about sexual morality has been *idea* and *intellect*. The ideas I have now are informed by Christian-Catholic sexual morality as defined traditionally.

        Why? What harm are you trying to prevent?

        It is not that I am trying to prevent something in the sense of taking some action to stop it, and more that I am working with ideas that have in a sense an *absolutist* aspect. They are either *true* or they are *untrue*. But I want to clarify that the ideas I work with are applicable within all relationship, be they homosexual or heterosexual.

        The *harm* is a real one. The cultivation of vice leads to an endless array of harms.

        The bulk of that porn you’re bashing is a heterosexual thing. Yes, there is most definitely gay porn, but straight porn out does it by a huge margin.

        This is very true. What I recommend (not to you but I mean generally) is a study of how the pornographic culture we now live in, and whose effects are manifest around us, came to be. I have made this effort myself and I conclude that the unleashing of sexual passion, on a mass-scale, on a world-level, is highly destructive.

        You do realize that homosexuals often feel the same revulsion to heterosexual activities that heterosexuals feel towards homosexual acts? Further, as far as the “perversions” who’s place is it for one adult to judge the private, consenting activities between adults? Certainly not yours or mine.

        I am aware of this argument — the *who am I to judge?* argument. The way that I have come to answer that argument is to say, is to recognize, that life in this plane of existence demands of us a moral engagement. Actually we cannot avoid or side-step the imperative of making moral and ethical choices, and we have no choice but to communicate those value-judgments to our children. And the key to the entire issue is there, in what we teach to children.

        In the so-called Culture Wars what happens there are battles between different moral & ethical platforms and orientations. Ultimately, these platforms and orientations have to do with metaphysics: how we define the realm that we live in, into which we are born and where *life* is carried on. So, when you (when one I mean) examines these battles one discovers, in essence, two poles or camps. And these have to do with how life in this realm is defined and what moral and ethical values circumscribe it.

        Presently, in our strange present, the nature of the struggle becomes more obvious, more apparent. The war has been brought out into the streets. The destruction that goes on and is visible is a reflection, or an echo, or a manifestation, of destructive forces operating innerly. So, you and I both very certainly make assessments and judgments about all of that as indeed we should. If all of that (what is going on today) had to be explained to your child, what would you say?

        The ‘consenting adult’ argument rapidly falls to pieces. It is not a strong argument. There is nothing that we do in private that does not have an echo or a manifestation in the world surrounding us.

        So, and just so it is clear, what I have chosen to do in respect to my participation on this blog is to ceaselessly challenge the liberal and hyper-liberal assumptions that are presented here as *normalcy* and also as *the ethical*. Generally speaking, I have learned not to simply believe or accept anything that is said here and *declared*.

        But if you were to see this as a *personal* thing and if you were to *take it personally* (that is a wide, plural you) you would make a mistake. This is not personal.

        Now the Globo-Homo Culture that is developing is another, more detailed, topic of conversation. Here, I include a link to the first site that I found on in a Google search under the term ‘globo-homo culture’. This is obviously a site with ideas deeply critical of the term and all associated with it. But this is a good place to start in fact. It is more productive to start from the critical perspective before one defines the supportive and positive perspective (a routine practice in my case).

        • The UrbanDictionary definition:

          Globohomo

          (adj) A word used to describe a globalized and homogenized culture pushed for by large companies, politicians, and Neocon/Leftist pawns. This culture includes metropolitan ideals such as diversity, homosexuality, sexual degeneracy, colorblindness in regard to race, egalitarianism, money worship, and the erasure of different individual cultures, among other things. The term is often used by Alt-Right figures, as well as other people associated to the right on the political spectrum, who are aware of the globalization being forced upon multiple countries. Also used to describe Global Capitalism and/or Marxism. The globohomo system is referred to as the Globohomo Gayplex.

          Note that even here on this blog — with its extremely limited views of the nature of the present — the conversation has begun to edge very slightly toward a wider analysis. For example when it is noticed that these ‘large companies’ make themselves available to push the pro-BLM (and literally Marxist) position in their training. One can see, if only dimly, that this is tied to an *anti-White agenda*. And though the realization forming here, generally speaking, is very superficial and timid, I can only note that it is at least taking shape.

          So this ties into my idea about *interpretation*: hermeneutics. We have no choice but to *interpret* our world! We have to be able to say and describe *where we are* (metaphysically) and what we are doing here. We have to interpret everything that goes on, inside and outside. And then notice how confused many people’s interpretations are! How jumbled & jarbled. Or how limited & limiting.

          This definition of *globohomo* is also murky and to a degree paranoid. People are trying to define the world that surrounds them and acts on them: determines them. That *world* acts on them through *mechanisms*. These must be seen, and yet they are hard to see because it is in the nature of those mechanisms (and the power that moves behind them) to remain unseen.

          Here is one of the definitive quotes by Edward Bernays that explains it very well:

          “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

        • Sure, you would say that. But your entire effort is to vilify and to exclude me, my views, and the views of people who see and think as I do. You do this through the typical *catty* way that many homosexuals do when they confront someone who opposes their choices. It is not an intellectual reaction but one entirely emotional and b*tchy if I can put it that way.

          Any contrary ideas to your *certainties* would be ‘baiting’ as you say. You have a very hard time actually looking at yourself.

          You are in this sense non-different from many of the *social justice warrior* types that are often exposed and condemned (here!) Your treatment of me — (I do not really care much mind you) — has been condemnatory in an absolute sense. In this sense you team up with others here who take the same attitude. This is a game of course. It is a social game and also a forum game.

          I observe all of this of course and make comments about it because it fits into the general Culture Wars going on. As I often say I prefer complete independence and I team up with no one.

          You are forced in a sense to *go to battle* with anyone, or any agency, that would or could challenge your choices or your ideas. I recognize that you have had to struggle much and suffer certain pain. I am not un-empathetic in this sense.

          But as I have said many times you are in no sense of the word a ‘conservative’. There is no aspect of your thinking that is conservative. You are a liberal activist. When I think of you (people like you) I think of others like Dave Rubin. The Progressive Left has suddenly become the Conservative faction! But this is because the former Progressives have gone waaaaaaayy to the extremes.

          Is this a condemnation of you? No. It is a more accurate description of you.

        • Forgive me for taking the bait. Usually I scroll past her posts because I simply am unable to grok them most of the time.

          So you have a blog? I missed the link but others talk about it, can you link it?

      • Good try, Matthew B. Consider that it is most appreciated by everyone else but it is only fuel to Alizia’s keyboard diarrhea and cement to her closed mind. Best to ignore it.

        As I tried to point out more than once in the days of mud-slanging(sic) before Jack called a halt, anal intercourse is historically the original tried-and-true method of preventing pregnancy while preserving the pleasure of penetration (though not necessarily to the equal pleasure of both … which “equal pleasure”, on second thought, is a rather modern construct in itself).

    • If as you say Homosexuality will always be here, existing naturally as a part of the whole spectrum of the many ways to exist as a human being, why do you think it needs encouragement or discouragement? Why is it difficult to accept the other option the is to just leave people to be however they are without attaching moral judgements to things that go beyond the choice of the individual?

      • That is a good question. In American culture homosexuality was definitely *sold*. Like a product. In America we have the most sophisticated systems that have even been devised for influencing and in this sense directing and controlling the public mind.

        Conventional and rather conservative America culture was manipulated by powerful people and interests and (as the saying goes) ‘culturally engineered’. If you are interested in the idea of ‘culture engineering’ see E Michael Jones and his website Culture Wars. There, he develops his ideas of the use of sexual passion as a form of political control.

        If you are interested in how this culture-engineering (in respect to presenting and selling (normalizing if you will) homosexuality see After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

        The way that I have resolved this particular issue — as one trying to function within a more traditional Catholic perspective and ethics — is to accept that homosexuality does exist, and will exist. I simply say and believe that it should be discreet and should not *advertise itself*.

        Why is it difficult to accept the other option that is to just leave people to be however they are without attaching moral judgements to things that go beyond the choice of the individual?

        I do not think it is possible to suspend a moral sense, or a moral imperative. But I said this above to Matthew B. It all resolves into what we will teach our children.

        I am actually capable of accepting *the other option* insofar as I only state that I do not think homosexuality should be encouraged in a deliberate sense through advertising and social-engineering processes. Yet it is being *sold* in that way and this, of course, connects to a great many other processes. And it is impossible to negate these or to neglect them.

          • I am not sure that I would say that homosexuality is not a ‘problem’. But it is not my own personal project to make decisions for other people. It is beyond the limits of my power. I tend to philosophical views but I am not a social activist.

            I cannot envision how a homosexual person would choose to relate to their orientation if they themselves defined it as *wrong* or as sinful. But if they did not define it in that way, then they would themselves have no problem. If there was a problem it would be only that the surrounding culture had a problem with them. All of this I well understand. (And I have paid attention to what you have revealed about your own position within Nigerian culture).

            Within traditional Christianity and Catholicism it is defined as such. Except in the so-called liberal churches. I am uncertain and undecided what ultimate position I would take. So, for the time being I simply say that I do not think it should be encouraged and should, within reasonable limits, be repressed (meaning, not brought to the fore).

            • Some days ago, in a conversation with a friend (let’s call him Kenneth), I told him that I was reassessing my atheism and my reasons for it and was seriously reconsidering Christianity (in line with my recent ideological shift from socialism to AnarchoCapitalism) He was concerned about what it meant for my sexuality and my advocacy for human rights because he believed that according to the Bible, Homosexuality is a sin (the same mistake you’re making)
              I told him that sin as a moral concept cannot exist without conscious choice. Homosexuality is not a choice and can therefore not be a sin. What the bible calls a sin is engaging homosexual interactions. So, if as a homosexual you choose to be a Christian, the requirement is not to denounce your sexuality but to abstain from sexual interactions outside of the institution of heterosexual marriage as permitted by God. Condemning homosexuality, or saying that it should not be encouraged is just the same as saying that having blue eyes should not be encouraged, or that gravity should not be encouraged. It’s just meaningless. Simply because encouraging or discouraging it does not affect the incidence of homosexuality across human society. It exists beyond the moral binary.

  4. Some days ago, in a conversation with a friend (let’s call him Kenneth), I told him that I was reassessing my atheism and my reasons for it and was seriously reconsidering Christianity (in line with my recent ideological shift from socialism to AnarchoCapitalism) He was concerned about what it meant for my sexuality and my advocacy for human rights because he believed that according to the Bible, Homosexuality is a sin (the same mistake you’re making).

    I told him that sin as a moral concept cannot exist without conscious choice. Homosexuality is not a choice and can therefore not be a sin. What the bible calls a sin is engaging homosexual interactions. So, if as a homosexual you choose to be a Christian, the requirement is not to denounce your sexuality but to abstain from sexual interactions outside of the institution of heterosexual marriage as permitted by God. Condemning homosexuality, or saying that it should not be encouraged is just the same as saying that having blue eyes should not be encouraged, or that gravity should not be encouraged. It’s just meaningless. Simply because encouraging or discouraging it does not affect the incidence of homosexuality across human society. It exists beyond the moral binary.

    Interesting perspective. The first response would be to say that Christianity is a highly metaphysical religion. So, it must explain *sin* as a condition of incarnate existence. The *world* we live in — this plane of existence — is a sinful world because it is a *fallen* world. This notion of a defective or an inflicted *world* is easily understood, or better understood, through reference to Plato.

    But Christianity explains sin as a factor or a condition of the world insofar as it is *fallen*. And we are fallen. It is a simplistic metaphysics — somewhat child-like — but it has far-reaching implications.

    Homosexual activity in the pre-Christian era was part of a wide range of pagan sexual practices: homosexuality, bestiality, making children sexual objects, prostitution, and many other practices that Christianity saw as *deviant*. Why? Because Christianity was infused with specific moral categories inherited from Judaism. This concern with *purity* in all senses but certainly *sexual purity*.

    Though there may have been and there may indeed be a homosexual who is *born* homosexual, there is a range of sexual activities that were social and conventional to the era.

    When early Christianity met the Greek world — this is where Christianity per se was born — these notions of sexual purity become philosophized into the doctrines of Christian sexual and family ethics. Christianity thus took issue with the loose ethics of the era and has always, and since that time, held to a sexual ethics defined through *purity*. Monogamy. Respect of woman. The sacredness of the marriage bond. And the exaltation of the man-woman relationship. One of the 7 sacraments is of course marriage in a fruitful union that produces children who are born into and become members of the *body of Christ*.

    Condemning homosexuality, or saying that it should not be encouraged is just the same as saying that having blue eyes should not be encouraged, or that gravity should not be encouraged. It’s just meaningless. Simply because encouraging or discouraging it does not affect the incidence of homosexuality across human society. It exists beyond the moral binary.

    But man is born into conditions essentially where all behaviors are not actual moral choices (in the Protestant sense). Christianity, as I understand it, is an impositional religion. It is a system of belief, or understanding, that comes through revelations of s certain and specific sort, in which a View or a Structure of rules and laws is seen. These are then *imposed* on the world. This is true for all metaphysical religions, but it is especially important to understand this aspect of Christianity.

    Now, if you do define homosexuality in all cases as something you are born with — there are many who do assert this (the Gaye Gene etc.) — then your argument has validity. But then men are also inclined, in this sense by Nature, to murder theft treachery deception lying dishonesty and the full gamut of what we see as *bad* behaviors.

    Deviant sexual activity, according to strict Christianity, and this includes many uses of sex that are not within a procreative relationship, is opposed by the Christian imposition. There are reasons why. These involve metaphysical and philosophical points of view. This is just a fact. I am not inventing this.

    One of the arguments that is used to oppose what you suggest — that being homosexual is the same as having been born with blue eyes — is to refer to those who have been born with tendencies to pedophilia or any other odd sexual practice or attraction that we might name.

    If one is born a pedophiliac What moral right do you have to “oppose” or “condemn” the practice of it? What about those who are born with a tendency to alcoholism? They have to confront and choose, often through a complex moral self-examination, what life they lived when a practicing alcoholic, and they choose to stop drinking.

    Moral decisions come into to play well after the fact of a whole range of behaviors and choices.

    • I think you missed the distinction I tried to draw between Homosexuality as a condition of existence that exists beyond conscious choice vs Homosexual interactions.

      It is possible to acknowledge that people could be born with tendencies towards violence, kleptomania, etc. while still condemning violence, theft, etc…
      Christian theology is supposedly about rising above our sinful proclivities with the assistance of the holy spirit and not a condemnation of people for the sin of existence. Why else did Jesus come?

      • Yes, to a degree I did not focus on that distinction, or not directly. But I do understand what you were getting at.

        Christian theology is supposedly about rising above our sinful proclivities with the assistance of the holy spirit and not a condemnation of people for the sin of existence. Why else did Jesus come?

        Well, in my case I have made efforts to research these questions. To do so I had to make an effort to study what I call our ‘former metaphysic’. That is to say the ideas about life and the world that were part of the understanding of The Great Chain of Being. Medieval philosophy and metaphysics essentially.

        Within the Occident it is this Old Metaphysics that operated. It is a fascinating subject really. For example to understand Shakespeare — for example MacBeth — one is advised to understand how the Elizabethan world understood both man and the world. Not at all like we do now (to the degree that our view is scientific and materialist). So, here is the fact about Christianity: is is grounded in the former metaphysics. It is not grounded in our present anti-metaphysics (which is still, of course, a metaphysics).

        So, to understand the Advent of Jesus Christ as an avatar (though Christianity does not use that term) one has to understand what *world* he entered. nd to understand that world one has to understand the former metaphysical picture. That *picture* is of a dense world of condensed substance. The Earth was — rather logically — conceived as being at the very center of the Kosmos. It was the point of condensation for all the effluents of the universe. The Earth was inhabited by devilish spirits because of its dense nature, and Christianity understood this to be so because of the Fall. When Man fell his fall — literally — affected the surrounding world.

        So the Avatar of God descended into this realm with a charitable (as in caritas in the original Greek sense) in order to — quite literally — offer man an escape from the devil-realm. However, while it is true that our Earth was understood to be a low-point in the Great Hierarchy, it was understood to be a realm where both the angelical and the demonic acted.

        So Jesus Christ and all the angelical host as they were conceived, could be accessed by man if he made the effort, and if he had the knowledge. And that knowledge has to do honing the human instrument to be receptive to and in-tune with the Higher Orders in the Kosmos.

        It is true that this knowledge did not involve — quite obviously if you think it through — a condemnation of people for the sin of their existence, but rather involved the understanding that the path of Jesus Christ and the purpose of the Incarnation, was to offer an avenue of redemption and salvation. To the Medieval mind this was paramount. So it is not people who are in sin who are condemned to remain in sin, but the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ that represents a veritable atonement for the implicit sin of the realm itself. And of course this had to do with the conditions brought about by the metaphysical fall.

        In our present day we no longer have a way to conceive of the Three Worlds. I mean, we sort of do but it is not really real for us. And when Hell was closed off as a real possibility for man, so too was Heaven closed off. And that meant that Man was ‘trapped’, as it were, in this world of mutability. We all see ourselves fundamentally in this way, because we all have been influenced so very strongly by the New Metaphysic. Therefore Christ and Christianity do not have much sense anymore. What is Jesus Christ for Man now?

        When you are stuck in a singular world — no hell-realm and no heaven-realm — you are left with Social Justice as the sole avenue of activity. You put it like this:

        socialism to AnarchoCapitalism) He was concerned about what it meant for my sexuality and my advocacy for human rights

        We live now in that sort of world. The horizons have shifted. Or I should say that the Overplatform and the Underplatform have been made to disappear. All we have now is the platform.

        In my own case, and to the degree that I can, I have resolved as an act of will to return to the Former Metaphysics. That is, the former way of seeing things. Therefore my focus is not just on horizontal existence — betterment of circumstance for example, or *social justice* — but rather the status of my soul in relation to either Hell or Heaven.

      • I am uncertain if the topic interests you, or perhaps how much it is interesting and relevant to you, but in this talk Jaspers details the power of the New Metaphysics which has so interpenetrated our *experience*. The angst or distress he refers to — nihilism really — is a painful condition for which Man is forced to find remedies. In some senses, perhaps in many, the age we live in is one of the desperation of seeking *remedies* which do not remedy . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.