The answer is that no one is trash, while many people, if not most people, are lost.
In the Biblical times, and in the time of the giving of the Qur'an, understand that God's word was being preached and given by God to the prophets to people who were, like most people of the world then, very poor. Many starved if there was just one missed harvest in a year. People lived "hand to mouth," as the old saying goes (in other words, what they gathered for food went straight into keeping them alive day to day). So people had no concept of "garbage." Nothing went to waste and there was no such thing as "trash" in the first place. Thus God would never use such a term to describe even the worst of the worst of people since the people he was speaking to would not understand the concept of "trash" or "garbage" at all. Remember people even went "to the bathroom" in agricultural fields and pastures so that it could compost and enrich the soil (not a problem when there were many fewer people than today; today we need sanitation systems both for cleanliness and the environment).
So my first point is that God speaks to people using terminology that is 1) perfectly accurate, as God is perfection and thus is truth personified and 2) is understandable and relevant to the people who lived at the time AND remains truthful and understandable through the ages.
Thus when God chides people, notice that he never refers to them as trash or garbage while they are alive. From this you need to understand that thinking of any person as "trash" or "garbage" is against God's example and teachings. No one, no matter what they say or do, is trash or garbage. What are they, then? They are "lost."
Someone who is lost is someone who does not know where they are. "Lost" does not mean, in scripture, losing a game. Remember, the Bible is not full of modern double speak, double entendres or "coded" messages, or modern slang. Lost means lost. Someone who is lost is someone who does not know where they are.
Matthew 10:5-7
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Here Jesus is ordering the disciples to seek out those who are lost...not trying to convert others from their beliefs, but to find those who are lost. And the lost at the time of Jesus were the Jews. No one is "trash" or "garbage," they are lost.
Matthew 18:10-14
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, That is heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which is lost. How think ye? If a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the moutains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Many recognize this as one of Jesus' most crucial passages for all the obvious reasons, but they miss the point that was being made obvious in the cultural context of the times, and which has now come full circle again in modern times. The closest Jews had to "trashy" people were the children. The disciples tried to shoo the children away from Jesus (and not in a cute way) because children were thought to be somewhat valueless when it comes to any matter of importance, such as salvation. So this is the closest that one can find in the Gospels where there is a superior attitude by class (adults over children) and Jesus immediately stomps on that with no uncertainty. He will not allow the disciples to even for a moment view children as kind of bits of trash hanging about. Jesus tells them that the opposite is true: that the children's guardian angels constantly face God himself in heaven.
Then Jesus slides directly into discussing, again, how they are to seek the lost. Children are lost because they have not yet received the word of God. This is why Jesus slides immediately from chastising the disciples for downgrading the dignity of goodness and being of children to telling them how both children and adults must be viewed, as lost sheep. Notice Jesus does not say, "Well, unless of course the lost sheep is kind of a trashy one and then it's OK for it to be lost because it does no good anyway."
Before discussing scriptural admonitions to view people as "lost" and not "trash" or "garbage" any further, let me point out where the "trash" does indeed get "taken out" for disposal. That is at the end of life when each person is judged, and at the End of Times. What is "trash" is the sum total of a sinful life after it has been completed in the living. Until a person dies and is judged they are not viewed as "trash."
What was Biblical trash? The dry husks, the hull, of wheat, which is called chaff.
Psalm 1:4
The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
Jer 23:26-32
How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? Yea, they are prophets in the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal. The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Is not my word like a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Therefore behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbor. Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He saith. Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the Lord, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord.
Both of these passages underscore that genuine "trash" is symbolized as ungodliness and false prophecy. It is the sinful actions, not the human integrity, that is being condemned by God as chaff, which is wispy trash that is either blown away into the wind, or burned in the fire. God is saying, in his very own words, that the words of the prophets who spread lies via their own dreams and other gossipy falsehoods are "light" as in "lightweight" and thus like chaff will be easily dispersed and come to nothing at all in the end, while God's words are heavy, so heavy as to be like a hammer that breaks a rock into pieces. So this gives you understanding of the only context in scripture where something is viewed as "trashy," which are deeds, not the essence of the person. Thus this all leads to the role of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 3:11-12
[Spoken by John the Baptist].
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
John the Baptist prophesies that the Christ, Jesus, will use the fire of the Holy Spirit to purge and retain the good, those who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and also use the fire to cast into the flames of hell those who do not repent, and that, again, is the image of the chaff being burned as symbolizing people who have misspent their entire individual life and thus are to the eternal fire condemned.
Thus one is to understand two things: 1) only God, and through Jesus Christ to whom this authority is given, will people be judged as "trash" as in chaff and 2) while their deeds in life may be sinful chaff, such as false prophecy, they are not to be given up on until the very end, when they have perished and receive judgment.
Luke 15:7-11
I say unto you, That likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety nine just persons which need no repentance. Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep over the house, and seek diligently till she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbors together, saying Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost. Likewise, I say unto you, There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
True godliness and being just, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian, means that one never gives up on the lost sheep or the lost coin, knowing that God's mercy exists throughout a person's life. Thus one should never think of a human being as being "garbage" or "trash." However, one must also recognize that certain deeds are like the chaff, either of no significance to be blown away, or leading one to the fire, and that one must focus on the constant opportunity to repent and stop making one's self eligible to be treated as chaff by God at judgment.
I have to underscore something I alluded to earlier, about one's attitude toward children. Children were viewed as a bit like trash by the disciples only because they did not have the seriousness attached to them yet that comes with age and hence respect. But what do people today view children as? Look at the proliferation of child pornography and, hand in glove along with it, the crass way that young children are sexualized by adults, including their parents. Children were looked down upon by the disciples only because they were viewed as not being appropriately aged to partake in serious matters such as faith (listening to Jesus, for example), even though they were all being raised as devout Jews. Can you see how much more the horror of these times where children are actually treated and expected to treat each other as sexualized trash? Do you think anyone who promotes children as sexualized trash is going to escape the fire? Only if they genuinely repent, which is why the "lost" are the object of God's care and concern.
Notice that Jesus asked God to forgive those who crucified him because they did not know what they are doing (a sign of being lost). He did not point out which people are "garbage" or "trash" after all!
Revelation 14:16
And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
Wheat was harvested by a long sickle, and so this image of the wheat again enters at the end of times, when the whole earth is reaped for separating into chaff and grain. Again, what one must understand in the context of the entire bible is not that one is "safe" until the end of times, duh, but that discerning a person as "trash" aka chaff only takes place at the end of their life. People must and should refrain from categorizing anyone as being "garbage" or "trash" as 1) God himself does not do that 2) his genuine prophets do not do that 3) only certain ungodly deeds and pagan practices are actually viewed as chaff, not the people who do them and 4) God only deems people to be chaff and to be burned when they die, either at the end of their life or when all lose their lives at the end of times.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Showing posts with label Dignity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dignity. Show all posts
Friday, November 6, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Understanding God
Reading, as many of you have, about the many problems of suicides, domestic violence, child abuse, murder-suicides and other signs of an increasingly sickening world, I thought of increasing one's understanding of God through the use of an old expression.
In English there is a traditional saying when describing someone who is mentally or emotionally unraveling, saying that he or she is "coming unglued." In that saying there is a tacit recognition that each human is "held together" by something, and that in trouble or illness there is a problem of falling apart.
For you to truly understand God you must recognize that God is the glue that holds individual persons and communities together. Without God (a genuine knowing of God, not idolatry) individual persons and communities as a whole risk coming unglued and falling apart.
Society, particularly relatively affluent Western society, has promoted "coming unglued" because not only is belief in God pushed out of the public square, but more fundamentally, society pushes the fragmentation of the individual and also of the society as a whole.
Let me repeat this. Even if God were still respected in the public square, society would still have tremendous problems because society has taken on a set of highly fragmenting values. Each person is evaluated with a list of scorecard types of attributes, for example, starting in their earliest childhood. Further, families have fragmented (become unglued), forcing even more individual fragmentation as family identity and safety net is lost. The home itself is often a dangerous place, even for the most helpless, the infants. It truly is "dog eat dog" and "every man for himself," even for the very young. With partially occupied residences and frequent moves, plus isolation from the community around a person (not being part of one's community by participation or emotional investment, and trust me, I know that's hard to do as they have become scorecard exclusionary) there is the fragmentation of the community and its social net too. With fragmented denominations even for those who still profess to believe in God, churches no longer have the gravitas to provide their share of glue, of community identity and safety net. Finally, marketers and media only speak to special interest groups, who they identify with, try to get money from by selling their products, and those they advocate and "relate" to, further fragmenting and ungluing individuals, families, communities and faith groups.
When one does not look to God to provide the glue that keeps body and soul together, individually and collectively, that is the wedge for then the lowering and lowest common denominators of society to fulfill the personal and community disintegration. That's why giving an alienated and depressed teenager, for example, information about God is not enough... the social and other environmental factors must also be addressed as a whole. Even a teenager such as this one in our example who values hearing about God, the true God, in their distress is not "cured" of their pain and alienation if the next day they go from their fragmented family to their fragmented school to be judged in the freak show society scorecard meat market.
Every few years or so researchers used to ask what kids want to be when they grow up, and then they'd analyze the results, looking at what occupations or interests raise or lower in popularity. But here is the problem. The past two generations don't want anything except to be "famous" with its twin non-vocation "get rich." That is the scorecard fragmentation I am speaking about. Young people want to be scorecard traits (famous, rich, "hot"), since that's what their parents, teachers, society, media and marketers have taught them, rather than to have occupations or vocations (including professions, clerical, labor, homemaker, parent, clergy, military...) They all want to do something or be something, rather than have an interest or a calling. It is not their fault: it is how society has become unglued, starting in the family and reaching its prime robotic programming in the classroom and the media.
So how does a sad and troubled teen "become famous?" Suicide. How does a teen escape a problem situation, from the most dire to the ones that in hindsight are only painful parts of growing up, when there is no safety net in family and community, and they've never been taught God as the glue? Suicide.
Now we also have the double whammy where a society that is only individual scorecard oriented now deprives individuals of their livelihoods. We no longer are a world where people can survive without a paycheck from somewhere. What do you have when someone lacks God as the glue, there is no church or community cohesion and safety net, and there is an economic desperation? Murder-suicide.
HOW LOW DOES HUMANITY, THAT HAS BEEN SO BLESSED, HAVE TO SINK?
What did anyone think (when they took a break from their hits on the bong) would happen when the glue of God, authentic self esteem, family, community and church was continually removed? What does any idiot think would happen if one removed the glue from any structure that is made up of parts held together by that glue? It all falls down.
In English there is a traditional saying when describing someone who is mentally or emotionally unraveling, saying that he or she is "coming unglued." In that saying there is a tacit recognition that each human is "held together" by something, and that in trouble or illness there is a problem of falling apart.
For you to truly understand God you must recognize that God is the glue that holds individual persons and communities together. Without God (a genuine knowing of God, not idolatry) individual persons and communities as a whole risk coming unglued and falling apart.
Society, particularly relatively affluent Western society, has promoted "coming unglued" because not only is belief in God pushed out of the public square, but more fundamentally, society pushes the fragmentation of the individual and also of the society as a whole.
Let me repeat this. Even if God were still respected in the public square, society would still have tremendous problems because society has taken on a set of highly fragmenting values. Each person is evaluated with a list of scorecard types of attributes, for example, starting in their earliest childhood. Further, families have fragmented (become unglued), forcing even more individual fragmentation as family identity and safety net is lost. The home itself is often a dangerous place, even for the most helpless, the infants. It truly is "dog eat dog" and "every man for himself," even for the very young. With partially occupied residences and frequent moves, plus isolation from the community around a person (not being part of one's community by participation or emotional investment, and trust me, I know that's hard to do as they have become scorecard exclusionary) there is the fragmentation of the community and its social net too. With fragmented denominations even for those who still profess to believe in God, churches no longer have the gravitas to provide their share of glue, of community identity and safety net. Finally, marketers and media only speak to special interest groups, who they identify with, try to get money from by selling their products, and those they advocate and "relate" to, further fragmenting and ungluing individuals, families, communities and faith groups.
When one does not look to God to provide the glue that keeps body and soul together, individually and collectively, that is the wedge for then the lowering and lowest common denominators of society to fulfill the personal and community disintegration. That's why giving an alienated and depressed teenager, for example, information about God is not enough... the social and other environmental factors must also be addressed as a whole. Even a teenager such as this one in our example who values hearing about God, the true God, in their distress is not "cured" of their pain and alienation if the next day they go from their fragmented family to their fragmented school to be judged in the freak show society scorecard meat market.
Every few years or so researchers used to ask what kids want to be when they grow up, and then they'd analyze the results, looking at what occupations or interests raise or lower in popularity. But here is the problem. The past two generations don't want anything except to be "famous" with its twin non-vocation "get rich." That is the scorecard fragmentation I am speaking about. Young people want to be scorecard traits (famous, rich, "hot"), since that's what their parents, teachers, society, media and marketers have taught them, rather than to have occupations or vocations (including professions, clerical, labor, homemaker, parent, clergy, military...) They all want to do something or be something, rather than have an interest or a calling. It is not their fault: it is how society has become unglued, starting in the family and reaching its prime robotic programming in the classroom and the media.
So how does a sad and troubled teen "become famous?" Suicide. How does a teen escape a problem situation, from the most dire to the ones that in hindsight are only painful parts of growing up, when there is no safety net in family and community, and they've never been taught God as the glue? Suicide.
Now we also have the double whammy where a society that is only individual scorecard oriented now deprives individuals of their livelihoods. We no longer are a world where people can survive without a paycheck from somewhere. What do you have when someone lacks God as the glue, there is no church or community cohesion and safety net, and there is an economic desperation? Murder-suicide.
HOW LOW DOES HUMANITY, THAT HAS BEEN SO BLESSED, HAVE TO SINK?
What did anyone think (when they took a break from their hits on the bong) would happen when the glue of God, authentic self esteem, family, community and church was continually removed? What does any idiot think would happen if one removed the glue from any structure that is made up of parts held together by that glue? It all falls down.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Too much false shame, not enough real shame
The human body and its functions, both those of intimacy and those of natural processes, are nothing to be ashamed of. It is ironic that rather than being more enlightened in this regard people have become laden with shame about the human body.
The reason that is happening is that people lack enough shame in how they promote usage of the blameless shame free body. For example porn and sexually explicit entertainment people ought to be ashamed that they are promoting exploitation and degradation of the human body and its functions.
It is one of the great lies that those who use sex in entertainment are "celebrating the beauty of the human body." That they are most certainly not doing. What they are doing is pimping for sexual dysfunction and promoting amateur and professional sex trade mentality. THAT is what they should be ashamed about.
Thus, let's look at stalking. The person who is photographed naked by a stalker has nothing to be ashamed of, although embarrassment is natural among many people who are so cruelly victimized. However, the stalker is usually the first hypocrite who claims that the human body is "beautiful" and "natural," but what they do with the exploitation of both the victim and the viewers belies their proper placement of shame.
Everyone in the media, including advertisers, who focus so much on nakedness, intimate acts and bodily functions in the flogging of their products claim they are just "getting the information out there" and being "liberating" because there is "nothing to be shamed about." They are being deliberately deceiving. No, there is nothing shameful about nakedness, intimate acts, or bodily functions, but their explicit marketing of them for money, entertainment, or cruelty is degrading to humanity.
Here is an example that is separate from what I am speaking of, but will best explain through analogy my point.
I had a dear friend, a man, one who is remarkable in both being a "regular guy" and also his very interesting life experiences. He's a guy who one would never run out of fascinating things to talk about, what he has done, who he knows and his interests. But he decided to no longer be a guy of many interests, but he is now "gay." His entire identity and all he wants to talk about with me is gay, gay, gay. In other words, rather than being a composite of being an average guy and an extraordinary guy, with tons of dimensions, one of those dimensions being that he is gay, he has packaged himself and will only communicate with me as being one dimension, being gay.
Suppose you had a friend who was a shoe maker. What if he refused to speak to you unless it was about shoes? EVER. He dressed like a shoe, lived in a shoe, would only speak in words that have to do with shoe or rhyme with shoe, and refused to discuss any topic that does not involve shoes. This is what my gay friend has become. He has no identity or interest in life except being gay.
This is what it is like when people claim they love the human body, yet then exploit it constantly in the media, and personally. It is a warping and a skewing of what is only one thread out of the total fabric of life. Sex, being naked, doing intimate acts and having bodily functions are only individual threads out of the entire fabric of a man or a woman. Coarse and exploitative entertainment, advertising and stalking pull that one thread of life out of context and rub people's faces in it repeatedly, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until they have ruined the "naturalness" they claim to tout.
This is how my gay friend is. I wish I could just go to a restaurant with him, discuss his car or his airplane, shop for clothes, or just hang out together and discuss how one's day went. But all he wants to talk about is gay, gay, gay. He's no longer an uncle: he's a gay guy. He's no longer the guy who smiled about his first car: he's a gay guy. He no longer wants to talk about himself, unless it is about how he is gay. Before he broke off with me as a friend I would have to strain to find ways to discuss being gay with him for hour after hour after hour. Literally, he would insist on speaking of being gay for hours on end and refuse to make even one sentence comments on any other subject. I'm not joking when I say that I think he has studied if he can replace the entire twenty six A through Z English language alphabet with only the three letters A, G and Y. Likewise, I think that he no longer wishes to use the numerical digits 1 through 9 but only the numbers 6 and 9. I'm not joking.
Likewise the constant pimping in the media of nakedness, intimate acts and bodily functions render humans into nothing else but skin bags, rectum holes (for sex or gas) and pimps and procuresses (that's an old fashioned word for female pimps) for 'careers' or 'self images' to the young to think of themselves that way, as pieces of a whole rather than the entire human being.
So no, there is nothing to be ashamed about in the human body, but yes, there is something that everyone should be ashamed about, which is the dehumanizing of the the dignity of the human body in an overall life context, and not as a weapon or recruiting agent in a visual war of coarsening dehumanizing.
The reason that is happening is that people lack enough shame in how they promote usage of the blameless shame free body. For example porn and sexually explicit entertainment people ought to be ashamed that they are promoting exploitation and degradation of the human body and its functions.
It is one of the great lies that those who use sex in entertainment are "celebrating the beauty of the human body." That they are most certainly not doing. What they are doing is pimping for sexual dysfunction and promoting amateur and professional sex trade mentality. THAT is what they should be ashamed about.
Thus, let's look at stalking. The person who is photographed naked by a stalker has nothing to be ashamed of, although embarrassment is natural among many people who are so cruelly victimized. However, the stalker is usually the first hypocrite who claims that the human body is "beautiful" and "natural," but what they do with the exploitation of both the victim and the viewers belies their proper placement of shame.
Everyone in the media, including advertisers, who focus so much on nakedness, intimate acts and bodily functions in the flogging of their products claim they are just "getting the information out there" and being "liberating" because there is "nothing to be shamed about." They are being deliberately deceiving. No, there is nothing shameful about nakedness, intimate acts, or bodily functions, but their explicit marketing of them for money, entertainment, or cruelty is degrading to humanity.
Here is an example that is separate from what I am speaking of, but will best explain through analogy my point.
I had a dear friend, a man, one who is remarkable in both being a "regular guy" and also his very interesting life experiences. He's a guy who one would never run out of fascinating things to talk about, what he has done, who he knows and his interests. But he decided to no longer be a guy of many interests, but he is now "gay." His entire identity and all he wants to talk about with me is gay, gay, gay. In other words, rather than being a composite of being an average guy and an extraordinary guy, with tons of dimensions, one of those dimensions being that he is gay, he has packaged himself and will only communicate with me as being one dimension, being gay.
Suppose you had a friend who was a shoe maker. What if he refused to speak to you unless it was about shoes? EVER. He dressed like a shoe, lived in a shoe, would only speak in words that have to do with shoe or rhyme with shoe, and refused to discuss any topic that does not involve shoes. This is what my gay friend has become. He has no identity or interest in life except being gay.
This is what it is like when people claim they love the human body, yet then exploit it constantly in the media, and personally. It is a warping and a skewing of what is only one thread out of the total fabric of life. Sex, being naked, doing intimate acts and having bodily functions are only individual threads out of the entire fabric of a man or a woman. Coarse and exploitative entertainment, advertising and stalking pull that one thread of life out of context and rub people's faces in it repeatedly, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until they have ruined the "naturalness" they claim to tout.
This is how my gay friend is. I wish I could just go to a restaurant with him, discuss his car or his airplane, shop for clothes, or just hang out together and discuss how one's day went. But all he wants to talk about is gay, gay, gay. He's no longer an uncle: he's a gay guy. He's no longer the guy who smiled about his first car: he's a gay guy. He no longer wants to talk about himself, unless it is about how he is gay. Before he broke off with me as a friend I would have to strain to find ways to discuss being gay with him for hour after hour after hour. Literally, he would insist on speaking of being gay for hours on end and refuse to make even one sentence comments on any other subject. I'm not joking when I say that I think he has studied if he can replace the entire twenty six A through Z English language alphabet with only the three letters A, G and Y. Likewise, I think that he no longer wishes to use the numerical digits 1 through 9 but only the numbers 6 and 9. I'm not joking.
Likewise the constant pimping in the media of nakedness, intimate acts and bodily functions render humans into nothing else but skin bags, rectum holes (for sex or gas) and pimps and procuresses (that's an old fashioned word for female pimps) for 'careers' or 'self images' to the young to think of themselves that way, as pieces of a whole rather than the entire human being.
So no, there is nothing to be ashamed about in the human body, but yes, there is something that everyone should be ashamed about, which is the dehumanizing of the the dignity of the human body in an overall life context, and not as a weapon or recruiting agent in a visual war of coarsening dehumanizing.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Correction about frozen embryo confusion
I have read that some very loving and well meaning Catholics have trouble with Catholic doctrine opposing the creation and use of human embryos. For example, these Catholics question why they should not "rescue" frozen embryos that were created for someone else's in vitro fertilization and is no longer needed, and thus are kept frozen indefinitely or discarded.
I think people need to be very clear about one thing before the dialogue (and disagreement) continues.
The Church is correct to state that frozen embryos have "dignity." This is a very precise word that does not imply they have a soul. As I've blogged about this before, but to re-summarize, a soul is created by God and given to an embryo at the moment that it is created and "quickens." This means that the embryo must be attached to the mother's womb and making its first cell division of life. God does not put souls in inanimate objects, such as a frozen embryo. The Church is very wise to use the term "dignity" because even though the frozen embryo is not yet living it is full of the potential for a human real life and thus it has the full dignity of its potential. As such it must be guarded as diligently as a living embryo. This is why the Church correctly opposes the existence of frozen embryos, regardless of the good intentions of the would-be parents. When one has a frozen embryo one has in uncommitted hands the full potential of a life with dignity. Fortunately God, in his wisdom, does not allow humans to play God and have souls placed in frozen inanimate potential humans.
Thus someone who "rescues" a frozen embryo cannot do so by justifying that the embryo has a frozen soul in there. Good grief, humans have already made a horror show of life, can you imagine if souls were actually "freezable" in embryos? Only humans can think of such a scenario, not God.
Having said that, even "without a soul" the embryo is entitled to full dignity because it, like all embryos, are a "promise" from God, a promise that a human life with soul comes into being if the embryo is unfrozen, implanted in a woman and quickens into life. If the embryo does not naturally take to the placenta and quicken then it never received the soul.
Thus I fully understand why the Church is discouraging the enabling of what they consider to be an initial wrong, the creation of a "just in case we ever want to use it" embryo that is frozen and thus robbed of its dignity, with a questionable but well intentioned intervention of adopting a frozen embryo and implanting it.
The Church is correctly concerned of two problems with frozen embryo adoption. One is that humans assume that they can invoke an embryo and a soul and freeze it, thus making people who are horrified at this scenario feel pressured to act to "rescue the frozen soul." That is science fiction, not reality. No souls are frozen in human embryos. So the Church is worried that frozen embryo rescuers have an erroneous and very painful and alarming view of the frozen embryo as not just having dignity, which it has, but a trapped frozen soul, which it does not.
The second problem the Church is concerned with is providing a moral escape hatch for an immoral practice. Thus instead of those who produce frozen embryos having the onus on them of doing something wrong, the faithful are felt that if they don't intervene with adoption that they are allowing a horror to continue (the embryo being frozen indefinitely or discarded). To use an example, the comedy magazine "National Lampoon" once had on the cover the photograph of a cute dog with a gun being held to its head, the caption reading "Buy this magazine or we will shoot this dog!" That was, obviously, an example of subversive humor, satire and irony rolled into one. This was a long time ago but I think I remember that in the inside of the magazine they had a photograph of the dog lying down with the caption, "We shot it anyway."
This is a trivial but wise in human understanding, this ironic humor from years ago, of how to "transfer guilt and complicity." It is one of Satan's favorite tools. It allows someone to initiate the sin and then force through guilt and good intentions someone else to take "moral" responsibility for "fixing" the original wrong and sin. The Church is correctly very alert and wise to this tool of Satan's, to transfer guilt from the guilty to the innocent.
Trust the judgment of the Church for they know well this device. Refuse to be the one who is "handed the guilt" of someone else's wrong doing, bad judgment or sin.
This is not to say that someone who adopts a frozen embryo and brings a child to term has now committed the sin of the people who created the frozen embryo in the first place. However, they have inadvertently provided moral "cover" to the people who did so, not in God's eyes, but in the secular world's eyes, thus removing impetus to re-evaluate and correct a moral problem such as frozen embryos. This is nothing new except in the subtlety of the temptation to take responsibility for "fixing" someone else's ongoing wrong.
This is an important distinction. You can fix a wrong or a sin that has happened and is completed. You cannot fix a wrong or a sin that is ongoing. The ongoing sin, wrong or error must be re-evaluated and corrected, not enabled by the just taking responsibility for perpetuation of the actions of the unjust.
For example, you would rescue a starving person and feed them. But you would not agree to allow a family to starve their child, and you visit once a week to give the child just enough food to keep on clinging to life. That is the difference between correcting a wrong and enabling a wrong. In such a scenario the abusers could argue that you agree that starvation of a child is acceptable, and that if the child dies it is your fault because you did not show up on time for the once a week giving of just enough sustenance for the child to continue to survive.
Listen to the Church, for she is wise in these ways of Satan and of weak and sinful humans. Do not accept responsibility for a wrong that is ongoing and if anything increasing.
I hope that you have found this helpful; this transfer of guilt from the unjust to the just is one of the fundamental moral crises of modern humanity and one must be wise and vigilant to not co-depend and enable error, bad judgment (even if "well intended") and ultimately sinfulness and lack of dignity throughout the whole process of life.
AND, no, I would not "feel different" about it if it were "my own embryos." If anything I would be more determined that they should be discarded since I have never given permission for my eggs to be kept and frozen, nor would I have ever given permission, nor would I have ever given permission for being part of a frozen embryo. Thus if anyone did that "behind my back" as the result of the surgeries I had, I would be the first to insist that they be respectfully discarded because the only reason someone does this type of thing behind someone's back is for occult reasons. I would never consider for one second having a "different" view of this matter and if anything, I would point to the grave moral peril that all who engage in these activities are in.
I think people need to be very clear about one thing before the dialogue (and disagreement) continues.
The Church is correct to state that frozen embryos have "dignity." This is a very precise word that does not imply they have a soul. As I've blogged about this before, but to re-summarize, a soul is created by God and given to an embryo at the moment that it is created and "quickens." This means that the embryo must be attached to the mother's womb and making its first cell division of life. God does not put souls in inanimate objects, such as a frozen embryo. The Church is very wise to use the term "dignity" because even though the frozen embryo is not yet living it is full of the potential for a human real life and thus it has the full dignity of its potential. As such it must be guarded as diligently as a living embryo. This is why the Church correctly opposes the existence of frozen embryos, regardless of the good intentions of the would-be parents. When one has a frozen embryo one has in uncommitted hands the full potential of a life with dignity. Fortunately God, in his wisdom, does not allow humans to play God and have souls placed in frozen inanimate potential humans.
Thus someone who "rescues" a frozen embryo cannot do so by justifying that the embryo has a frozen soul in there. Good grief, humans have already made a horror show of life, can you imagine if souls were actually "freezable" in embryos? Only humans can think of such a scenario, not God.
Having said that, even "without a soul" the embryo is entitled to full dignity because it, like all embryos, are a "promise" from God, a promise that a human life with soul comes into being if the embryo is unfrozen, implanted in a woman and quickens into life. If the embryo does not naturally take to the placenta and quicken then it never received the soul.
Thus I fully understand why the Church is discouraging the enabling of what they consider to be an initial wrong, the creation of a "just in case we ever want to use it" embryo that is frozen and thus robbed of its dignity, with a questionable but well intentioned intervention of adopting a frozen embryo and implanting it.
The Church is correctly concerned of two problems with frozen embryo adoption. One is that humans assume that they can invoke an embryo and a soul and freeze it, thus making people who are horrified at this scenario feel pressured to act to "rescue the frozen soul." That is science fiction, not reality. No souls are frozen in human embryos. So the Church is worried that frozen embryo rescuers have an erroneous and very painful and alarming view of the frozen embryo as not just having dignity, which it has, but a trapped frozen soul, which it does not.
The second problem the Church is concerned with is providing a moral escape hatch for an immoral practice. Thus instead of those who produce frozen embryos having the onus on them of doing something wrong, the faithful are felt that if they don't intervene with adoption that they are allowing a horror to continue (the embryo being frozen indefinitely or discarded). To use an example, the comedy magazine "National Lampoon" once had on the cover the photograph of a cute dog with a gun being held to its head, the caption reading "Buy this magazine or we will shoot this dog!" That was, obviously, an example of subversive humor, satire and irony rolled into one. This was a long time ago but I think I remember that in the inside of the magazine they had a photograph of the dog lying down with the caption, "We shot it anyway."
This is a trivial but wise in human understanding, this ironic humor from years ago, of how to "transfer guilt and complicity." It is one of Satan's favorite tools. It allows someone to initiate the sin and then force through guilt and good intentions someone else to take "moral" responsibility for "fixing" the original wrong and sin. The Church is correctly very alert and wise to this tool of Satan's, to transfer guilt from the guilty to the innocent.
Trust the judgment of the Church for they know well this device. Refuse to be the one who is "handed the guilt" of someone else's wrong doing, bad judgment or sin.
This is not to say that someone who adopts a frozen embryo and brings a child to term has now committed the sin of the people who created the frozen embryo in the first place. However, they have inadvertently provided moral "cover" to the people who did so, not in God's eyes, but in the secular world's eyes, thus removing impetus to re-evaluate and correct a moral problem such as frozen embryos. This is nothing new except in the subtlety of the temptation to take responsibility for "fixing" someone else's ongoing wrong.
This is an important distinction. You can fix a wrong or a sin that has happened and is completed. You cannot fix a wrong or a sin that is ongoing. The ongoing sin, wrong or error must be re-evaluated and corrected, not enabled by the just taking responsibility for perpetuation of the actions of the unjust.
For example, you would rescue a starving person and feed them. But you would not agree to allow a family to starve their child, and you visit once a week to give the child just enough food to keep on clinging to life. That is the difference between correcting a wrong and enabling a wrong. In such a scenario the abusers could argue that you agree that starvation of a child is acceptable, and that if the child dies it is your fault because you did not show up on time for the once a week giving of just enough sustenance for the child to continue to survive.
Listen to the Church, for she is wise in these ways of Satan and of weak and sinful humans. Do not accept responsibility for a wrong that is ongoing and if anything increasing.
I hope that you have found this helpful; this transfer of guilt from the unjust to the just is one of the fundamental moral crises of modern humanity and one must be wise and vigilant to not co-depend and enable error, bad judgment (even if "well intended") and ultimately sinfulness and lack of dignity throughout the whole process of life.
AND, no, I would not "feel different" about it if it were "my own embryos." If anything I would be more determined that they should be discarded since I have never given permission for my eggs to be kept and frozen, nor would I have ever given permission, nor would I have ever given permission for being part of a frozen embryo. Thus if anyone did that "behind my back" as the result of the surgeries I had, I would be the first to insist that they be respectfully discarded because the only reason someone does this type of thing behind someone's back is for occult reasons. I would never consider for one second having a "different" view of this matter and if anything, I would point to the grave moral peril that all who engage in these activities are in.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
The Bible on the True Dignity of Women
The Bible on the Dignity of Women
The first line of this section has been quoted many times, often at weddings, and then the rest of it is dismissed by many as "quaint" or "sexist." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Read the entire section and see how you feel if you were to know a woman like that, as a friend, or a family member. How would you feel about this woman if she were you? I know that a woman who feels like the woman described in these scriptures would have a serenity and a dignity, yet still be every bit as "interesting" and "self realized," in a way that is lacking in today's society where women are complicit in their own coarsening, and as a result, in their own depression and lack of self worth.
Proverbs 31: 10-31
When one finds a worthy wife, her value is far beyond pearls. Her husband, entrusting his heart to her, has an unfailing prize. She brings him good, and not evil, all the days of her life. She obtains wool and flax and makes cloth with skillful hands. Like merchant ships, she secures her provisions from afar. She rises while it is still night, and distributes food to the household. She picks out a field to purchase; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. She is girt about with strength, and sturdy are her arms. She enjoys the success of her dealings; at night her lamp is undimmed. She puts her hand to the distaff, and her fingers ply the spindle. She reaches out her hands to the poor, and extends her arms to the needy. She fears not the snow for her household; all her charges are doubly clothed. She makes her own coverlets; fine linen and purple are her clothing. Her husband is prominent at the city gates as he sits with the elders of the land. She makes garments and sells them, and stocks the merchants with belts. She is clothed with strength and dignity and she laughs at the days to come. She opens her mouth in wisdom, and on her tongue is kindly counsel. She watches the conduct of her household, and eats not her food in idleness. Her children rise up and praise her; her husband, too, extols her: "Many are the women of proven worth, but you have excelled them all." Charm is deceptive and beauty fleeting; the woman who fears the Lord is to be praised. Give her a reward of her labors, and let her works praise her at the city gates.
The first line of this section has been quoted many times, often at weddings, and then the rest of it is dismissed by many as "quaint" or "sexist." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Read the entire section and see how you feel if you were to know a woman like that, as a friend, or a family member. How would you feel about this woman if she were you? I know that a woman who feels like the woman described in these scriptures would have a serenity and a dignity, yet still be every bit as "interesting" and "self realized," in a way that is lacking in today's society where women are complicit in their own coarsening, and as a result, in their own depression and lack of self worth.
Proverbs 31: 10-31
When one finds a worthy wife, her value is far beyond pearls. Her husband, entrusting his heart to her, has an unfailing prize. She brings him good, and not evil, all the days of her life. She obtains wool and flax and makes cloth with skillful hands. Like merchant ships, she secures her provisions from afar. She rises while it is still night, and distributes food to the household. She picks out a field to purchase; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. She is girt about with strength, and sturdy are her arms. She enjoys the success of her dealings; at night her lamp is undimmed. She puts her hand to the distaff, and her fingers ply the spindle. She reaches out her hands to the poor, and extends her arms to the needy. She fears not the snow for her household; all her charges are doubly clothed. She makes her own coverlets; fine linen and purple are her clothing. Her husband is prominent at the city gates as he sits with the elders of the land. She makes garments and sells them, and stocks the merchants with belts. She is clothed with strength and dignity and she laughs at the days to come. She opens her mouth in wisdom, and on her tongue is kindly counsel. She watches the conduct of her household, and eats not her food in idleness. Her children rise up and praise her; her husband, too, extols her: "Many are the women of proven worth, but you have excelled them all." Charm is deceptive and beauty fleeting; the woman who fears the Lord is to be praised. Give her a reward of her labors, and let her works praise her at the city gates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
