Saturday, February 20, 2010

This Summer - The Last Airbender (HD)



Ann Coulter Routine at CPAC (Doing What She Does Best, Bringing Much Needed Sarcasm Into Politics)

WOW! "Breitbart goes nuclear on Salon writer at CPAC for smearing James O’Keefe as racist"

 Breitbart has balls!

The Emerging New Age Ethic/Theology of "Love" (e.g., Not Thinking Critically) -- or, What do Oprah, Rick Warren, and Ken Blanchard Have in Common? (Answer: A Course In Miracles)

One should read this update/caveat to these posts for the whole story.

(Rick Warren Part I ~ See Part II)
Oprah Winfrey will be letting out all the stops on her XM Satellite Radio program this coming year. Beginning January 1, 2008, Oprah & Friends will offer a year-long course on the New Age teachings of A Course in Miracles. A lesson a day throughout the year will completely cover the 365 lessons from the Course in Miracles “Workbook.” For example, 
  • Lesson #29 asks you to go through your day affirming that “God is in everything I see.”
  • Lesson #61 tells each person to repeat the affirmation “I am the light of the world.”
  • Lesson #70 teaches the student to say and believe “My salvation comes from me.”
By the end of the year, “Oprah & Friends” listeners will have completed all of the lessons laid out in the Course in Miracles Workbook. Those who finish the Course will have a wholly redefined spiritual mindset—a New Age worldview that includes the belief that there is no sin, no evil, no devil, and that God is “in” everyone and everything. A Course in Miracles teaches its students to rethink everything they believe about God and life. The Course Workbook bluntly states: “This is a course in mind training” and is dedicated to “thought reversal.”

It is funny that the New Age and Emergent ("conservative Evangelicals") movements are so closely tied. Before we get much further, we Must introduc a man, Ken Blanchard, who was introduced to one of the largest congregations in America by one of the "bigger than life" Evangelical pastors, Rick Warren (pastor of Saddleback Church). Ken was introduced in a video clip of him visiting Saddleback. Rick said he [blanchard] was coming onto help with Rick's global P.E.A.C.E. Plan, saying he's...
"... signed on to help with the P.E.A.C.E. Plan, and he's going to be helping train us in leadership and in how to train others to be leaders all around the world." (Ray Yungen, A Time Departing, p. 163)
Before we go any further, we must get to know whom Ken Blanchard is and why this guilt by proxy is important:

Guilt by proxy: Guilt by promotion or proxy is a much more powerful premise than guilt by association. Whereas the latter shows connection through merely association, guilt by promotion or proxy shows endorsement and actual support and encouragement. (Ibid., p. 86)
We May get to know a bot more about Blanchard and his brand of Christianity by looking at books and organization he started, has endorsed, wrote forewords to of glowing reviews after Blanchard converted to Christianity. I will list here a few books that he has either glowingly endorsed or wrote a foreword to. The first book we will deal with that he wrote a foreword to is a book entitled What Would Buddha Do At Work, by Frank Metcalf. In it Blanchard wrote:
Buddha points to the path and invites us to begin our journey to enlightenment. I... invite you to begin (or continue) your journey to enlightened work. (Ibid., p. 163)
Another book that Blanchard wrote the foreword to is a book by Jim Ballard called, Mind Like Water:

In the book, Ballard describes methods for practicing Eastern/New Age meditation. Ballard states:
I signed up for the yoga meditation lessons . . . founded by Paramahansa Yogananda [a Hindu guru].... I had evidently reached a level of consciousness beyond the usual ... I continue to consider meditation far and away the most important thing I do.
And yet, of the book, Blanchard writes glowing remarks:
Jim Ballard's wonderful book Mind Like Water . . I hope that you and countless other readers will find in Mind Like Water some ways to calm your mind and uplift your consciousness.
Another book that Ken Blanchard gave glowing reviews for is a book by New Age author Vijay Eswaran, who teaches in his book In the Sphere of Silence that silent meditation and the clearing of your mind completely of any thoughts,
...if it is practiced properly, is a very powerful tool. It is not just oriented to any one religion, it is universally accepted and practiced by almost all faiths on the planet. It is through silence that you find your inner being. (Ibid., p. 164)
On Vijay's website for the book we find this endorsement by Blanchard:
Effective leadership is more than what we do; it starts on the inside. Great Leaders are able to tap inner wisdom and strength by cultivating the habit of solitude. This book is a wonderful guide on how to enter the realm of silence and draw closer to God. (Ibid.)
In yet another endorsement, Ken says on the back cover of The 10-Minute Energy Solution that the author, Jon Gordon "is a master at teaching people the power of positive energy. If you want to increase your joy and effectiveness, as well as your energy level, read this book" (Ibid., p. 165). What techniques does Blanchard endorse here? Well the book teaches how to improve energy levels through,
...meditation, yoga, breathing exercises, and other such techniques. Throughout the book, Gordon quotes favorably from the Dalai Lama, meditator Daniel Goleman, Thich Nhat Hanh, New Agers Marilyn Ferguson and Wayne Dyer, and from A Course in Miracles. Gordon promotes panentheism (God in all) by saying things such as: "You came from this source [speaking of God] and you are this source? (Ibid.)
Ahhh, full circle, what is A Course in Miracles? The Watchman Expositor has this little quick intro to this work:
In October 1965, Helen Schucman, an associate professor of medical psychology at Columbia University in New York, began receiving channeled messages from a speaker who would later identify himself as Jesus Christ (A Talk Given on `A Course In Miracles', Kenneth Wapnick, May 9, 1981, p. 10). For the next ten years the voice is said to have dictated "in an inaudible voice" the three volume, 1,188 page, 500,000 word book known as A Course In Miracles (Psychology Today, September 1980, p. 75).

One of Schucman's colleagues was Dr. William Thetford, a clinical psychologist at Columbia University. While he never heard the voice, he was instrumental in the publication of the Course. Raised in the Christian Science church, Thetford believed the Course was a representation of the "original teachings of Jesus" (The Holy Encounter, Sept./Oct. 1990, p. 5).

In 1972, Schucman and Thetford meet Dr. Kenneth Wapnick of the Foundation for Inner Peace. The Copyright for the Course was turned over to Wapnick and his organization in 1975. This action is followed in September of the same year with the publication of the first edition of A Course In Miracles (Ibid, p. 7).
Put simply, this channeled work is a prime example of the literal doctrine of demons (1 Tim 4:1). The Urantia book is another prime example, as is the Book of the Law, by Alistair Crowley. Another channeled work was done by Carl Jung, who channeled an entities wordsduring a three day (evening) session. Jung self-reportedly channeled and transcribed Basilides words. The finished work was more than an exercise in automatic writing -- the contents have been described as a "core text in depth psychology." One Curmodeon wrote this about it:
....Through the profound influence of this haunting, Jung wrote a short essay called the Septem Sermones ad Mortuous (the Seven Sermons to the Dead) , under the pseudonym Basilides (a second Century Gnostic writer). In his autobiography, Jung says that “I was compelled from within, as it were, to formulate and express what might have been said by Philemon. This was how the Septem Sermones ad Mortuous with its peculiar [Gnostic] language came into being.”[vii] The sermons are directed at deceased Christian souls who arrive at the Jung household because they have failed to find liberation through the church. The first six sermons present a Gnostic world view, and prepare the dead for the final sermon. Here, Jung tells them to stop seeking salvation outside of themselves, but to look inward toward the “innermost infinity,” which is also referred to as the inner “Star” or the “one guiding god.” Having received this revelation, the restless dead disappear and rise into the night sky, apparently to find their own inner stars. Jung’s sun worship and Gnostic predilections appear in full force in this essay.[viii]
Much more could be documented to establish Jung’s deeply anti-Christian world view. Surely, the burden of proof lies on anyone who would attempt to draw healing waters from such a polluted well. (Douglas Groothuis, "Carl Jung: Beware," The Constructive Curmudgeon, July 22, 2006)
Who would draw from such a poisoned well? Isn't the onus on them and those who taught them?
In contemporary society our Adversary majors in three things: noise, hurry, and crowds. If he can keep us engaged in "muchness" and "manyness," he will rest satisfied. Psychiatrist C. G. Jung once remarked, "Hurry is not of the Devil; it is the Devil."
We simply must become convinced of the importance of thinking and experiencing in images. It came so spontaneously to us as children, but for years now we have been trained to disregard the imagingtion, even to fear it. In his autobiography C. G. Jung describes how difficult it was for him to humble himself and once again play the imagination games, of a child, and the value of that experience. Just as children need to learn to think logically, adults need to rediscover the magical reality of the imagination.
(Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth (1978), pp. 13 and 22 respectively).
Remember, this same "Christian" told us that this meditative prayer (often called centering prayer or contemplative prayer) has the ability to do the following, seemingly speaking from his own experience:
After awhile there is a deep yearning within to go into the upper regions beyond the clouds. In your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body. Look back so that you can see yourself lying in the grass and reassure your body that you will return momentarily. Imagine your spiritual self, alive and vibrant, rising up through the clouds and into the stratosphere. Observe your physical body, the knoll, and the forest shrink as you leave the earth. Go deeper and deeper into outer space until there is nothing except the warm presence of the eternal Creator. Rest in His presence. (Ibid., 27)
We can see where Jung's imagination brought him, and where it brings Richard Foster, who ends his book calling us to "imagine," take note of the capitalization of New Age in this "Christians" writings:
We of the New Age can risk going against the tide. Let us with abandon relish the fantasy games of children. Let's see visions and dream dreams. Let's play, sing, laugh. The imagination can release a flood of creative ideas, and exercising our imagination can be lots of fun. Only those who are insecure about their own maturity will fear such a delightful form of celebration. (Ibid., p. 170)
So my question is, was Richard Foster a pagan, non-Christian when he published this first edition, and now magically he is with the publishing of the 25th anniversary edition?

Much like a politician whom might say, if you are against Obama's policies, you must be racist, or the Bushite who says if you are against the Iraq war effort you must be unpatriotic -- Richard Foster uses the immature card for those who disagree, making himself out to be a theological elite. Poppycock! So what about Ken, is there more depressing news about him? Of course there is. Ray Yungen  in his excellent book A Time of Departing: How Ancient Mystical Practices are Uniting Christians with the World's Religions (where much of this information came from) seals up any doubt on the nature of Blanchard's beliefs by noting that for the entire relationship he has had on training people at Saddleback for Rick Warren, he was on a board at an outright New Age organization (p. 165 of Ray's book):
But perhaps Blanchard's most telling involvement with the New Age is his role with an organization called The Hoffman Institute, home of the Hoffman Quadrinity Process. Not only has he given a, strong endorsement for the program, saying (after he partook of it) that it "made my spirituality come alive" but is also a current board member of the Hoffman Institute, along with several New Agers. This is an organization that was founded by a psychic and is based on panentheism (i.e., God is in all) and meditation! In the book, The Hoffman Process, the institute's mystical perspective is laid out clearly:
I am you and you are me. We are all parts of the whole.... You can use a short meditation to remind yourself of this connection to all others in this world of ours.... As you breathe, feel that breath coming from your core essence.... When you are open to life, you start noticing the divine in everything.
I wish to quote a bit more on Rick Warren from another author's dilligent work. Some of it may be repetition of what we covered here, but there is much more. This info comes from a book I highly recommend entitled Contemplative Mysticism: A Powerful Ecumenical Bond, by David Cloud. David may be a little to rigid or legalistic on peripheral doctrines (like women not being able to even teach Sunday school for instance), but we agree on the essentials, where I argue that the Rick Warrens and Richard Fosters of the world are compromising these essentials in the name of conservative theology. I will again post a list of subjects I drew from the books he dropped off to me and a theologian that he and I discussed (and he defended as "conservative," in the theological sense, not in the political sense) pastor from my past church) at the end for confirmation that the church I attended is headed down a dangerous path. Here is Cloud's summation (pp. 185-187), and please keep in mind that Blanchard became a "Christian" in the mid-eighties:
Rick Warren has yoked up with mystic Ken Blanchard on various occasions, and Blanchard is intimately associated with New Age paganism. Blanchard visited Saddleback in 2003 and Warren told the church that he had “signed on to help with the P.E.A.C.E. Plan, and he's going to be helping train us in leadership and in how to train others to be leaders all around the world” (Ray Yungen, A Time of Departing, pp. 162, 163). Warren teamed up with Blanchard in the Lead Like Jesus conferences and audio series. Warren used Blanchard's materials in a Preaching and Purpose Driven Life Training Workshop for Chaplains at Saddleback in 2004 (A Time of Departing, p. 167). Warren also endorsed Blanchard's book Lead Like Jesus.

Blanchard, in turn, has strong New Age associations. He wrote the foreword to the 2007 edition of Ballard's book Little Wave and Old Swell, which is inspired by Hindu guru Paramahansa Yogananda. This book is designed to teach children that God is all and man is one with God. In the foreword Blanchard makes the following amazing statement: “Yogananda loved Jesus, and Jesus would have loved Yogananda.” I was a disciple of Yogananda before I was saved, and there is no doubt that he did NOT love the Jesus of the Bible!

Blanchard's recommendation appears on the back cover of Deepak Chopra's The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success. He wrote the foreword to Ellen Ladd's book Death and Letting God, which promotes clairvoyance. He endorsed the 2005 book Zen of Business Administration, which is subtitled “How Zen practice can transform your work and your life.”

Blanchard joined members of the New Age occultic project The Secret in January 2008 for a one-day seminar entitled “Your Best Year Ever” (“Ken Blanchard Joins 'The Secret' Team,” Lighthouse Trails, Jan. 14, 2008). Rhonda Byrne, the author of The Secret, thanked “Esther Hicks and the teachings of Abraham.” Abraham refers to a group of spirit guides that Hicks channels. The Secret teaches the New Age doctrines that man is god. “You are God in a physical body ... You are all power ... You are all intelligence ... You are the creator” (p. 164).

Lighthouse Trails wisely observes:
“Did Rick Warren know of Blanchard's sympathies when he brought him in to help at Saddleback? Of course he did. And do you think that Rick Warren and Ken Blanchard are going to train their 'billion' soldiers for Christ how to practice New Age mysticism and learn how to go into altered states of consciousness? You bet. And that is definitely something to be concerned about” (“Rick Warren Teams up with New Age Guru,” Lighthouse Trails, April 19, 2005).
Warren is also closely associated with New Age mystic Leonard Sweet. He teamed up with Sweet in 1994 to produce the Tides of Change audio set published by Zondervan. A photo of Warren and Sweet are pictured on the cover. Warren endorsed Sweet's book Soul Tsunami, the endorsement appearing on both the front and back covers. Warren invited Sweet to speak at the 2008 Saddleback Small Groups Conference called Wired.

Sweet promotes a New Age spirituality that he calls New Light and “the Christ consciousness.” He describes it in terms of “the union of the human with the divine” which is the “center feature of all the world's religions” (Quantum Spirituality, p. 235). He says it was experienced by Mohammed, Moses, and Krishna. He says that some of the “New Light leaders” that have led him into this thinking are New Agers Matthew Fox, M. Scott Peck, Willis Harman, and Ken Wilber, plus the Catholic-Buddhist Thomas Merton. In his book Quantum Spirituality Sweet defines the New Light as "a structure of human becoming, a channeling of Christ energies through mindbody experience" (Quantum Spirituality, p. 70). He says humanity needs to learn the truth of the words of Thomas Merton, "We are already one" (Quantum Spirituality, p. 13). Sweet draws heavily from Catholic mysticism. He says:
"Mysticism, once cast to the sidelines of the Christian tradition, is now situated in postmodernist culture near the center. ... In the words of one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, Jesuit philosopher of religion/dogmatist Karl Rahner, `The Christian of tomorrow will be a mystic, one who has experienced something, or he will be nothing"' (Quantum Spirituality, 1991, p. 11).
Observe, then, how close are the ties between contemplatives and the New Age! And contemplative spirituality is the bridge.

This is only a tiny glimpse into this frightful matter. Rick Warren does not believe that all religions worship the same God or that man is God, but his enthusiasm for contemplative practices and his lust for the newest thing have brought him and his followers into close association with those who do. He is promoting the same type of "spiritual" practices that are nurturing the New Age and his thinking is being corrupted by being this illicit association. Evangelicals who are reading and recommending books by mystics would be wise to take heed to this warning. If they delve into Catholic contemplative practices they are in great danger of being corrupted by this illicit endeavor.
I think this may make my case about Rick Warren, I think we should all cock our collective head and wonder why a church via their pastor's (plural) recommend works by Henry Nouwen, Thomas Merton, Richard Foster, Rick Warren, Ken Blanchard, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Shane Claiborne, Brian McLaren, Beth Moore, and the like. When you see names like this start to pop up at official and non-official church functions and recommended as "normative" literature a believer should read, then its time to look closer and ask yourself this question, "How can I Think Biblically, Critically, and compare what people say about the Word of God to the Word of God." You should be able to discern whether these items on the following list combined is an attack on the central tenants of our faith:
  1. that the first three miracles in John were inserted by writers to “woo in pagans,” as they are themselves adopted from pagan stories (so John lied to save souls... the "greater good" thing, or, the church at a later date corrupted Scripture in order to save souls, so which parts of Scripture are not corrupted?);
  2. the Virgin Birth was also a deep seated fear of sexuality and not really a miracle;
  3. books that teach that penal substitution as a vile doctrine;
  4. that Hell is not a place for persons to be placed after a future judgment, and that Hell is actually here now and that we must bring in God’s Kingdom (separate from that future judgment);
  5. these books say we do not have the Gospel right yet;
  6. they teach that traveling to Buddhist temples and practicing meditative techniques in these temples is Christian;
  7. they show that many of the practices rejected by the Reformers are in fact useful to the Christian;
  8. they show that Yoga can make one closer to God and to realize and experience the “divine;”
  9. they teach that the doctrines of the Trinity, nature of Christ, nature of Scripture, and the nature of marriage are “still on the table,” doctrinally;
  10. teach that Paul was really communicating Platonism and not bringing us Scripture;
  11. altered states of consciousness gained through "centering prayers" brings you closer to God;
  12. I could go on...
You can say that these types of positions challenge the essentials. "Church, where is your discernment?" Keep in mind I stayed at NP for quite some time after this first encounter with this movement at NP. I realized it ran much deeper than I thought, and my almost 12-year tenure came to an end with the use of a particular book with the men's college group.  All the above and following and previous posts on this topic are to encourage and give resources to my freinds at NP to discern what is on the horizon, as well as a resource for the many dedicated readers here at RPT, whom I thoroughly enjoy and respect.

Speaking of resources, here are a few recommends:

The Big Four


This post is dedicated to the following Scriptures about defending and fighting for the essentials:

If you do not know what the difference between Law and Gospel is, I encourage you to listen to a critique of a Dallas Willard Q and A with students:"Is Dallas Willard a Christian"

George Will's Speeach at CPAC -- Good Stuff Maynard

Rick Sanchez vs. Ann Coulter -- Sanchez Uses Myth, Mantras, and Talking Points (Which Ann Dissects Piece by Piece)

One aspect that Sanchez is totally numb to is this Liberal Mantra about Halliburton.

Ann rightly references for Sanchez's education, that Obama (not just Johnson, Clinton, and Bush) has also participated in no-bid contracts:

The recent awarding of a lucrative federal contract to a company owned by a financial contributor to the Obama presidential campaign -- without competitive bidding -- "violated" President Obama's many campaign pledges to crack down on the practice, a top State Department official told Fox News.

Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley, familiar to many Americans from his erudite delivery of the State Department's daily press briefings, made the admission in a telephone interview Saturday night.

Reminded of Obama's many pledges during the 2008 campaign to crack down on the use of no-bid contracts, and of the memorandum the president signed last March instructing the Office of Management and Budget to curb the practice, Crowley said: "You make a valid point. If you want to say this violates the basis on which this administration came into office and campaigned, fair enough."

The contract in question, worth more than $24.6 million, was awarded on Jan. 4 by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to Checchi and Company Consulting, a Washington, D.C.-based firm owned by economist and Democratic Party donor Vincent Checchi. The deal called for Checchi's firm to train lawyers and judges in Afghanistan and thereby strengthen the "rule of law" in the war-torn country.....
...(read more)...


Ramirez -- Abortion Cartoon (Joe Biden -- the "Good" Catholic)

Deep Lyric Break -- "Aish Tamid," Matisyahu

Drinking Cartoons

Friday, February 19, 2010

Gary Coleman Does Not Waffle! Taking Notes John Kerry?

PROOF OF TORTURE! (That evil Mr. Bush... how dare he teach these evil men daycare songs! )

Afghan Inmate Sings the Barney Song

Wild Haiti Phone Video Footage

Gladiator Olympics

Creflo Dollar -- Shoot and Stone non-Tithers, Or As Rage Against the Machine Puts It, "Killing in the Name of _______" [Insert Word: Love, Money, Pin-Stripe Silk Suit, etc]

Janeane Garofalo & Keith Olbermann Look Silly


From author of the above video:
So last night that race-peddlin' buffoon over at MSNBC... wait, that's pretty much everyone on that network. Let me be more specific. OK, so, last night Keith Olbermann used his self-parodying Special Comment segment to ask the following question: Where are the people of color at the Tea Parties? Now, implying and outright saying that Tea Party protesters are racist is commonplace in the far left. No news there. But two things in particular bother me about his question:

First, his choice of words. People of color? Who are these colored people he's referring to? What does that mean? It may be because I'm not a native English speaker, but I find this people of color business to be really bizarre. So as a Boricua, am I colored? I guess I'm olive but if I hit the beach on a sunny day I can be golden brown. Is he referring strictly to skin color? Culture? Ethnicity? I mean, I'm not that much darker than Mr. Olbermann himself. Do I fall into his people of color category?

Or, as I suspect, are people of color just code for those who deviate too much from the skin color which Olbermann seems to deem as the standard? I mean, come on, Olbermann has no color, right? He's white. That ain't no color. That's just how it's supposed to be, right? So, all I can think of is that he means black. Black people are colored, and everyone else is just normal and a-OK. Man, this race and colors stuff is difficult to understand!

And secondly, the question is stupid, the premise terribly moronic and the insinuation totally insulting. The Tea Party protesters aren't racist. Are there a few kooks with nefarious motivations? Sure, every movement has them. It's nice how, during the Bush years, the MSM did everything they could to whitewash the fringe elements of the antiwar movement, but I digress. Whats Olbermann's evidence that Tea Parties are overwhelmingly racist? Apparently, that there are no people of color at these rallies. That is so blatantly false as to induce uncontrollable laughter. There are people of all backgrounds at the Tea Parties. But even if an event is dominated by a certain race group, what does that prove? Similar to what Glenn Reynolds said earlier this month, if you look at a group of white folks and the first thought that pops into your head is "racists!" then you have some serious issues.

So I put together this video response to Olbermann's burning question. Here are his "people of color" he's been inquiring about.

Rachel MadCow @ CPAC

Racist Cartoon? Reaching for Straws. The anti-gay marriage souvenir pen she held up could have been handed her by gay folks who do not want gay marriage... what is her point.

From NewsBusters:

Hey Rach - maybe we'll give you your own doormat if the next time you tell your viewers what booth you were attending.

Regardless, nice display of sportsmanship, Ms. Maddow. Brava. 
You can find the Matthews and Olbermann mats at the MRC Store.

Ryan Sorba ~ "The Lesbians at Smith College Protest Better Than You..." (Very Funny!)... He's Right...

I will cut-n'-paste two separate posts I put up on my blog. The first is in response to to one of my son's friends, the second are homosexuals who themselves tend to be against the concept of "gay marriage." Enjoy.

  • Question 3) What is your views on gays? Are they bad? Are they going to hell? Are you born this way?

The homosexual man or woman is just as much a sinner as you or me. We all need Christ. To touch on the hell issue first, I believe hell is a testament to free-will, and dignity as well. C.S. Lewis mentioned that hell is locked from the inside. The only thing separating mankind from God is a belief in the finished work on the Cross. By choice people reject their Creator, they choose their path, God never imposes it. Many who are saved are not immediately pure in action, nor will they ever be. Sometimes people take decades to work through their faults (counseling, prayer, reading God’s Word, etc), so just like the person who may cheat on his wife regularly, when he comes to a saving knowledge of God, he will be challenged to change his ways and seek counseling and prayer and reference from God’s Word. The same with a gay man or woman. If they truly have a saving knowledge of God, they will be challenged by the Holy Spirit to seek biblical guidance in their life, and like many others, they will turn away from their homosexual lifestyles.

However, there is a “created order,” or, even a natural order (if you do not believe in God). My argument for heterosexual (between a man and a woman) unions is usable both by the atheist (non believer in God) and the theist (a believer in God – in the Judeo-Christian sense). Here is the crux of the matter in regards to “nature’s order:”
“…take gold as an example, it has inherent in its nature intrinsic qualities that make it expensive: good conductor of electricity, rare, never tarnishes, and the like. The male and female have the potential to become a single biological organism, or single organic unit, or principle. Two essentially becoming one. The male and female, then, have inherent to their nature intrinsic qualities that two mated males or two mated females never actualize in their courtship… nor can they ever. The potential stays just that, potential, never being realized…..
“….Think of a being that reproduces, not by mating, but by some act performed by individuals. Imagine that for these same beings, movement and digestion is performed not by individuals, but only by the complementary pairs that unite for this purpose. Would anyone acquainted with such beings have difficulty understanding that in respect to movement and digestion, the organism is a united pair, or an organic unity?”
So you see, the two heterosexual organisms that join in a sexual union cease being two separate organisms for a short time and become one organism capable of reproduction. This is what the state and the church are sealing in a marriage, this intrinsic union. The homosexual couple can never achieve this union, so “natures order” has endowed the heterosexual union with an intrinsic quality that other relationships do not have or could never attain. Both the atheist and theist can argue from this point, because either we were created this way or we evolved this way. Either way, nature has imposed on the sexual union being discussed.
Also, I do not think it is wholly genetic. I believe choice is involved as well as violence. For instance, take this thought from a pro-choice, lesbian woman, Tammy Bruce:
"....and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left's moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today....
"Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood -- molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the 'coming-of-age' experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS.”
What she is basically saying is that there are emotional reasons, usually trauma, or circumstances that push these young boys into the choices they make in regards to their sexuality. For instance, one of my co-workers is a homosexual man. He is a wonderful guy; I would invite him to my wedding if I could go back in time. He is very open about his past, he was “initiated” into the homosexual lifestyle by a grown black man when he was 14. In other words, he was raped. Whether he feels now that he consented, or the person was a family friend or complete stranger. This act of sex with a minor by a grown man is rape. And this rape, at an age where boys are having surges of hormones and confused about a lot of things is what Tammy Bruce was speaking to. It is a psychological trauma that if not dealt with has traumatic results in one’s life. This sometimes works its way into sexual matters. There are many homosexual people, Al Rantel (790am 6pm to 9pm), to name a more popular one, that believe marriage should be kept between a man and a woman. Tammy Bruce wants it, but she, like most Republicans, want the states to decide, and not the Supreme Court.
Also, in 1993, the biggest march by the “gay” community (Elite gay community) on Washington was held, and they had this as part of their platform:

  • The implications of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
  • The lowering of the age [12 years old to be exact] of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
  • The legalization of homosexual marriages.
  • Custody, adoption, and foster-care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
  • the redefinition of the family to include the full diversity of all family structures.
  • The access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America.
  • Affirmative action for homosexuals.
  • The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health-care plan.
    Obviously the Elite gay community Tammy Bruce spoke of knows which age is best for “recruiting,” e.g., traumatizing.

    More can be said on all the above issues, but my book is not yet written. I will post three wuotes from Tammy Bruce (a pro-choice lesbian):

    Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic. (Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values [Roseville: Prima, 2003], 35.)

    ...these problems don’t remain personal and private. The drive, especially since this issue is associated with the word “gay rights,” is to make sure your worldview reflects theirs. To counter this effort, we must demand that the medical and psychiatric community take off their PC blinders and treat these people responsibly. If we don’t, the next thing you know, your child will be taking a “tolerance” class explaining how “transexuality” is just another “lifestyle choice”.... After all, it is the only way malignant narcissists will ever feel normal, healthy, and acceptable: by remaking society - children - in their image (Ibid., 92, 206)

    ... and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left's moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today.... Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood -- molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the 'coming-of-age' experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS. (Ibid., 90. 99)


    "We're not married, Let's get that straight. We have a civil partnership. I don't want to be married! I'm very happy with a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
    ~ Elton John ~

    You may view my critique on same-sex marriages being the same, ontologically, as heterosexual marraiges, this paper is entitled, "Epicurean Romanism: Natural Law & Romans." Also see this case study, "Redefining marriage or deconstructing society: a Canadian case study," by homosexual psychologist, Paul Nathanson (it is multiple pages and I must h/t Come Reason Ministries via there podcast for this study).

    Tammy Bruce -- a pro-choice lesbian, agrees with Elton John as explained in this article on her site, "Gay Marriage: Why Not?" (there is a more in-depth link that is connected with the article):

    The political debate rumbles on, and we've heard the principle arguments repeated endlessly: On one hand, the right of gays to seek the same legal protections available to straights, and on the other hand, the mainstream desire to preserve an ancient and fundamental institution. Perhaps there's a more appropriate way to look at this. Seems to me there's an element of narcissism on both sides of the standard argument: On one hand, MY rights; on the other hand, MY tradition. But maybe it's not about YOU. Marriage may make us happy (or miserable, as the case may be), but its primary purpose is to create a stable environment into which children will be born and nurtured through adolescence. Certainly both our statistics and common sense tell us that children do vastly better if they grow up with loving parents, a mother and a father. For this reason, I'd rather view the battle for marriage as a children's rights issue, rather than a ME ME MINE issue.

    Looked at from this perspective, the problem with gay marriage isn't that it's objectively any worse than (and it may actually be better than) the broken homes and single parents and all the other indications that modern marriage is a ruined institution. The problem with gay marriage is fundamentally symbolic: It's the societal acknowledgement of how far marriage has fallen. If not for the specter of gay marriage, we could continue to pretend that we're still functional. We could pay our hypocritical respects to our ideal, even if that ideal no longer translates into any semblance of reality.

    If you get past the politics and the rants, you'll hear many conservative Christians acknowledge as much. They understand that winning the battle against gay marriage doesn't mean a thing unless marriage itself once again becomes respected and meaningful.

    Just as the 2nd Amendment wasn't adopted to protect your right to hunt, so the institution of marriage wasn't created to deliver spousal health insurance and inheritance. Don't let the politics distract you from the big picture. This battle is in one place but the war is elsewhere.

    In ancient times before Abraham, pagans sacrificed their children to idols. This is a matter of historical record. Then, as our tradition would have it, God gave us the example of Abraham and Isaac to declare an end to ritual human slaughter. In our modern, enlightened era, it seems we've created a new form of child sacrifice. Children have become disposable. Most of us know this is our fundamental problem. Some say that the government must step in and pick up the slack with day care and the like. Others argue that the parental commitment must be enforced. The liberal/conservative divide forms roughly along these lines. This is where the war is.
     Bottom line: If we've lost marriage, then it really doesn't matter what becomes of gay marriage. Think about this before you jump back into the culture war.

    Related Link:

    Tammy's column from 2004 on the issue: Respecting Marriage and Equal Rights

    Likewise, Al Rantel in his article entitled, "Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage," makes the point that as a gay man, he opposes gay marriage:

    The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling by four of the seven justices that the state must allow gays full marriage rights by May 17th raises a myriad of questions that some are afraid to ask in this time of political correctness run amok.
    First and foremost of those questions is who said gays want to get married in the first place? Lets look at the numbers. The highest number of same sex households in America is ironically in Massachusetts, however even then it is under 2 per cent of all households. If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger.
    As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no brake environment of male/male sexuality. I should know. I am a gay male.

    To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition.Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage on an unwilling public?
    There is an answer.Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall.
    While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence.
    The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone.
    What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two men or two women, even for a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring.
    And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else? 
    Al Rantel is a radio talk show host on Los Angeles' KABC.


    Paul Nathanson, a sociologist, a scholar, and a homosexual writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves--things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

    • Foster the bonding between men and women
    • Foster the birth and rearing of children
    • Foster the bonding between men and children
    • Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
    • Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
    Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, ... every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it."
    Nathanson, Paul as quoted in "Questions and Answers: What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples 'Marry?'" by Peter Sprigg