Thursday, December 20, 2012
Purpose of the Book
I have been so fascinated with the vision of the book that I forgot to know the purpose of it. Upon prayer and meditation I think I have an understanding of the purpose of the book. The purpose of the book is to teach people how to choose life.
Living Vision
The vision God has given me is a living vision. It is never complete and yet always complete. Achieving the vision is tantamount to submitting to it wholly. There are stages of growth but it is always growing. Growth stages are distinct like seasons but not necessarily precise like a school term. I just need to know what I need for the current growth stage.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
"Who would choose to be gay?"
In refuting the assertion that homosexuality is a choice we almost always hear the following rebuttal, "Why would someone choose to be gay when they would receive such social ridicule?" The implied logic is that homosexuals have a reasonable motivation to be heterosexual (freedom from social ridicule), they have genuinely attempted to alter their orientation and they have failed. Thus, this is evidence that there was no real choice in the first place since they were genuinely motivated and genuinely attempted to alter their orientation. The fallacy in this logic is that freedom from social ridicule, a self serving desire, is a reasonable motivator to become genuinely heterosexual, a selfless desire.
The argument implies that freedom from ridicule is a reasonable motivator to become heterosexual. Thus, anyone who is supposedly choosing to be homosexual is choosing to be subject to great ridicule. This is seen as very unreasonable and thus a reasonable person would be greatly motivated to be heterosexual. The problem with this argument is the assumption that freedom from ridicule is a reasonable motivation to be heterosexual. Freedom from ridicule is a legitimate yet self serving desire. Those making this argument argue that this self serving desire is a reasonable motivator to be heterosexual. Any self serving desire will not be a reasonable motivator to be heterosexual because pure heterosexuality is a selfless desire.
Pure heterosexuality is a pure desire for consummate union with the opposite sex. It is an acknowledgment that the opposite sex has such value and goodness that one desires nothing short of consummate union with the opposite sex. Pure heterosexuality is the highest affirmation of the other sex; it is a love of them that demands consummate union in all the diversity of the sexes physically, emotionally and spiritually. Thus, pure heterosexuality is a complete and selfless.
To be clear, most heterosexuals do not have pure heterosexuality. There is an acknowledgment of the strengths of the opposite sex but the motivation for union is often to exploit those strengths and take advantage of the other's goodness. Because status-quo heterosexuality is only partially affirming of the opposite sex it is consequently incomplete and selfish. consequently, it can be said that selfish desire is a reasonable motivator to have status-quo heterosexuality but it is not a reasonable motivator to have pure heterosexuality.
Therefore, the homosexual, along with the status-quo heterosexual, cannot have a selfish motivation to have pure heterosexuality. The selfish motivation and the selfless nature of pure heterosexuality are inherently in conflict. One cannot be reasonably motivated to have pure heterosexuality until you believe that "it's not about me." For men it means adopting the attitude that "it's not about men, it's about women"; for women it means adopting the attitude that "it's not about women, it's about men." How lovely it would be for men and women to have this disagreement!
The selfishly minded homosexual may not have the motivation for pure heterosexuality but they may have motivation for selfish status-quo heterosexuality. It comes down to what is gained when exploiting the opposite sex versus what is gained when resisting conformity to society. When conforming to a status-quo heterosexual society homosexuals must deny their own status-quo sexual orientation and join in the exploitation of the opposite sex. They have indeed gained something for their self but they also lost a part of their self in changing their status-quo sexual orientation. Consider the other selfish option, you can reject conformity to status-quo heterosexual society and additionally demand that society conform itself to embrace your status-quo sexual orientation. I believe we have a winner, for the selfishly minded homosexual far more is gained by resisting conformity to society and additionally seeking to conform society to accept their status-quo orientation.
Consider then the selfless minded homosexual who has a selfless motivation, and thus a selfless goal, to affirm and benefit the opposite sex. If a selfless minded homosexual believed that their orientation was not a choice they would have a different type of rebuttal. Such a homosexual man would say, "Being gay is not a choice, why would I choose to be apart from the beauty, purity and goodness of women?" Such a homosexual woman would say, "Being gay is not a choice, why would I choose to be apart from the loyalty, integrity and passion of a man?" Has anyone ever heard anything remotely close to this come from the mouth of a homosexual? Has this ever been presented as a primary motivator to be heterosexual and has this motivation ever been found unsuccessful?
If we heard such things from homosexuals we should be convinced that they have a genuine desire for pure heterosexuality, a true affirmation and love for the opposite sex. Homosexuals would then provide real substantial evidence for the lack of orientation choice if they had a selfless love for the opposite sex, desiring nothing short of consummate union, and still failed to have transition to pure heterosexuality. Indeed, this would suggest that one does not have choice in sexual orientation due to something unchangeable, such as biology.
The question on the table is, "Who would want to be gay?" The answer is, anyone who is gay. The same can be asked of status-quo heterosexuals, "Who would want to be status-quo heterosexual?" The answer is, anyone who is status-quo heterosexual. Yet the most important question is, "Who would want to be purely heterosexual?" and the answer is anyone who recognizes the full value and goodness of the opposite sex and consequently desires nothing less than pure, selfless, consummate union with them. Homosexuals, along with everyone else, can only be reasonably motivated to be purely heterosexual when they have a selfless love for the opposite sex that demands a pure, consummate union. Homosexuals, like the rest of us, need to pursue pure heterosexuality and reject one's social and individual status quo.
The argument implies that freedom from ridicule is a reasonable motivator to become heterosexual. Thus, anyone who is supposedly choosing to be homosexual is choosing to be subject to great ridicule. This is seen as very unreasonable and thus a reasonable person would be greatly motivated to be heterosexual. The problem with this argument is the assumption that freedom from ridicule is a reasonable motivation to be heterosexual. Freedom from ridicule is a legitimate yet self serving desire. Those making this argument argue that this self serving desire is a reasonable motivator to be heterosexual. Any self serving desire will not be a reasonable motivator to be heterosexual because pure heterosexuality is a selfless desire.
Pure heterosexuality is a pure desire for consummate union with the opposite sex. It is an acknowledgment that the opposite sex has such value and goodness that one desires nothing short of consummate union with the opposite sex. Pure heterosexuality is the highest affirmation of the other sex; it is a love of them that demands consummate union in all the diversity of the sexes physically, emotionally and spiritually. Thus, pure heterosexuality is a complete and selfless.
To be clear, most heterosexuals do not have pure heterosexuality. There is an acknowledgment of the strengths of the opposite sex but the motivation for union is often to exploit those strengths and take advantage of the other's goodness. Because status-quo heterosexuality is only partially affirming of the opposite sex it is consequently incomplete and selfish. consequently, it can be said that selfish desire is a reasonable motivator to have status-quo heterosexuality but it is not a reasonable motivator to have pure heterosexuality.
Therefore, the homosexual, along with the status-quo heterosexual, cannot have a selfish motivation to have pure heterosexuality. The selfish motivation and the selfless nature of pure heterosexuality are inherently in conflict. One cannot be reasonably motivated to have pure heterosexuality until you believe that "it's not about me." For men it means adopting the attitude that "it's not about men, it's about women"; for women it means adopting the attitude that "it's not about women, it's about men." How lovely it would be for men and women to have this disagreement!
The selfishly minded homosexual may not have the motivation for pure heterosexuality but they may have motivation for selfish status-quo heterosexuality. It comes down to what is gained when exploiting the opposite sex versus what is gained when resisting conformity to society. When conforming to a status-quo heterosexual society homosexuals must deny their own status-quo sexual orientation and join in the exploitation of the opposite sex. They have indeed gained something for their self but they also lost a part of their self in changing their status-quo sexual orientation. Consider the other selfish option, you can reject conformity to status-quo heterosexual society and additionally demand that society conform itself to embrace your status-quo sexual orientation. I believe we have a winner, for the selfishly minded homosexual far more is gained by resisting conformity to society and additionally seeking to conform society to accept their status-quo orientation.
Consider then the selfless minded homosexual who has a selfless motivation, and thus a selfless goal, to affirm and benefit the opposite sex. If a selfless minded homosexual believed that their orientation was not a choice they would have a different type of rebuttal. Such a homosexual man would say, "Being gay is not a choice, why would I choose to be apart from the beauty, purity and goodness of women?" Such a homosexual woman would say, "Being gay is not a choice, why would I choose to be apart from the loyalty, integrity and passion of a man?" Has anyone ever heard anything remotely close to this come from the mouth of a homosexual? Has this ever been presented as a primary motivator to be heterosexual and has this motivation ever been found unsuccessful?
If we heard such things from homosexuals we should be convinced that they have a genuine desire for pure heterosexuality, a true affirmation and love for the opposite sex. Homosexuals would then provide real substantial evidence for the lack of orientation choice if they had a selfless love for the opposite sex, desiring nothing short of consummate union, and still failed to have transition to pure heterosexuality. Indeed, this would suggest that one does not have choice in sexual orientation due to something unchangeable, such as biology.
The question on the table is, "Who would want to be gay?" The answer is, anyone who is gay. The same can be asked of status-quo heterosexuals, "Who would want to be status-quo heterosexual?" The answer is, anyone who is status-quo heterosexual. Yet the most important question is, "Who would want to be purely heterosexual?" and the answer is anyone who recognizes the full value and goodness of the opposite sex and consequently desires nothing less than pure, selfless, consummate union with them. Homosexuals, along with everyone else, can only be reasonably motivated to be purely heterosexual when they have a selfless love for the opposite sex that demands a pure, consummate union. Homosexuals, like the rest of us, need to pursue pure heterosexuality and reject one's social and individual status quo.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
On Farting and Fellowship
There are many things women do not understand about men. Among which is our peculiar habit of, while amongst other men, freely and openly, well...farting. Women recognize it as a common practice that is even celebrated amongst men. From time to time women may wonder what this is really all about. Well ladies, I will enlighten you on this most sacred tradition for men.
When men are among other men it is a very sacred environment. Male environments are set apart for us to be unabashed men while engaging in masculine activities and discussing male issues. It is a safe place to fellowship with other men with no fear of having our masculinity emasculated by its trivialization or undermining. Guys do indeed talk, contrary to popular belief, and within sacred male environments we encourage each other to openly and honestly express their masculine heart by, well...farting.
So why farting? Well, farting is not the sacred tradition that encourages open honesty amongst men. The sacred tradition is to withhold offense and rebuke when someone farts even though farting is offensive and is worthy of rebuke. In this sacred environment, withholding offense of an offensive act symbolizes the the fact that a man is free to discuss anything on his male mind even if it is offensive or worthy of rebuke. Withholding offense allots men the freedom to put anything on the table relevant to their manhood and receive support and edification by their fellow men.
We men communicate that we will not hold offense to whatever may be on a man's mind by withholding offense when a man offensively farts before everyone. When farting all men are offended and yet no man communicates offense but rather accepts this genuine reality of the farting man. Thus, the sacred tradition is practiced only when someone actually farts. So yes, we do encourage each other to fart but it is only to practice our sacred tradition of withholding offense to the offensive act. When one farts we all communicate our acceptance of this offensive act which communicates our commitment to accept any man that brings up an offensive topic. Thus, male environments become a safe, sacred place to be open and honest men.
So men, let us stop laughing at ourselves concerning this most sacred tradition. Let us see it as honorable and not crude mindlessness. Most of all, let us be true to our tradition by never rebuking another man for honestly speaking his heart amongst men. We may be personally offended at what a man may say but we cannot suggest that they should not have shared what was on their masculine heart. We need to respectfully build each other up and learn to disagree respectfully and constructively.
Women, realize that you contribute to masculine emasculation by trivializing this sacred tradition. It may make no sense to you that us men would do something so seemingly strange as intentionally farting in order to intentionally withhold offense. This tradition builds us up so when you mock or trivialize it you undermine our edification. Trivializing this tradition abates masculinity and is emasculating. We may not tell you that it actually does hurt a bit when you make fun of the tradition but it does. You can help us out by honoring our farting tradition by acknowledging it as a respectable and legitimate tradition in mind and conversation.
When men are among other men it is a very sacred environment. Male environments are set apart for us to be unabashed men while engaging in masculine activities and discussing male issues. It is a safe place to fellowship with other men with no fear of having our masculinity emasculated by its trivialization or undermining. Guys do indeed talk, contrary to popular belief, and within sacred male environments we encourage each other to openly and honestly express their masculine heart by, well...farting.
So why farting? Well, farting is not the sacred tradition that encourages open honesty amongst men. The sacred tradition is to withhold offense and rebuke when someone farts even though farting is offensive and is worthy of rebuke. In this sacred environment, withholding offense of an offensive act symbolizes the the fact that a man is free to discuss anything on his male mind even if it is offensive or worthy of rebuke. Withholding offense allots men the freedom to put anything on the table relevant to their manhood and receive support and edification by their fellow men.
We men communicate that we will not hold offense to whatever may be on a man's mind by withholding offense when a man offensively farts before everyone. When farting all men are offended and yet no man communicates offense but rather accepts this genuine reality of the farting man. Thus, the sacred tradition is practiced only when someone actually farts. So yes, we do encourage each other to fart but it is only to practice our sacred tradition of withholding offense to the offensive act. When one farts we all communicate our acceptance of this offensive act which communicates our commitment to accept any man that brings up an offensive topic. Thus, male environments become a safe, sacred place to be open and honest men.
So men, let us stop laughing at ourselves concerning this most sacred tradition. Let us see it as honorable and not crude mindlessness. Most of all, let us be true to our tradition by never rebuking another man for honestly speaking his heart amongst men. We may be personally offended at what a man may say but we cannot suggest that they should not have shared what was on their masculine heart. We need to respectfully build each other up and learn to disagree respectfully and constructively.
Women, realize that you contribute to masculine emasculation by trivializing this sacred tradition. It may make no sense to you that us men would do something so seemingly strange as intentionally farting in order to intentionally withhold offense. This tradition builds us up so when you mock or trivialize it you undermine our edification. Trivializing this tradition abates masculinity and is emasculating. We may not tell you that it actually does hurt a bit when you make fun of the tradition but it does. You can help us out by honoring our farting tradition by acknowledging it as a respectable and legitimate tradition in mind and conversation.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wanna be straight?
I have often heard that homosexuals wish they could be straight so that they can be free of undue harassment. Thus, their failure to do so in their own strength is evidence that they do not have a choice in their sexual orientation. Let us take a closer look at this perspective.
I have yet to hear of any homosexual that desires to be heterosexual in of itself. It is always a means to an end. Heterosexuality is seen as their ticket to social acceptance. What does it mean to desire heterosexuality in of itself? It means you desire to have an intimate oneness with the opposite sex, a sacred love for the opposite sex. It is a pure desire for diversity. Thus, a genuine desire to be heterosexual must be for the benefit of the opposite sex. A true desire to be heterosexual is selfless.
When homosexuals desire acceptance by way of heterosexuality they have a valid yet self serving desire. It is no surprise that homosexuals cannot become heterosexual in their own strength. You cannot acquire a selfless desire with selfish motives. It is right to desire to be accepted but it is also right to desire that which benefits others. Heterosexuality is a benefit to the opposite sex, those that are not like you.
Homosexuals can only say they have a true desire to be heterosexual once they can look beyond themselves and become selfless. Christians can be a true ally to homosexuals by providing the acceptance they need instead of being their biggest antagonists. If Christians can accept and love homosexuals then they will be in a position to adopt the view that it is not about them and have a true desire to be heterosexual with no strings attached.
I have yet to hear of any homosexual that desires to be heterosexual in of itself. It is always a means to an end. Heterosexuality is seen as their ticket to social acceptance. What does it mean to desire heterosexuality in of itself? It means you desire to have an intimate oneness with the opposite sex, a sacred love for the opposite sex. It is a pure desire for diversity. Thus, a genuine desire to be heterosexual must be for the benefit of the opposite sex. A true desire to be heterosexual is selfless.
When homosexuals desire acceptance by way of heterosexuality they have a valid yet self serving desire. It is no surprise that homosexuals cannot become heterosexual in their own strength. You cannot acquire a selfless desire with selfish motives. It is right to desire to be accepted but it is also right to desire that which benefits others. Heterosexuality is a benefit to the opposite sex, those that are not like you.
Homosexuals can only say they have a true desire to be heterosexual once they can look beyond themselves and become selfless. Christians can be a true ally to homosexuals by providing the acceptance they need instead of being their biggest antagonists. If Christians can accept and love homosexuals then they will be in a position to adopt the view that it is not about them and have a true desire to be heterosexual with no strings attached.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Another Book Wiki Address
Added another domain address for the book's wiki: http://www.heteroculturalism.net
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Book Wiki
I am experimenting with another way to write this book using wiki technology. I have moved everything that I have written down to this wiki: http:/www.heteroculturality.net. From now on I will be posting new content here and I may not be updating this blog anymore. If you want the latest writings as they come out then visit this wiki from now on. You can contribute much more at this wiki so please do so. Thanks for the ongoing support!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)