A Personal Relationship?

"Do you have a personal relationship with God?"

This question implies a yes or no answer, and is likely to mislead.

"Do you have a personal relationship with God?"

Yes, you do. Whether we like it, or not, we do.

All our acts are related to God. We are all relating to God right now. We may be relating to him as Father, or as Judge, but we are relating to him.

We may not be concerned with him, but He is concerned with us.

Blind To Celestial Wonders

Charles Spurgeon, soon after conversion:

I can get good religious conversations with Mr. Swindell, which is what I most need. Oh, how unprofitable has my past life been! Oh, that I should have been so long time blind to those celestial wonders, which now I can in a measure behold! Who can refrain from speaking of the marvellous love of Jesus which, I hope, has opened mine eyesl Now I see Him, I can firmly trust to Him for my eternal salvation. Yet soon I doubt again; then I am sorrowful; again faith appears, and I become confident of my interest in Him. I feel now as if I could do everything, and give up everything for Christ, and then I know it would be nothing in comparison with His love. I am hopeless of ever making anything like a return. How sweet is prayer! I would be always engaged in it. How beautiful is the Bible! I never loved it so before; it seems to me as necessary food. I feel that I have not one particle of spiritual life in me but what the Spirit placed there. I feel that I cannot live if He depart; I tremble and fear lest I should grieve Him. I dread lest sloth or pride should overcome me, and I should dishonor the gospel by neglect of prayer, or the Scriptures, or by sinning against God.

Historical Self-Righteousness

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Historical Self-Righteousness

Self-righteousness is the attitude of the man who says, "I thank God that I am not like other men. I do all the right stuff. I don't do the wrong stuff. I stand alone on the moral mountain. I look down, and pity everyone else below, mired as they are in the moral sewer (cf. Lk. 18.9-14)."

Self-righteous people tend to:
1) Judge others for their mistakes, "You should have... How could you... "
2) Complain of how they have been slighted, "Everyone has done me wrong. Poor me."
3) Walk around with a sense of stupefied moral outrage, "I can't believe those people did that. How dare they! How could they?"
4) Assume they are the last righteous person on a sea of moral shipwrecks, "All those Christians are hypocrites."
5) Have a very high view of their own moral abilities, and supreme confidence in their own judgment, "I will never compromise. Even if all others stray, I'll stand strong. They failed, but I would have done better."

Generally, we speak of self-righteous people as they relate to their contemporaries, especially their family, friends, fellow workers, and even Church.

However, I believe self-righteousness can also show itself as we relate to our forefathers. Let's call this historical self-righteousness. This is the attitude of the person who looks back in history, condemns all who went before, and concludes that the present generation is the first (and only) morally clean seed of Adam.

Historical self-righteousness seems to be on the rise. Note, for example, how many scathing biographies have come out in recent years. The targets have included  men like George Washington, George Whitfield, Francis Schaeffer, and C.S. Lewis. The sole purpose of these biographies seems to be tearing down these lofty figures for all their supposed faults. The authors pride themselves on having a superior moral position.

I want to make a few simple points in response to this trend:

First -- I doubt you (Mr. Biographer) or I would have done better under similar circumstances. Remember, when we consider the great men of history, we are considering men that are gifted above most people who ever lived (including YOU and ME). Thus, I doubt we would have done better in their circumstances. I'm sure we would have done worse.

Second -- don't forget that we ourselves have our own generational sins. Our great-great grand children will look back, 100 years from now, and say, "How could those people have been so blind about .... Why didn't they do more to stop it... Did they really believe...?"

Third -- historical self-righteousness is as dangerous as any other self-righteousness. It separates you from past humanity because you are 'so superior.' It shuts your ears to what you might learn from previous generations. It cuts you off from the ability to see your own sins (or those of your own generation). It blinds you to your own need of God's grace.

So, as we look back on our forefathers, let us not have the basic attitude of self-righteousness. Instead, let us pray, "We are not worthy even to look up to heaven. God have mercy on us."

Finally, a word to biographers. Aren't we all biographers? Aren't we all engaged in processing the figures of history?  We 'write' the lives of those who went before us whenever we speak about them. This includes 'writing' about our grandparents and parents. This includes 'writing' about the heroes of history: Socrates, Julius Caeser, George Washington, et. al. This also includes 'writing' about the heroes of the faith: Augustine, Chrysostom, Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther, John Calvin, C.S. Lewis, et. al., and all who comprise the cloud of witnesses who went before us. All who, even now, are with Christ in glory.

My final word is a word of warning to all us biographers. This is from Michael Jose's review of A.N. Wilson's bitterly critical and self-righteous biography of C.S. Lewis:

"I am strongly reminded of the position in which John Betjeman's biographer, Bevis Hillier found himself. He tells us that he decided to avoid producing a 'critical biography', which is an illegitimate art-form, as it 'yokes together historical narrative and literary criticism'. This is Wilson's error, and he compounds it with his own repetitious and subjective brand of psychoanalysis. It is as if he cannot restrict himself to any one role, or even a coherent set of roles. He wants to be an honest broker, iconoclast, Devil's Advocate, psychoanalyst, literary critic, and historian by turns. He fails."

1-2 Kings and Romans 1:18-32: A Comparative Outline

1-2 Kings and Romans 1:18-32: A Comparative Outline

I. Israel has forsaken the true King; thus, they replace him with a king (Idolatry) (1 Sam. 8.4-5, 7; Romans 1.23)

* The root sin is ALWAYS idolatry, “…feared other gods (2 Kgs 17.7).”

II. Israel suppresses the knowledge of God (for example, killing prophets) (1 Kgs. 18.4, 22; Romans 1.18)

III. Knowledge now suppressed, God seems more and more distant (Romans 1.18; The seeming absence of God in 2 Kings)

*God is distanced by his people via idolatry; He is still present, but not in familiar way; He is present in wrath.

III. The Consequence of Forsaking God = Being God Forsaken (Romans 1.24, 26, 28)

IV. Thus, now more and more God-forsaken, Israel descends into immorality (1 Kgs 14.24; Romans 1.24)

V. The knowledge of God, now suppressed, is yet present by His WORD of judgment and merciful calls to repent (Elijah and Elisha)

VI. God’s people, now mired in immorality, provoke God’s anger and incur just judgment

(cf. 2 Kgs. 17.11, “The Anger of the Lord,” with Romans 1.18, “The Wrath of God.”)

*Judgments, according to Deuteronomy, grow increasingly severe (Dt. 28.15ff): siege, drought, famine (2 Kings 6:25), locusts, military humiliation, etc., until the final judgment: Exile (2 Kgs 17.7).

What is Exile, really? Being cast out of the good (Dt. 3.25, 8.7) promised land? Cast away from God? Exile is a picture and preview of Hell: literally, Hell on Earth. Hell is the place where rebels are forever exiled the promised land of a new Earth, and from God who is Good, "Depart from me, workers of iniquity (Mt. 7.23)."

Note: the reason the land was Good had to do with the closeness of the Good God.

* The root sin is STILL idolatry (2 Kgs 17.7)

VII. Thus, the WORD and presence of God is primarily present to JUDGE (ex. 1 Kgs 17.1)

-------------------------
*I am indebted to Dr. Brian Aucker for his insight into the relevance of this question.

God's Law And The Law Gravity

Prophets predicted the future, not like our goofy end-of-days fanatics. They predicted a coming grief; they said: IF you don't repent, this WILL happen. But, this may not happen; this NEED not happen; you can still repent.

Unlike contemporary "prophets," they hoped their predictions would not come to pass. Their predictions were warnings: If you continue in sin, then judgment will arrive. That judgment is certain; unbreakable. That judgment is deserved; it will be just. They predicted the future in the sense of warning, like a man warns his friend when he sees a snake in his path. They predicted, like a man who sees his neighbor plant turnip seeds, and predicts a full crop of turnips. Their prediction were prescriptive more so than predictive. "If this, then this." You will reap what you sow.

They saw God's law as warp and woof of the universe. To break it is to break yourself. To abandon it is to abandon health and happiness. God's law = not to silly rules. God's law isn't akin to arbitrary dictates, some kind of meaningless test set down by God to see how we "score."

God's law = the law of gravity. You can try to break it if you want; the result of such a venture will not be, no matter what you think, indifferent.If you try to break the law of gravity, you'll end up breaking your bones; if you break the law of God, you'll end up breaking yourself.

. 

Getting Out Of A Bad Relationship? Don't Get In

"Look before you leap."

"He who sups with the devil needs a long spoon." But wouldn't it be better not to sup with the devil at all.

People don't understand why you can't just end it. Everyone tells you: This person is bad -- but it is hard for you to see it. Hard, to believe it. You are so close, still dazzled by their the sunny-ness. This sunny-ness blinds you.

The time to get out of a bad relationship is before getting into a bad relationship. Once inside, the world looks different. You take it for granted that this person means you good. Before accepting a job, committing to a friendship, starting a relationship -- before, this is where the work of deciding is most need. Once you are "in" it becomes increasingly difficult to get out. Look at women in abusive relationships: it is hard to get out.

Excerpted Article Below is Helpful:

the University College London found that “feelings of love lead to a suppression of activity in the areas of the brain controlling critical thought. It seems that once we get close to a person, the brain decides the need to assess their character and personality is reduced.”

Not only does romantic love suppress our critical thinking, but feel-good chemicals and hormones like oxytocin and dopamine cloud our judgment even more. Love truly gives us a drug-like “high,” and it feels so good that we simply ignore the red flags waving right before us. If by chance you do take notice of a gal’s negative behavior or attitude, you’re likely to minimize it, writing it off as a cute quirk, or telling yourself, “Oh, it’s not that bad. Besides, maybe I can be the guy to help her improve.”

Don’t fool yourself.  You can’t force your partner to change; the change has to come from within. Also, problems that you notice at the beginning of a relationship tend to amplify themselves as the relationship deepens. Or as marriage expert Dr. John Van Epp says in his book, How to Avoid Falling in Love With a Jerk, “The good doesn’t always last, and the bad usually gets worse.”

“Well,” you say, “I’m a manly man, dammit. I don’t let my emotions get the best of me in a relationship. I always think rationally.”

Hold on there, chief. Some research actually indicates that men, particularly men in their mid-twenties, “typically fall in love faster than women and are the first to take the lead in saying words of love in the initial stages of the relationship.” Women, on the other hand, are generally more apprehensive in the beginning stages of a relationship. In other words, just because you’re a dude, doesn’t mean you’re not susceptible to love blindness.

Knowing that your judgment is clouded, it’s important to enter any serious relationship with both your head and your heart. You need be able to distance yourself from the powerful emotions you’re likely feeling in a new relationship so that you can notice any red flags that might indicate that you’re destined for a relationship from hell. This is doubly important if you’re considering marriage.

But what sort of red flags should you be on the lookout for? While every man has his own personal relationship red flags or deal breakers, psychologists and marriage experts have found there are a few general red flags you should be aware of. Most of these are patterns of behavior in your partner that will likely (not definitely) result in a troubled relationship down the road.

Because people are usually on their best behavior at the beginning of a relationship, some of these red flags won’t appear for awhile. According to Dr. Van Epp, it’s usually around the three-month mark that deep-seated patterns start to manifest themselves. This delay is why he and other relationship experts recommend that you take romantic relationships nice and slow.

When An Atheist Said, "There's No Proof God exists."

I answered:

You keep saying there is no "proof" that God exists. There are many problems with this statement. The first obvious problem is that there is, indeed, abundant proof that god/gods exist. The proof? Worshipers. 

Most people in human history have believed, naturally, that their was a creator of some kind, and they have worshiped as a result. Now, you can say that the God these people worshiped was not really "there," or not really able to help them, or not actually in existence. However, the CONCEPT of a God, and the reality of this concept is beyond denial. So, you have to agree that God, at least as an abstract concept, does indeed exist.

Also, some of the things that people worship are material. Sometimes men even worship each other. Thus, the Romans worshiped their emperors as gods. Now, you can say that the roman emperors were not TRULY gods, or true to the real concept of God. However, these were men that really existed and walked around on earth. So, you can't deny that they existed. God/gods do EXIST. 

So, the "concept" of God does exist. When you say, "There is no God," -- this is not true. The most you can say is that there is no God that you personally acknowledge. 

Remember, the term "God" can refer to more than the existence of an eternal being who created all things. "God," as a term, can refer to the one to whom we give allegiance; the one we follow; the one we obey; the center of our universe. Some, for example, worship money. Money is truly their God. Others worship power. Others worship rocks. Thus, it is not accurate for you to say "There is no God." Clearly, many people worship things: even material things.

So, you can't say, "There is no proof that God exists." There is abundant proof that people worship something/someone. There are many, many, many gods, and they set themselves before our eyes daily.

The question is NOT, therefore, "is there a God?" The question is, "Which is the TRUE God?"

When The Creator Forsakes His Creation

Giancarlo Esposito on Vince Gilligan v. Walter White... makes you think about Hell:

You might get your wish. Vince made it clear that he has no sympathy left for Walt. 
To hear Vince speak about Walt in this disparaging way makes me sad! [Laughs] I've always had this feeling that, as a writer, you love all of your characters. And at some point, I imagine that Vince has turned against Walter, and Vince is going to exact his revenge. There is a horror coming, and let's hope it's one that will  remind us that this road is not one to be traveled by the faint-hearted. 

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/gus-from-breaking-bad-wants-walts-head-on-a-pike-20130917#ixzz2flUbhsNr 

The Past Is Present.

It is.

Self-Love and Love For God

Love for God and Self-Love

An Adaptation of the Works of Edwards, Brainerd and Baxter

2 Tim. 3:1-5: But understand this, that in the last days[1] there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.

I. Misplaced Love

            Notice how prominently and frequently love (the word occurs 5 x) is mentioned in the verses above. Misplaced love dominates the description of the moral free fall in ‘the last days.’ The ‘last days’ is a reference to the time between the first coming of Christ and the second coming of Christ. In other words, we are living in ‘the last days.’ In other words, our world is now characterized by the very things Paul mentions in this passage. Note all the uses of ‘love:’

1) lovers of self (this is listed first, in the place of prominence)

2) lovers of money

3) not loving good

4) lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

            We would summarize: these people love 3 things: self, money, and pleasure. They do not love good. They love pleasure rather than God. In fact, they put pleasure in the place of God: ‘loving pleasure rather than God.’ They love pleasure instead of God. They do love; they just love all the wrong things; and they do not love the right things: ‘good’ and ‘God.’ Their love is misplaced. They have disobeyed the great commandment – the one on which all the others hang – to love God with all their heart, soul, strength and mind. All the other sins on this list (ungrateful, unholy, reckless, etc.) can be traced back the their misplaced love. They have broken the first commandment (Love God!); so, the rest of the commandments fall like a house of cards.

II. What is love?

            Jonathon Edwards defines love in the following ways: We love something to the degree that we are pleased with it. Love is pleasedness: the state of being pleased with something. Love is an intense delight. Love is a strong inclination of the soul that moves us toward something to try and grasp at it. When we love we admire an object; this admiring leads on to desiring to possess the thing we admire (admiring leads to desiring). Love is going after something as our highest good. Love is seeking something first. Love is favorring, choosing, preferring one thing above others. Right love is a sweet and holy affection that loves good things as good things, but loves God best as the best and highest good. Wrong love is an inordinate (loving good things as the best thing) affection. Now, what we love determines what we do. As Edwards said: ‘it is our inclination that governs us in our actions.’ This is why Augustine said: Moral character is assessed not by what a man knows but by what he loves.’

                                             

III. The Centrality of Loving God

            Jonathon Edwards on Love of God: (paraphrased):  This love includes a sincere, generous, and happy inclination of the soul towards God; this love must be vigorously and fervently exercised and engaged in; when this happens love influences our affections, and our love for God becomes an affectionate love. Vigorous and fervent love of God is the sum of all religion. Love for God is the sum of all that was taught and commanded in the law and the prophets.
            So, the love of self, money, pleasure is idolatry; it is placing our love on a low and earthly object when we ought to be gazing into the heavens at God, the only worthy object of our wholehearted love. To put it another way – there is no true religion without sweet love for God.
            To quote Edwards again: It is evident that religion consists so much in affection that without holy affection there is no true religion. No light in the understanding is good which does not produce holy affection in the heart. No habit or principle in the heart is good which does not stir us to pursue after God with an inclination of intense delight; and no external fruit is good which does not proceed from a holy love.
            Even if we had the most devoted religion, with great faith and remarkable spiritual gifts – to the point that we died a torturous and bloody martyrs death -- this would be eternally annoying and despicable to God unless there be love (see 1 Cor. 13).

III. Love and Hate

            Notice the people in 2 Timothy 3 love certain things (self, money, pleasure), and this means they do not love other things (good, God). These two concepts are connected. If we love one thing this causes us to hate other things.

            Again, to paraphrase Edwards in Religious Affections: Love is not only one of the affections, but it is the first and chief of the affections, and the fountain of all the affections. The heart is at the center of true religion; and love is at the center of the heart. From love arises hatred of those things which are contrary to what we love – those things which oppose and thwart us in gaining the things that we love. A man hates a rival suitor because he loves a girl; he would not hate him if he did not love the girl. His hate arises from his love. So, a Christian hates the rival of sin because he loves God. If we have a vigorous, affectionate, and fervent love to God, there will necessarily arise other religious affections of hate, such as, 1) intense hatred and loathing of sin, 2) a fear of sin, 3) and a dread of God's displeasure toward those who sin. Other positive affections will also arise from the fountain of our love for God, such as, 1) gratitude to God for his goodness, 2) contentment and joy in God when He is graciously and sensibly present, 3) grief when God is absent, 4) a joyful hope when our future enjoyment of God in heaven is expected, 5) a fervent zeal for the glory of God.

IV. There is an appropriate Self-Love

From David Brainerd, Life and Diary, pg. 149-150 “... I was unexpectedly visited by a considerable number of people, with whom I was enabled to converse profitably of divine things. I took pains to describe the difference between a right and wrong self-love. A right self-love consists in a supreme love to God. A wrong self-love disregards love of God. A right self-love unites God’s glory and the soul’s happiness so that they become one common interest. A wrong self-love separates God’s glory and man’s happiness – and pursues happiness apart from the glory of God.

“There is a double loving of a man’s self. One good and commendable, the other evil and damnable. Spiritual self-love is supernaturally wrought in man by God’s spirit, so that he is both enlightened to discern what is most excellent and best for him, and also moved to choose the same... Hence it comes to pass that thier chiefest care is for their souls and for their eternal salvation. Self-love is evil when it is cast upon our corruptions, our lusts, our evil humours, when we affect and love them, and for them pursue whatever may satisfy them... evil self-love is a most detestable vice, but it is both lawful and commendable to love one’s self aright (William Gouge, A Golden Treasury of Puritan Devotion, pg. 71).”

V. There is an inappropriate Self-Love

2 Timothy 3.2: For people will be lovers of self

Note: ‘lovers of self’ begins this list. It has a place of prominence as a chief sin.

The following is an adaptation and expansion of Richard Baxter’s “Self-love, Selfishness and The Gospel.”

1. Selfishness comes from a wrong self-love; this self love is the root of original sin.

        The principal part of selfishness consists in an wrong self-love. This is a corruption so deep in the heart of man, that it may be called his very natural inclination; he is born with this sinful bent; this wrong self-love therefore lies at the bottom, below all his actual sins, whatever those sins may be; and must be changed into a new nature, which consists primarily in a new and supreme love of God. This is original sin itself – this is the very heart of it. This is what man by nature is; a sinful self-lover; and as he is, so he will act. In this wrong kind of self-love, all other vice in the world is contained...

2. Selfishness robs and dethrones God

            Selfishness is most contrary and rebellious to God, and desires to rob Him of all His rights as God, so that God would be no God... I have formerly told you, that self is the god of wicked men, or the world's greatest idol; and that the inordinate love of pleasure, profits, and honor -- the unholy trinity -- are the ways in which this wrong self-love demonstrates itself; This idolatrous self-love also is in league with the evil trinity of God's enemies, the flesh (our first and greatest problem), the world, and the devil.

            Every man is an idolater so far as he is selfish. God is not just a name. The one that takes away God's essence, or attributes or perogatives, and yet thinks he believes in God, because he uses the word God, and speaks of His name and titles, does as bad as they that set up an image, and worship that instead of God. He does as bad as the man who worships the sun or moon as gods... Now selfish, ungodly men rob God, and give His honor and perogatives to themselves, and keep him at a distance with empty titles; they call Him their God, but will not have Him for their chief end, their portion, and their happiness.

            Nor will the the selfish give God the strongest love of their hearts: they will not take Him as their absolute owner; they will not be His slaves ...They will not take Him as their Sovereign Lord, and be ruled by Him; they will not deny themselves for His sake; They will not seek His honor and interest above their own. They call Him their Father, but deny Him His Honor; they call him their Master, but give do not give Him fear (Malachi 1:6). They do not depend on His hand, and they do not live not by His law, and to His glory; and therefore they do not take Him for their God. And can you expect that God should save those that deny Him, and would dethrone Him--that is, His very enemies?

3. Selfish self-love takes the perogatives of God

            God will not save those who reject him and make themselves their own gods. But all these unsanctified, selfish men do make themselves their own gods – for they take to themselves the perogatives of God:

How do they take the perogatives of God? In at least 10 ways:

1. They would be their own end, and look no further.

2. They exploit all others as means to this end (the self). They have no problem ‘using’ people to satisfy self. So exploiting people sexually or financially does not bother them; people are sacrificed to the god of their ‘selves.’ People are to them a means to an end – the end of self. Yes, they even think of God Himself as a servant for their ‘self.’ This is why the ungodly will even excuse sin by saying, “I have prayed about it.” They will even call in the holy God as the servant of sin – as the servant of sinful self!

3. They love their present life and prosperity better than God: ‘lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.’ 

4. They would be their own, and live as their own.

5. They would have other creatures to be their own, and use them as their own, and not as God's.

6. They must care for themselves, and provide for themselves, and dare not trust themselves wholly upon God.

7. They would dispose of their selves and their own conditions, and of all other things, without reference to God or acknowledgement that he is the owner of all things.

8. They would rule themselves, and be out from under the laws and government of God. They pray to themselves: “My will be done.”

9  They would be the rulers of all others, and have all men do their wills.

10. And they would be honored and admired by all, and have all praise ascribed to them. They pray, “Mine is the glory.”

If all this is not to set themselves up as their own god and idol in the world – I do not know what is!

4. God will not save selfish idolaters, but destroy them in Hell

            Certainly God is far from having a thought of saving such vile idolaters; in fact they are the principal objects of His high hatred, and the objects of His justice to shoot at, and the objects of his eternal wrath. God is engaged to pull them down, and tread them into Hell. Will God stand by and see a company of rebellious sinners sit down in His throne, attempt to overthrow His sovereignty and divine rights as God, and then let them of scott free? Will God advance such a person to His heavenly glory?  No! God has resolved that "he who humbles himself shall be exalted, and he that exalts himself shall be humbled." And what higher self-exaltation can there be than to make ourselves as gods to ourselves? Who deserves to be brought low by the hand of almighty God more than the one who makes himself god?

5. Self-denial is necessary to be a true Christian

            No man can be a Christian unless he takes Christ for his Lord and Savior; but no man without self-denial can take Christ for his Lord and Savior. Therefore, without self-denial, it is impossible to be a Christian, and it is impossible to be saved. He that makes himself his own end, cannot make Christ, as Christ, his way; for Christ is the way to the Father; Christ is not the way to carnal self. No, the business that Christ came to do in this world was this: to pull down and subdue the sinful self. Moreover, whoever takes Christ for his Savior, must know from what it is that he must be saved. And what is it that we must be saved from? I answer: from self.

            No man can take Christ for his Savior that does not renounce his own self-confidence. No man can take Christ as his savior who is not willing to be saved from the idolatry of self-exaltation. No man can take Jesus for Teacher unless he comes into Jesus’ school as a little child, and renounces the guidance of carnal self, sensible of his need of a heavenly teacher. No man can take Christ for his King and Lord, unless he has learned to deny his own lust to be King and Lord. No man can offer himself to Christ as His slave unless he has first learned to deny that self that claims priority and sovereignty in Jesus Christ’s place.

            There is no antichrist, no false Christ, that ever was in the world, that does more truly oppose Christ, and resist Him in all the parts of His office, than carnal, sinful self. It is this sinful self-righteous self that will not stoop to claim Christ as our only righteousness. It is willful sinful self that will not look to Him for His guidance, nor incline to the teaching and holy Word. Self is the false Christ, the false Savior of the world, and the false god. Therefore, there can be no salvation where self is not denied and taken down...

            Every man and woman on earth that take themselves for true Christians, and yet do not deny themselves (even hating their father, mother, brother, sister, wife, children, yes, their own life) for the sake of Christ and the hope of everlasting glory – these are only self-deceivers, and no true Christians at all.  It is impossible for a person who loves his life better than Christ to be Christ's disciple.  The one who loves his life better than the hope of everlasting life is no true Christian (Matthew 10:37-38; Luke 14:26, 27, 33)...

            I plead with you, remember that this is the lowest degree of self-denial that is saving, and without this no one can be saved – namely, to bank more on Christ and the hope of glory than you bank on all this world and life itself; and to be habitually resolved to forsake life and all, rather than to forsake Christ. Nothing less than this is true self-denial; nothing less than this will take hold of eternal life or prove that one is a true Christian... For this is the very point in which Christ puts our self-denial to the test, "he that would save his life, will lose it."

            What do you love better: an immortal, holy life with God, or this earthly, fleshly life?  – this is the great question on which it will be resolved whether you are Christians or infidels at heart. This is the question which determines whether you are heirs of Heaven or Hell.

---

[1] cf. 1 Tim. 4:1: The Spirit clearly says that in later days some will depart from the faith. IVP Commentary on 1 Tim. 4:1: Paul's point is that periodically throughout the age of the church the faithful can expect the defection and active opposition of some who have professed to be Christians. The developments in Ephesus were to be recognized as "signs of the times," part and parcel of this evil, last age... In our era the believing church cannot afford to be ignorant of the evil nature of this last age.

Why Can't It Always Be Like This?

Answer: Because, if it was always like this, it wouldn't be like this.

Justification and Sanctification

Justification is outside-in. We lose it if we make it inside-out. 
Sanctification is inside-out. We lose it if we make it outside-in.

-- Dane Ortlund

When Given A Choice Between Two Evils...

CWK

When given a choice between two evils, choose neither.

If something is "evil," you should not choose it. If something else is less evil, you should not choose that either. If someone placed two poisons before me, and said, "The first poison is deadly. It will kill you immediately. The second poison is also deadly, way less deadly, but to be honest, it will also kill you. Now, you must choose one of the poisons..."

I'd excuse myself and say, "No thanks. I choose neither poison."

Why am I bringing this up? Because Dan Savage is on a savage mission to promote infidelity. He does so by arguing infidelity is the lesser of "two evils." The other evil being divorce. This is nothing new for Savage. His whole philosophy of life could be summarized with his approach to the ethical dilemma of EITHER divorce OR infidelity. He is a champion, not of righteousness, but small evil, or smaller evil.

Well, there is no such thing as small evil. There's gigantic destructive evil, and then there's other evil which is still more gigantic, and more destructive. Just like there's no such thing as drinking small poison. Small poison kills: it may take longer to kill you, or it may be less painful, but poison is poison. There's also no such thing as a "small" giant. Every giant is gigantic, or else he would not be a giant. Every evil is large and deadly, or else it would not be evil.

Here's Savage, in his own words:

"If one person is completely done with sex and the other person is not done with sex, what do you advise people to do in that circumstance? Divorce? Traumatize their children?" he said. "I look at that and I say 'You know, do what you need to do to stay married and stay sane. And maybe that involves cheating, but as the lesser of two evils. Divorce is an evil, cheating is an evil, there are circumstances in which cheating is the lesser evil."

Au contraire mon frere. Contraire.

Here's what's wrong with Savage's argument:

1) How does Savage know that cheating is less evil than divorce in any circumstance? Which scale of good v. evil is he referring to? Whose law? He is plucking moral truisms out of thin air with, as far as I can tell, no basis for his sliding scale of evil. Is this what God revealed to him? Or, some earthly moral authority? If so, which God? Which authority? And, what evidence does he have to show that infidelity saves marriages, and spares children trauma?

2) His argument is an example of the logical fallacy often referred to as a false dilemma or improper bifurcation. Or, in layman's terms:  dividing an issue into two, and only two, camps when, in fact, there are many more camps.

The couple Savage describes might solve their dilemma with a thousand other options beside EITHER divorce OR infidelity.

What about marriage counseling, or endeavoring to rekindle their romance, or taking a vacation together, or reading some books on intimacy, or -- and this would be revolutionary -- communicating with each other openly and honestly about their desires? All of these choices might lead to conflict, but they might also lead to greater intimacy. Whereas infidelity will never lead to greater intimacy. Never, ever, ever, ever. Why? Cause its evil and it involves deception and breaking the bond of intimacy two people share. Cause its evil. That's why.

3) Savage's whole argument about "choosing... evil" is madness. It's the kind of madness that ensnares a man who has lost his moral footing. In one sense, I can't argue with his position just like I can't argue with an insane person who insists he is Julius Caesar. He would have to forsake his whole position and come back to reality before we could make progress. The apostle Paul once engaged a similar argument, and he didn't give it the time of day:

"Hey,some people say, let's do evil so that good may result."
Paul answered, "Really? Well, whoever said that, their condemnation is deserved."

4) Savage willfully ignores righteous choices. This evil, or that evil. This is a false dichotomy, and therefore, a false choice. He is presenting couples with only two choices, both evil, and nary a righteous choice.

Which reminds me: evil is easy; it presents itself as a simple, an inevitable, way out. Evil likes to break the world up into sliding shades of black, with no light, and no bright. Taking the evil way is always taking the easy way. The couple he describes could actually choose to be loyal and loving to each other and grow as persons and as a couple. But this is hard. This requires sacrifice, and selflessness.

However, by recommending couples have only two choices (divorce OR infidelity) Savage is making it easier for the person who wants to pursue infidelity. How? He is giving them an out. Why not devote our time to teaching people the ways to rekindle their romance that would enable them to love each other better? We should not spend one second arguing in favor of infidelity. Cause it's evil. Savage could be straining his estimable communication skills in recommending ways couples can love/care for each other. But he doesn't; he takes time and pain to recommend infidelity.

5) Savage is also making it easier for the "cheater" by presenting infidelity as an option. Somethings should never be an option: no matter how desperate we become. He's casting the cheater as a person of sympathy who really has no choice but to defecate on their marriage vows.

Let's be clear, and come to the heart of Savage's savagery. He doesn't care about healthy marriage (or else he'd despise infidelity, the real killer of marriage). He doesn't care about sparing traumatized children (think of poor little Jimmy stumbling upon mommy kissing daddy's friend Mike. Now, that's trauma). He doesn't care much for sanity (or else, he avoid gaping logical fallacies). He doesn't care about the grand narrative of good v. evil (or else he'd talk about good v. evil, not evil v. lesser evil). These are all accessories on his main prize. What he cares about is a kind of sexuality that is free from moral restraint. What he cares about is doing whatever he wants to do sexually, with whoever he wants, and when he wants. He preaches infidelity, like any preacher, because he loves what he preaches; he wants to fool around with unlimited will, and so he's found an excuse, "saving marriages." But this is not about marriage; if it was, it would not be about infidelity. This is about a man who wants to practice, and wants other people to practice (so he feels better about himself), a selfish and egocentric sexuality.

For a very different view on the beauty of fidelity, and an example of a man who took the words, "for better, or for worse," seriously, see Robertson McQuilken's remarks on why he resigned the presidency of Columbia International University because he wanted to care for his wife as Alzheimer's devastated her health. He speaks of the "honor of caring (for his wife)." Whoever heard of the honor of cheating on your wife? Or, the honor of deserting your wife in pursuit of selfish selfish-as-can-be lust?

Savage's seemingly compassionate "cheat to beat divorce" prescription is dishonorable and repugnant, and frankly, disgusting. I'm gonna go ahead and say the kind of man I want to be is very far from the selfish fop Savage recommends.

Savage is just like the man who says he must cheat on his wife because she constantly nags him and he needs "emotional support." Such a man can find any excuse for his infidelity, and sooner or later, he will find infidelity because that's what he was really looking for anyway.

The truth is, if you want to do the right thing, you won't need excuses. Why? Cause its right. That's why. If your actions are righteous, you won't have to jump through illogical hoops to defend your actions; your actions will defend themselves.

No doubt, Savage seems ever so compassionate and reasonable: ever so understanding. Until you remember that some people are going to read his words today, and tomorrow destroy their true love, and maybe forever. And when they do, they'll say, "I had no choice." But they will be wrong. And when they do, they'll say, "But I have a good excuse." And, they will be wrong, again.

They did have a choice; they made it, and they made a terrible choice. An evil temptation always presents itself as the only option, as a fait accompli, the only road possible. Savage stands at the crossroads, and advises weary travelers to ignore all the roads that lead to green pastures and CHOOSE the road to perdition (cause it's the only choice anyway). But that road is not the only choice; it's obviously not the only choice because it is a choice. The very fact that we may choose it denotes that we may not choose it. There is no "to be" without a "not to be."

So, remember, when tempted to defile your love, or forsake bonds of fidelity, remember that if you do so, you are making a choice. You may choose to, but -- stop! and smell the sweet air of liberty -- you may also choose not to.

6) Savage's morality is simplistic. It's the false gods that offer up easy solutions; it's the false immorality that oversimplifies.

He is mistaken to paint the world in such a black/blacker -- either/or colors. Real couples have more complicated lives than the couple he dreams up: the-cheat-and-stay-sane or divorce-and-go-crazy-couple. Has anyone met a couple like this? I haven't. Which reminds me: he is also guilty of another fallacy:oversimplification. And, another: false analogy.

7) Savage fails to grasp that cheating is, in fact, the one and only one valid reason why anyone anywhere should/could seek divorce. He is like a doctor who endeavors to save a man's life who has a brain infection by cutting off the man's head. Sure, the brain infection will no longer impact the patient's body. The brain infection won't have a chance to kill him. On the other hand, cutting of his head will kill him. So, this is not much of a cure.

An individual has no warrant to seek a divorce because their beloved is not gratifying them sexually. What of the man who marries a woman who afterward becomes an invalid? Also, isn't the whole point of marriage that you will stick to your beloved during the hard times? What about that section in the marriage vows where people say, "... for better, or for worse." When you imagine yourself as "suffering" because your sexual longings go unfulfilled, that's what you were talking about when you said, "or worse."

But, if someone is confused enough to follow Savage's advice, and they actually engage in an affair to "save" their marriage, then their husband/wife does have every right to seek a divorce from them.

7) Divorce is not always, as he seems to think, "evil." In cases of adultery, divorce may be just and right. I say "may" because every situation is different. But, this much is sure: if one's husband/wife is unfaithful, the wronged party is the one who was cheated on (not the cheater), and the wronged party may seek divorce without guilt.

8) Savage asks, "If one person is completely done with sex and the other person is not done with sex, what do you advise people to do in that circumstance? Divorce? Traumatize their children?"

Here's what I would not advise them to do: betray their marriage vows and live a life of infidelity and dishonesty. Yeah, that is definitely not what I would advise them to do. I'd advise them along these lines: Grow up. Be adults. Serve each other in love. Also, for the one who is "done with sex" -- I'd advise this person to remember that, when they entered marriage, they gave themselves body and heart to another. Their body is not their own, just for their own gratification, but should be an instrument of love and care for their beloved.

***

Finally, and thankfully, we need not live in Savage's world of lesser evil. There's more colors than black/blacker; there's more colors than you can even take in during a life. We need not live in Savage's world of slavish despondency and resignation to evil. We might be free. We are not slaves to either this evil, or that evil, with no choice beside. We have a choice. In fact, we have a million choices beside evil. We can do anything, anything but evil. We can buy a tie. We can learn to fly. We can cry. We can find an egg to fry. We can multiply. We can decide to be satisfied, or satisfy.  We can find allies. We can scan the skies. We can try, and try. We can pry. We can eat pie. We can sigh. We can climb high. We can rely. We can our lusts deny. We can fight until we die.

Its not so much that we have limited choices in life, and only evil ones at that. We have unlimited choices, and scores of righteous ones. We can do anything we please, actually, because no one can force us to do evil. We can do anything under the Sun. Anything, that is, except the measly handful of evil options we stumble across.

It's not that life is full of evil, with no way out, except surrender -- true life contemplates a million good options, and stands staggered at how many good things there are to do.

When faced with a choice between two evils, choose neither. And lift up your eyes to the heavens to behold a land of good choices, a land of milk and honey, dripping sweet with righteous by-ways.

***

Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words... and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive... They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretense of (superior) knowledge... By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them.. and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth... Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself... Lest, therefore, through my neglect, some should be carried off, even as sheep are by wolves, while they perceive not the true character of these men... and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different... I have deemed it my duty...to unfold to thee, my friend, these portentous and profound mysteries... I intend, then, to the best of my ability, with brevity and clearness to set forth the opinions of those who are now promulgating heresy. ... I shall also endeavor, according to my moderate ability, to furnish the means of overthrowing them, by showing how absurd and inconsistent with the truth are their statements.

-- Irenaeus, Against Heresies. 

Risk, Freedom, Law

It used to be said that a man could have liberty, so long as it did not interfere with the liberty of others. This did afford some rough justification for the ordinary legal view of the man with the pot of beer. For instance, it was logical to allow some degree of distinction between beer and tea, on the ground that a man may be moved by excess of beer to throw the pot at somebody's head. And it may be said that the spinster is seldom moved by excess of tea to throw the tea-pot at anybody's head. But the whole ground of argument is now changed. For people do not consider what the drunkard does to others by throwing the pot, but what he does to himself by drinking the beer. The argument is based on health; and it is said that the Government must safeguard the health of the community.
If a man's personal health is a public concern, his most private acts are more public than his most public acts. The official must deal more directly with his cleaning his teeth in the morning than with his using his tongue in the market-place. The inspector must interfere more with how he sleeps in the middle of the night than with how he works in the course of the day. The private citizen must have much less to say about his bath or his bedroom window than about his vote or his banking account. The policeman must be in a new sense a private detective; and shadow him in private affairs rather than in public affairs. A policeman must shut doors behind him for fear he should sneeze, or shove pillows under him for fear he should snore. All this and things far more fantastic follow from the simple formula that the State must make itself responsible for the health of the citizen.

-GK Chesterton

***

When tyrannical forces come to take liberty, they come not in ski masks, with machetes. They come smiling, and legislating laws that enhance public health. 

Risk is a necessary part of freedom. This means also risking getting chubby from drinking too much soda. Risk is possible for the person who has real moral choice and obligation and responsibility. This comes from a deep sense of dignity: from our root identity. The most responsible and free person in the universe is God. Also, the most dignified person in the universe is God. God has deep dignity: the self-knowledge that he can do whatever He pleases. Dignity and freedom are inseparable; freedom is a fruit on the tree of dignity. 

The danger of a law banning certain size sodas has to do with what it does to our dignity, not our waistline. Such a law is the government saying, "We are taking your freedom to choose because you are not big enough or dignified enough to make decisions. You must depend on us." Such a law is another way of saying, "The Government is in control of the person."

Whether you respect soda size or not, if you respect yourself, you are bound to buck a proposal that limits soda size. Such a proposal is also limiting your dignity: shrinking it down: saying, you count less in the universe than you thought you did, or hoped you did. 

Freedom is ultimately built on the concept of dignity; a person of dignity demands prerogative to choose for self. This necessarily involves risk because such a person knows decisions count and carry consequences. The free person assumes risk gladly because they cherish their dignity. 

At present, we consider Turkey a not-so-free society. However, when you compare Turkey's alcohol laws with NY's soda laws, you find a remarkable corollary; both claim to be in the interest of public health. Both claim to take risk away for the sake of taking care of people.

This is only comforting if you consider yourself the kind of person who needs to be taken care of.

***

Erdogan, a pious man who denies Islamist ambitions for Turkey, rejects any suggestion he wants to cajole anyone into religious observance. He says new alcohol laws, also denounced by the women, have been passed to protect health rather than on religious grounds.
- From, The Huggington Post.

***
Tingling made clear that the city's Board of Health was only meant to intervene "when the City is facing eminent danger due to disease," he wrote in the decision. "That has not been demonstrated herein."

But the mayor disagreed with this assessment, suggesting that actually obesity is an immanent danger. "The best science tells us that sugary drinks are a leading cause of obesity," Bloomberg said during a press conference in which he revealed that he would appeal the decision. "It would be irresponsible not to try everything we can to save lives, he went on. Adding later, "People are dying every day-- this is not a joke, this is about real lives."

What's more, the mayor explained, the disadvantaged were disproportionately affected: "Higher consumption of full sugar drinks leads to obesity and that happens much worse in poorer neighborhoods."- From, The Huggington Post.

***

Happy Meals have been outlawed in San Francisco. Very soon – unless a hero rises from the ashes – large soda will be literally illegal in New York. Two great American cities have taken it unto themselves to legislate public health. It is often bandied about that, “you can’t legislate morality.” That very sentence is self-contradictory. The speaker has a morality which amounts to not legislating some other type of morality. You can legislate morality; if not, then you can’t legislate anything. What is legislation, after all, but a set of laws pertaining to right and wrong? Morality is the only thing you can legislate. Legislation is the morality of a nation, codified.

A drama is unfolding in our nation's laws; this drama has been a morality play on the issues of equality and rights. Not once does a public figure stop to ask the simple questions: “What is equality?” “What are rights?”

For our governors, equality means “sameness." The speech on equality is unequal. And, we ought to seriously stop and ponder whether sameness is something we actually desire. Not all stars are the same; some are brighter than others. Not all people are the same: some are taller, some shorter; some brown eyed; some are men; some are women. Acknowledgement of this glorious diversity in the world is the embracing of true diversity. God makes men and women differ; he makes them differ among themselves, and among each other. Contrary to the claim that our national direction is for diversity, our national direction is careening toward sameness, toward non-diversity.

But our leaders and news sources have joined in this sameness; there is no resistance, no revolutionary.Those who claim to be revolutionary are beating the drum of the age, only slightly louder than their contemporaries. The secret of our time is that there are no dissidents. The two cycle news (Fox News v. MSNBC) system is really the one cycle news system; the two party system, really the one party system.

The cultural mavens have been very vocal about big things – actually, uni-vocal – but curiously silent on Happy Meals and sodas. To my knowledge, none of the intelligentsia has risen to condemn the inequality of a 16 oz. soda for a thirsty man requiring 32 oz. On the one hand, it seems the intelligentsia would like the government to grant more freedom; on the other hand, less. In both situations the government is domineering in that the government is viewed as the source of freedom, as the source of law. 

I am very serious when I say that soda is something worthy fighting for. If not now, when? If not us, who?

***

If you listen to Bill Maher, freedom means the ability to smoke pot publicly, and without criminality. Maher thinks Holland much freer than America because Hollanders can smoke pot to their hearts content. He errs in defining freedom as his unlimited individual will. He wants to smoke pot. Therefore, for him, freedom means everyone can smoke as much pot as they like. He doesn’t stop to ask whether anyone else would like to join him. No doubt, many would. But, it would be courteous to ask. The fact that he doesn’t ask is a fact which should cause us pause. The fact that he takes his view of freedom for granted – the fact that he doesn’t stop to consult other citizens – this is portentous. It looks like living in a free country amounts to Bill Maher doing whatever Bill Maher wants to do. But that’s not freedom. That is a dictatorship of Bill Maher. I might as well say freedom means I can drive as fast as I like, on any street,  I like for the simple fact that I like to drive fast.

Maher (and many others) err in defining freedom so specifically and individualistically. In another sense, they err in defining freedom amorphously, in vague generalities. That is, they don’t define freedom at all. They repeat “freedom” as a catch-phrase, as an ideal. But they never stop to ask, “What is freedom?” Freedom comes to them in a puff of marijuana smoke, nothing more; then, it lingers in the air as a cloud of smoke. Nothing more.

“The religion of the Servile State must have no dogmas or definitions. It cannot afford to have any definitions. For definitions are very dreadful things: they do the two things that most men, especially comfortable men, cannot endure. They fight; and they fight fair.”

***

"What is liberty?" It leaves the questioner free to disregard any liberty...
That is the problem, and that is why there is now no protection against Eugenic or any other experiments. If the men who took away beer as an unlawful pleasure had paused for a moment to define the lawful pleasures, there might be a different situation. If the men who had denied one liberty had taken the opportunity to affirm other liberties, there might be some defence for them. But it never occurs to them to admit any liberties at all.

-Chesteron

Limits and Limitations

This I have to say to polyamory, postmodernism, those who think form doesn't matter in poetry or art, and to anyone who might be wondering, "Is God's law GOOD for me? It sounds sorta restrictive." Or, to anyone who might think, "If I accept the Christian creed, with all of its definite statement, it will limit my freedom of mind." Or, to anyone who believes gender roles are necessarily constrictive. Or, to anyone who believes that real freedom means freedom from all limits...

This is say: Da Vinci painted within the lines. Shakespeare used the form of the Sonnet. Far from stifling creativity, and free expression, form and order, and set limits, brought full blossom to the genius of these men.

This also I say, or rather, this is what someone else said that I agree with: limits are not the same as limitations. Limits provide an environment, the only possible environment, for playfulness.

***

But to “play with words” within the traditions of theology and liturgy is not to strive for innovation. The theologian or liturgist, as Stanley has also taught us, is not charged with the task of originality, but with that of fidelity to a living tradition that has some parameters, to a language with rules of speech. There are things we know we can’t say—like, for instance, “that majestic mountain over there is God”—but such limits are not limitations. Rather, they are, as Wendell Berry observes, “inducements to formal elaboration and elegance, to fullness of relationship and meaning.”

From, “And God Said . . .”: Creation, Word-Care, and the Care of the World, Debra Dean Murphy.

***

Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the pleasure of Paganism. We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff’s edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased.

Chesterton, "Authority and the Adventurer," Orthodoxy.



***

All next day at Beacon House there was a crazy sense that it was everybody's birthday. It is the fashion to talk of institutions as cold and cramping things. The truth is that when people are in exceptionally high spirits, really wild with freedom and invention, they always must, and they always do, create institutions. When men are weary they fall into anarchy; but while they are gay and vigorous they invariably make rules. This, which is true of all the churches and republics of history, is also true of the most trivial parlour game or the most unsophisticated meadow romp. We are never free until some institution frees us; and liberty cannot exist till it is declared by authority. Even the wild authority of the harlequin Smith was still authority, because it produced everywhere a crop of crazy regulations and conditions. He filled every one with his own half-lunatic life; but it was not expressed in destruction, but rather in a dizzy and toppling construction. Each person with a hobby found it turning into an institution. Rosamund's songs seemed to coalesce into a kind of opera; Michael's jests and paragraphs into a magazine. His pipe and her mandoline seemed between them to make a sort of smoking concert.
The bashful and bewildered Arthur Inglewood almost struggled against his own growing importance. He felt as if, in spite of him, his photographs were turning into a picture gallery, and his bicycle into a gymkhana. But no one had any time to criticize these impromptu estates and offices, for they followed each other in wild succession like the topics of a rambling talker.

Chesterton, Manalive, Chapter III, "The Banner of Beacon."

Reading Around The Lines

CWK

Here's a pretty common conversation circa the year of our Lord, 2013:

"So you don't believe in X? Your problem is you don't want people to be free. You enemy of liberty! You spread hate. You want to interfere in people's private lives. Why can't you just let people be happy and do what they please?"

Take, for example, my last post on the 50 Shades phenomenon. In speaking out against the rise of slavery intimacy, I have opened myself up to the above accusations. Boy, have I.

Here's my reply: You, my friend, also don't want people to be free. You are also an enemy of liberty. You spread hate. You want to interfere in people's private lives. Why can't you just let people be happy and do what they please?

To which, I am answered: "How?"

To which, I retort: You think child molestation should be illegal, and punishable, right? You also believe rape to be a serious and horrific crime: a crime that should be punished severely, right? And, you would be squarely against, say, a father marrying his own daughter. Right? Why, o why, do you hate child molesters? Rapists? Why must you spread hate like this? Why can't you just let them be happy? Why can't men just do as they please.

(Silence)

I continue: So, I'm right in saying that you also believe there are certain expressions of sexuality that are just wrong no matter the place or time, and no matter who consents, and no matter if it makes people happy?

"Yes."

I continue: You don't really believe that everyone should just do what they please. You don't believe that anyone and everyone who wants to get married should. You don't believe that any and everyone should just do what they want in private.

"Well, no, I don't."

I conclude: You don't believe the very creed you are trying to press on me. You don't believe your own beliefs. You yourself draw moral lines on sexuality; you yourself condemn certain expressions of sexual desire and practice. Therefore, you can no longer use the cliches about freedom and privacy and happiness in this dialogue. You're going to have to find a different ground to attack me on. Now, I'm listening. Attack away.