Sacred Sin

An old acquaintance of mine recently claimed to have reconciled his Christianity and his newly admitted same-sex attraction. He provided a lengthy explanation which followed this pattern (written from his perspective):

  1. Before I was openly gay, I had shame and feared rejection. Now that I’m openly gay, I feel great.
  2. I’ve been encouraged by lots of people, but there are also lots of judgmental, hateful bigots and I hate any law that would prevent me from openly working in a Christian institution. Damn those laws.
  3. I think our country is moving in the right direction on sexual ethics.
  4. Make sure you fully support anyone who identifies as LGBT++, lest they commit suicide.

The first thing that struck me is how this reasoning is consistent with the most radical anti-Christian sexual revolution rhetoric you can find: same-sex attraction is totally fine, people who disagree are judgmental bigots, religious liberty is a code-name for bigotry, we are Progressing, full acceptance of radical gender ideology is the next mile marker, LGBT++ people commit suicide because of evil hateful bigots being mean.

This is not the type of thing I would ever expect a Christian to write. In fact, were it not for a comment that he had somehow reconciled his “faith” and his “sexuality”, I would have figured he had abandoned Christianity altogether. Instead I conclude he has abandoned the content of Christianity while retaining the form.

My point for this post is not a comprehensive take-down of his poor moral reasoning, his unsubstantiated claims, or his vitriol toward Christians whose ethics are biblically informed and haven’t changed with the culture.

Instead, I want to illustrate how bizarre same-sex acts are as a category of sin. Imagine that, instead of same-sex attraction, this person was constantly tempted to rape women. Follow the reasoning again:

  1. Before I was open about my desire to rape women, I had shame and feared rejection. Now that I’m open about my desire to rape women, I feel great.
  2. I’ve been encouraged by lots of people, but there are also lots of judgmental, hateful bigots and I hate any law that would prevent me from openly working a place where women felt unsafe by my presence. Damn those laws.
  3. I think our country is moving in the right direction on removing the stigma from rape desires.
  4. Make sure you fully support anyone who wants to rape women, lest they commit suicide.

This is a totally unacceptable series of claims, and yet same-sex desires are elevated in such a way that they somehow get accepted, even among Christians.

I think there is a history here of Christians leaving behind the words of Jesus and Paul on marriage which has made any of this possible, but it is still striking. Same-sex attraction and same-sex acts are now sacred.

Advertisements

The Immoral Gag Reflex

The harbingers of the sexual revolution within conservative circles often point to disgust and gag reflexes as symptoms of bigotry.  One of the more insidious efforts of the sexual revolution was to shame people for their natural gag reflex.

The term “homophobia” is a bizarre neologism. No one “fears” people who are attracted to the same sex, so its meaning is left intentionally ambiguous. For most on the Left, it means any disagreement with same-sex acts at all. But on the Right, which has become simply a loyal opposition to the Left (moving Left with them) instead of standing on something concrete, “homophobia” has morphed into a term to guilt people who are disgusted by the acts performed in same-sex relationships.

But one need not fear (no one does) nor hate (few do) same-sex attracted people to be repulsed by the acts. Little do conservatives know that by giving in on this term, they have made the baseline for sexual attraction to be bisexual. If you are shamed for having disgust at same-sex acts, they become acts that you know are forbidden by divine command, but for no other reason. If the only reason to avoid an act is because you are commanded not to, you are far more likely to engage in it or to lessen your hatred for it.

We see the same thing in other places. If you command someone to eat better (maybe a doctor trying to help a patient), they will likely fail at dieting. But a vegan who is convinced this meat is to be reviled is probably going to stick very strictly to a diet.

Shame (when we do something wrong) and disgust (when we see someone else doing something wrong) are God-given.

But exclusively on “consensual” sexual issues, we are told that disgust is oppressive, mean, and “phobic”. We are told no such things when we see a murder, a theft, a scam, or a rape. With those things, we are encouraged to be disgusted.

This doesn’t even get to the far-reaching damage that the liberalizing perspective causes. There’s a vast distance between a man who finds same-sex acts repulsive and one who happily engages in them. If that repulsive reaction is beaten out of the man through coercion, that distance is reduced to nothing at all. By being forced to accept same-sex acts as perhaps immoral but not intrinsically disgusting, the man who has so far avoided the acts is now has lost his strongest defense. It is our revulsion of evil that protects us when our wills and our hearts, evil and weak as they are, fail.

Contrary to popular opinion, Christian charity requires disgust and revulsion at evil acts of all kinds. Only by passionately hating evil can we love people who engage in it. Anything less than a passionate revulsion of evil will make us tolerate sin, which is the opposite of charity.

Discrimination In the Fight Against Discrimination

The BBC has published an article to apologize for hiring people based on their skill instead of their sexual organs.

We’re in excellent company. Both inside and outside of the BBC, more journalists and editors are realising that, while the media didn’t invent gender bias, it has a key role in perpetuating it. The BBC’s director-general has announced a target of 50:50 across all of the BBC’s programmes and sites by April 2019. The challenge is also being piloted by media organisations in the US and Europe.

The article is like an encyclopedia for feminists. Here’s a gem from The Atlantic they quote:

“Women in science face a gauntlet of well-documented systemic biases. They face long-standing stereotypes about their intelligence and scientific acumen. They need better college grades to get the same prestige as equally skilled men, they receive less mentoring, they’re rated as less competent and less employable than equally qualified men, they’re less likely to be invited to give talks, they earn less than their male peers, and they have to deal with significant levels of harassment and abuse.”

As I wrote yesterday, the feminist angle is to ignore any of the interesting causes that might lie behind the effects they are seeing, and to instead assign a cause, namely sexism.

The author is careful to avoid mentioning the female-only scholarships, the female-oriented primary schools, the female advocacy articles (like this one) for cushy jobs. No women are demanding equal representation to work on oil rigs or fishing ships.

The only way the BBC can have equal representation of both sexes is to systematically hire on the basis of sex. They have quotas. If ten qualified people apply to the BBC for open positions, the BBC will first look at the sex of each of those people to determine whether they can be hired. This isn’t sexism or discrimination, apparently, because only men can be sexist, and only women can be targets. This is the very definition of an unequal measure and of unjust discrimination, but that’s a point that’s been safely ignored for decades.

We started to make gender-even sourcing a requirement in all our commissions, something requested of our writers along with a deadline and word count.

The BBC is admitting that the quality of a source is less important than the sex of the source. This is beyond virtue signalling and into clear social Marxism.

The try to counter this with nonsense:

To make it clear, we will continue to interview, and reference, the most qualified people. That hasn’t changed, and nothing about seeking out female voices undermines that.

“Yes, my job is to serve readers by finding the best sources for my stories, but why assume that the best source isn’t a woman?”

Notice the false framing. No one suggested that we ought to presume men are the best sources. We just don’t want to presume that the best sources are equally men and women. There’s no warrant for that whatsoever. The BBC knows this, but can’t admit it, so they hide behind a defense against an obviously flimsy argument that no one has made.

What’s astonishing here, even for me, is how little self-awareness the author of this article or any of the quoted sources are. For all the moaning about unequal percentages of the sexes in every single metric that can be conceived, the authors refuse to acknowledge that men and women might be different. They hold two* contradictory notions at the same time:

  1. Men and women are exactly the same.
  2. Men are oppressors and women are oppressed.

They are forced to affirm (1) out of reverence to their false god, Egalité. They are forced to affirm (2) out of their commitment to the cult of Feminism.

They’d rather hold a contradiction at the center of their worldview than admit that the differences we see between men and women on various metrics is a result of innate differences between men and women and not from some evil spirit of sexism that haunts and guides the world.

That the BBC is so bold as to publish an article like this reveals just how far into the cesspool we’ve fallen.


*Granted, there are other contradictions held as well (e.g. women are better than men, women are naturally good and men are naturally evil, etc).

How Blame Fails

A bookstore in London noticed something in the sales lists of the top 500 rare books sold at auction in 2018: no woman broke the top 20. In fact, they began to average 1 woman every 100 books. They call this grim:

blame

Any set of data can be analyzed in limitless arbitrary ways. This same data, for example, would probably show that men of a certain age appear in the top 500 than men of other ages. Books probably come from some centuries more than others.

A more thoughtful person would probably not notice or care about any patterns. After all, this is a list of rare books sold at auction. The types of books that become rare and the demand for those books are contingent on innumerable causes. Maybe the third-place book made it so high because the author recently had a resurgence from a movie based on his work. Maybe copies of dozens of the books were recently discovered in an old library, allowing them to be sold. Maybe books written by women are produced in larger quantities than books written by men such that they never become rare. It’s all speculation. Professional investigations could be performed on each book and the buyers (if the data is available) and it might take years. It doesn’t seem to be a valuable use of time.

But what is a valuable use of time for the Perpetually Outraged is to quickly look down the official list of victims (from least to most victimized) to see if any are represented less than half the time. At the top of the list is women in general, followed by select racial minorities, etc. Lucky for this bookstore, they didn’t have to go very far down the list.

The bookstore doesn’t spend any time considering what the possible causes are for the results. Obviously, as men wrote more books in the past than women and older books are typically the ones that become rare, the obvious explanation is that we see exactly what we expect. There’s no systematic bias against women by people who collect rare books or people who auction them. There’s just fewer rare books written by women. Reflection is anathema to the Perpetually Outraged, so we fall instead to the default position of blame.

Feminists on Twitter soon took the data to say things it did not say:

blame2

Aside from some severe misunderstandings of scarcity (scarce books cannot be auctioned more frequently than less scarce books), the Twits also presume that sexism is to blame for the apparent discrepancy. Why do women have fewer rare books? Sexism. There can be no other explanation. Even though it would take a great deal of effort to determine if someone is a sexist (hating someone for their sex requires incredible knowledge of one’s inner thought life), the Twits have no problem applying the term to a bunch of strangers. Strangers whose names are not even known.

Where reflective, thoughtful people might, in extreme circumstances, wonder how best to improve their own writing, the feminist Twits blame sexism. It’s much easier that way.

The article concludes by reminding us both that female authors are not taught as frequently in the UK as male authors* (for likely similar reasons as above), and also that entire bookstores dedicated to feminism exist without issue. This isn’t something the author of the article should be so excited to mention. If women are read less than men even without dedicated bookstores selling only books written by men all while women do have such bookstores, feminists have bigger problems to worry about. The conclusion isn’t that men are sexist, but something much simpler: people in general don’t like female authors and blame keeps the harshness of reality out of sight for feminists.


*Maybe the accidentally anti-feminist Transgender movement will helpsolve” this problem by having men produce books while claiming to be women. That way men still write all the books, but ideologically pure liberals will stop noticing.

Privilege and Character

Someone on CNN accused a conservative of white privilege yesterday. She was soon stunned into silence as he revealed that he was black.

The concept of privilege offers a glimpse into the minds of progressives. In it, we can see that envy is a guiding principle in Leftist philosophy. That’s because privilege is simply a way of casting good character in a negative light.

There’s a grain of truth in the leftist lie, as there is in many lies. The truth is that some people are more likely to succeed than others because of their pasts. A middle-aged man who has worked hard for two decades is privileged over a man who has never held a job and his lived on government welfare since he dropped out of high school. A child who has a married mother and father is more likely to succeed in school, marriage, and a career than the child of a single mother.

Historically, those who had strong character were admired. It was a good thing to make good, tough decisions that required sacrifice. It was good to work hard to privilege one’s children instead of squandering their inheritance. It was good to emulate men of honor and character.

Progressives have a different commitment, though. When someone is successful, progressives look on them with envy and suspicion. A man who succeeds must have done something wrong and crooked to get where he is. He must have stolen from someone or cheated someone or hurt someone.

The Left has classified the world in postmodern oppressor/oppressed categories, such that the more “oppressor” categories a person finds themselves in, the more suspicious we should be about any of their success. Where historically the important question was “how can we succeed?”, the Leftist asks “how can we tear someone down because of their skin color, sex, and beliefs?” The Left doesn’t build on the work of the past, but makes sure to destroy everything to preserve a flat wasteland of mediocrity and failure.

This is more insidious than presuming a man must have had his success by virtue of being white when he is actually black. The Leftist model actually encourages people they deem “oppressed” into behaviors which keep them poor, dependent, broken, and flailing. Instead of urging people in these groups to strive for the kind of character which leads to success, the Left encourages envy and hate. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where the Left encourages the very behaviors that lead to the very situations they claim to champion against.

It also reveals some inherent racism on the Left. When a white man succeeds, its his “privilege” that does it. He comes naturally equipped for success. When a white man fails, it’s in spite of his “privilege”. The opposite is true of black men. They succeed in spite of their disadvantage of being black. And failure isn’t a big deal; it’s expected. After all, they are black. This explains why progressives are far, far more likely to talk down to minorities, even to the point of treating them like children.

I see this attitude even among lefty “conservative” women on subtly different topics. For example, I’ve made the strongly evidenced claim that women should marry before having children and stay married if they want the best possible outcome for their children. “Conservative” women were very quick to tell me how mean-spirited and cruel my suggestion was. Even though this is extremely good advice for young women, we can’t have it spoken aloud, lest the women who have already made mistakes feel bad. I have another post in mind for the topic of sympathy-as-hatred, but this example also fits here.

Calls to good character are condemned – by the Left as privilege and by some “conservatives” because it might make people feel bad. The real victims, though, are the people who could live much better lives by being encouraged to make good decisions who are instead told that the consequences of their actions are someone else’s fault.

Special Treatment

I recently ran across a comment someone made about sodomy. The author claimed to be a Christian, and was upset that other Christians made a big deal about sodomy and same-sex attraction. “What’s the deal with Christians and homosexuality?” It sounded like the start of a bad joke. Ultimately, his solution was to “be kind and let God sort it out”, unlike all those evil, mean “fundamentalists”.

This was all very odd. For one thing, it seems strange to put the cultural focus on same-sex attraction at the feet of Christians. If anything, Christians are slow to respond to a total moral inversion in the West regarding sodomy. Within a generation, anti-sodomy laws were replaced by laws against any critique of sodomy. That means in less than 20 years, what was considered so evil as to be punishable by law became so good as to have any opposition to it punishable by law. Christians are making too big a deal out of this?

It gets worse though. God doesn’t allow Christians to “be kind and let God sort it out”. That sounds a bit like Christianity without the Gospel. What did Christ die for if there is no sin?

But things can get worse still. Paul spends a great deal of time condemning same-sex sexual sin. He calls it shameful, and he even says talking about it is shameful in Ephesians 5:

For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God…

…For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.

So while our friend wants to condemn Christians for taking issue with same-sex acts, it turns out Paul was disgusted by them and treated them as utterly contemptible and shameful. The acts are called abominations throughout Scripture for good reason. For some reason, modern Western Christians would rather eject you from your congregation for having a natural, God-given gag reflex than for engaging in same-sex sin. This is totally backwards.

The thing about sodomy and same-sex sexual sin in general is that it is so damaging to one’s body and soul that it serves as its own punishment. As Paul says in Romans:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth…

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Where Paul and the rest of Scripture treats sexual sin in especially harsh terms, the modern, Western Christian treats it in especially soft and careful terms, if at all. That tells us more about the theology of such people than anything else.

Some Binary Skepticism

I’ll continue two things today: the longest streak of posts I’ve written on this blog to date (a trend I hope continues), and another unrelated topic to my previous posts (which can’t go on forever, can it?). This topic isn’t too deep and it isn’t too controversial, but it’s been on my mind. It’s nice to take a break from pressing issues.

A number of memes have made their way onto my monitor in the past few weeks about extroversion and introversion. I remembered reading a blog post years ago on the topic, and managed to find it. I highly recommend it.

While I usually hear the term “binary” used by radical inhumanists who deny our sexual reproductive nature, I think the binary of introversion and extroversion really does deserve some scrutiny. Back in middle and high school, I considered myself an introvert. I was quiet, shy, and didn’t have too many friends. But even back then, I noticed that something strange would happen as I’d spend time with people I knew well: My personality would change.

It took many years to think about the ramifications of that fact, but it seems pretty obvious now. There’s really no such thing as an introvert or an extrovert. One particular meme I’ve come across presents the two as getting “energy” from different sources; the introvert from time alone and the extrovert from time spent with others. The implication is that “energy” would be drained by spending time with others (for the introvert) or spending time alone (for the extrovert). But “energy” is ambiguous. And I can’t think of anyone who could spend every waking moment in conversation with other people or totally isolated for years on end. At some point, we need time to ourselves, and at other points, we need time with others. The ratios may be different, but they probably change over time and with different circumstances.

As the blog mentioned early says, people who claim to be extroverts are happier and have more productive, full lives. You can spend your time concerned with placing yourself into (what seem to be) arbitrary categories, but that’s a waste. Better to spend time on simply acting in the way you’d like to act. If you want the benefits of being an extrovert – just act that way.

It seems at first like this is asking too much. I suspect several friends of mine would think so. But I have some genuine personal experience that lets me know it’s possible. Even today, it takes work for me to make small talk and even leave my home sometimes. But I do the work anyway, and reap the rewards for it. I rarely enjoy going to big events, but I go anyway.

I put the suggestions in that post to work, and predictable results followed: Despite my personality being about what it was over a decade ago, I now lead teams, give presentations, and speak in front of groups all without any problems. I still dread it sometimes, and as I said, it still takes work to pull it off – more than it might for others. But I do it anyway. None of this is to boast, but to say it can be done. And now that I know it, I find the terms “introvert” and “extrovert” to be without any good use. While real binaries exist (like the sexual binary), there’s no need to invent new ones and then force oneself into them permanently.