Immoral Indignation And Log-Infested Eyes

Phil Harris

7/16/2008 10:31:39 AM - Phil Harris

Two groups will find this discussion to be unpalatable, despite the fact that they are otherwise diametrically opposed to each other. Perhaps, if this sliver of insight gets under some of the hard scabs that have encrusted our social skin, some measure of healing is possible. Of course, my own bias leads me to believe this is possible for one side, and unlikely for the other.

My bias is the result of believing several things to be true, all of which used to be the accepted social consensus. Examples of such are that homosexuality, sexual promiscuity and/or perversions, and abortion are not good things and consequentially lead to the downfall of individuals and the community. I segregate these from all other social “sins”, because these are interrelated in cause and consequence.

Homosexual activism has been stunningly successful through the years at perverting the social conscience. Medical scientists, being social animals first and foremost, bring this altered view to work with them. Sprinkle in a few beloved homosexual colleagues, and the drive to justify homosexuality is too much to resist, pure science be damned.

I give you the obvious problems of bio mechanics as an example of this phenomenon; although, the argument is stuffed quietly and immediately into lab coat pockets, and dismissed out of hand. Sexual intercourse, the required activity for the propagation of our species, has a known set of physiological components. The digestive tract represents another distinctly identifiable set of components. The two systems and processes, aside from benefiting the creatures to which they belong, are completely unrelated.

At least in terms of male homosexuality, if we recognize that the biology of the human body makes no allowance for the practice of sodomy, then what we are left with is the conscious mind of man. I would be so bold as to suggest, that if homosexuality were indeed a naturally occurring trait in our genetic code, we should see such represented in the construction of our bodies, considering that homosexual activities have occurred throughout the history of man.

Moving beyond the sexual component of sexuality, and into the realm of relationships between people, there are some observations to make. This too has been twisted and perverted by homosexual activism, and is perhaps the most damaging and damning for society. Close, loving relationships can and do occur between all combinations of people, and sometimes these relationships can take the place of a commitment between a man and a woman.

People used to call this friendship, and sometimes we elevate that designation with another person as “best” friendships. There is nothing absurd or wrong with the idea that these relationships can supplant marriage in the course of the lives of two people. Until the relationship is bastardized by adding a sexual component, the devotion and caring and even life-long partnering between two people is fine.

I have often heard stories about children who exhibit characteristics that lead people to believe these are little homosexuals in the making. Certainly, some have effeminate traits, but such thoughts would not have come to mind twenty years ago. Today, if a youngster exhibits a certain mannerism, or preference in play, he runs the risk of having his environment artificially shaped for him.

This overt preconception by adults may lead these children by the nose down a road they might not have otherwise taken. It is possible that such children need extra attention in shaping their masculine identities, rather than some twisted compassionate effort to help them become happy homosexuals. I cannot think of a worse case of child abuse, than to participate in such a thing.

We have a good friend who often brings her pet boxer to visit. The dog is delightfully child-like, full of energy, and utterly infatuated with my leg. He cannot control himself, and somehow culminates his enthusiasm for play and affection with a desire to propagate the dog-leg species.

I don’t hate him for his urges, and although I shudder in disgust, I recognize that he is an animal and has no concept of biology or morality. Unlike the mind of man, the mind of dog has no benefit of the knowledge of good and evil. He also has no concept of the nuclear family, nor the role of mother and father in “teaching” children about God, conscience, and caring for the community.

This in humans is sexual promiscuity and perversion. Unlike the dog, people know instinctively that sexual fantasies and acting them out with inanimate objects, animals, children, and members of the same gender is not acceptable and that these things fly in the face of the laws of nature. Such behavior grates on the intellect like fingernails on a chalkboard, just as we do not condone eating each other given the opportunity to do so.

We are infected now as with a virus. The fabric of humanity has been tattered by the systematic snipping away at moral constraints. Sex on demand, outside of the concept of family, outside of the concept of procreation, outside of the concept of marriage and life-long commitment has wrought consequences of disease, fatherless children, and the horrors of abortion.

Now, all that being said, there is the issue of judgment and condemnation by those who hold such behaviors to be sinful. In the eyes of God, there really is just one expectation on which we are judged, and that is to be obedient to God. Therefore, my sin is no less a violation of that expectation. It is not comfortable to say and it may be impossible for some to admit, but the sexually perverted have no more guilt in the eyes of God than do you or I.

Jesus was quite clear in this regard: (Matthew 7:1-5) - "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.”

It is important to note here, that Jesus was warning us not to stand in judgment and condemn others for their sins. He was not condoning or justifying the speck or the log in the eyes of either party.

We must fight this ongoing effort to justify immoral behavior sexual or otherwise, stand against the numbing of our social conscience, resist efforts to wrap sexual perversions in a cloak of marriage. It is critical that we prevent corrupted virtues from being taught to our children in schools and speak out when such is celebrated in popular culture.

But it is also critical that we separate our hatred for these things from the people who are afflicted by them; sort of the old adage, hate the sin but love the sinner if you will. Unless we are clear about this and make certain that we do not stand in judgment of individuals, our efforts to shape politics, policies, and social attitudes will be fruitless.

It is our role to participate in shaping our communities. The role of judging sin belongs to God alone. Thank God that he sent Jesus to stand in our behalf.