Polemics

Christians have always stood up for a romantic, committed, exclusive view of sex

3 Comments

Consider this post from Michael Krueger, and it’s a must-read.

Excerpt:

[I]n the second century, as Christianity emerged with a distinctive religious identity, the surrounding pagan culture began to take notice.  And it didn’t like what it saw.  Christians were seen as strange and superstitious–a peculiar religious movement that undermined the norms of a decent society.  Christians were, well, different.

So, what was so different about Christians compared to the surrounding Greco-Roman culture?

[…]While it was not unusual for Roman citizens to have multiple sexual partners, homosexual encounters, and engagement with temple prostitutes, Christians stood out precisely because of their refusal to engage in these practices.

For instance, Tertullian goes to great lengths to defend the legitimacy of Christianity by pointing out how Christians are generous and share their resources with all those in need.  But, then he says, “One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives” (Apol. 39). Why does he say this?  Because, in the Greco-Roman world, it was not unusual for people to share their spouses with each other.

In the second-century Epistle to Diognetus, the author goes out of his way to declare how normal Christians are in regard to what they wear, what they eat, and how they participate in society.  However, he then says, “[Christians] share their meals, but not their sexual partners” (Diogn. 5.7).  Again, this is the trait that makes Christians different.

We see this play out again in the second-century Apology of Aristides.  Aristides defends the legitimacy of the Christian faith to the emperor Hadrian by pointing out how Christians “do not commit adultery nor fornication” and “their men keep themselves from every unlawful union” (15).

A final example comes from the second-century apology of Minucius Felix.  In his defense to Octavius, he contrasts the sexual ethic of the pagan world with that of Christians:

Among the Persians, a promiscuous association between sons and mothers is allowed. Marriages with sisters are legitimate among the Egyptians and in Athens. Your records and your tragedies, which you both read and hear with pleasure, glory in incests: thus also you worship incestuous gods, who have intercourse with mothers, with daughters, with sisters. With reason, therefore, is incest frequently detected among you, and is continually permitted. Miserable men, you may even, without knowing it, rush into what is unlawful: since you scatter your lusts promiscuously, since you everywhere beget children, since you frequently expose even those who are born at home to the mercy of others, it is inevitable that you must come back to your own children, and stray to your own offspring. Thus you continue the story of incest, even although you have no consciousness of your crime. But we maintain our modesty not in appearance, but in our heart we gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage; in the desire of procreating, we know either one wife, or none at all (31).

Compare that with the sexual ethic of Muslims, for example. It makes me wonder why any woman would freely choose Islam over Christianity. Or atheism, for that matter.

Here’s a pro-tip for women: you want men who believe in chastity before marriage and who believe in committing to you exclusively as protector and provider for a lifetime. And they should have to prove that they can be faithful and committed during the courtship, too. You can’t just take their word for it, they have to work before the marriage to demonstrate their ability as a husband and father.

This topic reminds me of my previous post about early church attitudes to abortion and infanticide. Yes, we were solid there, too. We really have always been on the right side of disagreements about sex and love.

News

Obama delays amnesty by executive order until after midterm elections

Leave a comment

From Human Events.

Excerpt:

The White House waited until a dead spot in the news cycle on Saturday to leak that President Obama won’t be handing out amnesty to five million illegal aliens before the election after all.  That’s how a craven political operation tries to control the spin surrounding an act of cowardice.  Obama’s style of “leadership” is mostly about keeping his media plates spinning, managing crises and scandals until the news cycle moves on and they die of old age.  That’s the essence of his non-strategy for dealing with ISIS – he just needs to keep them from pulling off any massive terror attacks, genocidal rampages, or major military advances until the media loses interest in them.

It’s very interesting that Obama’s amnesty orders – formerly portrayed by conventional media wisdom as a brilliant maneuver that would checkmate Republicans politically while changing the American electorate forever – have now become another plate he needs to spin, a political crisis he had to back away from.  The idea was that if Obama issued the orders, Republicans would be made to look like racist xenophobes by speaking or acting against them, but if they didn’t raise loud objections, their own base would desert them.  Instead, something very close to the opposite has become true.  Obama is backing away from his big amnesty giveaway because endangered Democrats are telling him the 2014 elections will become a party bloodbath if he pulls the trigger.  Not only will Republicans unite and become energized by the abuse of executive power to degrade American citizenship, but a sizable portion of the Democrat base isn’t happy about the amnesty idea, due to concerns ranging from national security, to the stress placed upon government services, to the tight job market.

I think his base of union members will not be too happy with losing their jobs to newly naturalized illegal immigrants, and that’s why he has to hide it until after the midterm elections. So we are seeing a situation in which the union members will work to get a man elected who will then take their jobs and give it to illegal immigrants. But this is normal – Democrats are not used to the economic way of thinking and seldom ask the most important question you can ask when it comes to economic policy – “and then what happens?”

Just to be clear, I am all in favor of legal immigration for skilled workers, but we cannot strain our economy by naturalizing a group of people who will take more from social services than they pay in taxes. On the other hand, if people who came here promised to pay for their own health care, education, etc. AND never take a dime of welfare AND never commit a crime, then we could take anybody and just naturalize them after 10 years of working here legally with work permits. And if they broke the rules in that time, then they would be gone. But Democrats are not looking for that kind of skilled immigrant. They want the votes of those immigrants who depend on big government and don’t understand free market capitalism.

Videos

Friday night movie: The Crossing (2000)

1 Comment

Here’s tonight’s movie:

IMDB mean rating: [7.5/10]

IMDB median rating: [8/10]

Description:

The drama is about George Washington crossing the Delaware River and the Battle of Trenton during the American Revolutionary War. The film opens with the retreat of the Continental Army across New Jersey after repeated losses and defeats during the campaign of 1776.

After the army narrowly escapes across the river to the Pennsylvania shore, Washington, realizing that something must be done or the Revolution will collapse, conceives a plan to cross the river and conduct a surprise attack on the Hessian garrison at Trenton.

Despite their own fatigue and the winter weather, Washington manages to lift his weary soldiers’ spirits, allowing the army to cross the river on Christmas night. The crossing is done in one night, allowing the troops to attack Trenton at eight o’ clock on December 26, 1776.

If anyone reading this blog wants to understand the true character of America, a very good thing to do is to read the book “1776” by David McCullough. It covers all of the events leading up to the crucial turning point of the American Revolution: the Battle of Trenton on December 26, 1776. I really recommend the audio version of the book. David McCullough also wrote the famous biography of John Adams which was shown on HBO, then turned into a DVD series.

Here’s a quick history of the American Revolution preceding the Battle of Trenton:

September 1774: Delegates from each colony met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in order to form the First Continental Congress. It was designed to discuss colonial grievances.

April 1775: Battles of Lexington and Concord: An organized Massachusetts militia (“Minutemen”) defended colonial munitions and forced British regulars to retreat back to Boston. Mother England was stunned.

May 1775: The Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

June 1775: The Continental Congress appointed George Washington as commander-in-chief of its newly established Continental Army. Soon after, British troops achieved victory at the Battle of Bunker (Breed’s) Hill but suffered severe casualties during three assaults against the determined colonial troops.

March 1776: Washington commanded the American siege that eventually forced the British to evacuate Boston. The British departed by sea for Halifax.

April 1776: The Continental Army left Boston and moved south to take a defensive position in New York anticipating a British landing. Washington had hoped to keep the British from occupying this locale. New York was a familiar base of operations from the French and Indian War. The colony of New York also had a strong Loyalist population. Additionally, the force which occupied New York would be centrally located and therefore able to keep New England cut off from the south.

July 1776: The Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Second Continental Congress, officially severed American ties to Great Britain.

Summer of 1776: Though the American were successful at making a worthy stand at Lexington and Concord as well as in Boston, they soon discovered that this was only the beginning as 30,000 British troops (including their Hessians allies) arrived in New York harbor. The next few months were filled with disastrous defeats and demoralizing retreats.

August 27-30 1776: The British win the Battle of Long Island (Battle of Brooklyn)

September 15, 1776: The British occupy New York City

September 16, 1776: The British win the Battle of Harlem Heights

October 28, 1776: The American army retreats at the Battle of White Plains

November 16, 1776: The British capture Fort Washington, NY

November 20, 1776: Fort Lee, NJ falls to the British

December 1, 1776: Washington’s troops retreated past New Brunswick, New Jersey and headed toward Princeton with the British following closely behind.

December 7-8, 1776: Washington’s army crossed into Pennsylvania from Trenton. They were deployed to guard the River for a 25 miles stretch. All boats remained with Washington’s army, making it impossible for the British to follow.

December 9, 1776: “All shops ordered to be shut; the militia to march into the Jerseys; all in hurry and confusion; news that General Howe is on his march….” Washington ordered, “Spare no pains or expense to get intelligence about the enemy’s motions and intentions.”

December 12, 1776: The Continental Congress abandons Philadelphia as they fear the British approaching.

December 13, 1776: Washington received the news that General Charles Lee was taken prisoner by the British at White’s Tavern in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Lee’s troops were slowly marching to meet Washington when Lee made a personal side trip which caused his capture. With the loss of Lee, some assumed that America would be forced into complete surrender as he was considered a highly valuable soldier.

[British commander] Howe announced that his campaigning season was over and he intended to winter in New York. Cornwallis intended to return to England for the winter, and, like Howe, he departed from the troops.

December 14, 1776: Col. Johann Rall’s (known as the Hessian Lion) regiment was left in Trenton as one of a loosely connected string of outposts which was to guard the king’s subjects in New Jersey and keep watch against an American raid. 1500 troops were stationed at this location while the bulk of the British army wintered in New York.

December 19, 1776: “The American Crisis” was published in Philadelphia. Thomas Paine wrote… These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

This essay rekindled the American people’s desire for independence and renewed the spirit of the troops.

December 20-22, 1776: Taking Lee’s place as commander, General John Sullivan delivered Lee’s remaining troops to Washington in Pennsylvania.

December 21, 1776: The Hessians thought little of the Americans, but they thought even less of their strategic position in Trenton. Thought criticized for not constructing defensive works, Rall felt Trenton was next to impossible to defend. He stated his concerns about his position as well as his troops fatigue to his British Commanders.

Rall’s regiment remained alert and concerned as to their tenuous position. They intended not to remain in Trenton but rather wait for the Delaware River to freeze allowing the Hessian troops to march across the frozen river and directly toward Philadelphia.

As you can see from the timeline, Washington has been losing battle after battle leading up to Christmas of 1776. His troops are tired, ill-equipped, sick and they must be released at the beginning of 1777 when their contract is up. Many have deserted already. What will George Washington do? Is this the end of the American Revolution? Watch the movie, and find out. Then read David McCullough’s book!

Happy Friday!