Dear Portrait,
As usual, an excellent post. Allow me to point out that our one hour in Church, plus Holy days of Obligation, are immediately drowned out the moment we set foot in almost any store that sells magazines or books, or when we turn on the radio, or listen to the TV news, and watch most TV programs. The words and phrases are repeated endlessly, the same words and phrases. So, we, in essence, by reading or hearing those words and phrases, meditate on them. This is an old propaganda technique. It makes even otherwise thoughtful and Christian people wonder: Am I missing anything? And notice the terminology: rights, bigotry and phobia. We are normally inclined to be for rights, if they can be shown to be legitimate, against bigotry, and understanding of the word phobia. So when the President of the United States, states that “I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry,” it makes me wonder: Here is an otherwise intelligent and articulate man, but he too, has been convinced of something. How? As the leader of this country, he has singled out a single group and attached his approval to their agenda.
snipped for space.
Peace,
Ed
Dear ed,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. You dispatch some splendid stuff your self, old chap, the above being no exception.
Homosexual propaganda, which many have been duped by hook, line and sinker, is indeed powerful and the activists have been jolly disingenuous in having any opposition to homosexual vice bracketed along with racialism, when the two are clearly not identical.
Significant shifts have occured in the way society views homosexuality, for example, dear friend, consider the use of the word ‘heterosexual’. If you look in the
Oxford Dictionary, Third Edition 1944; Reprinited with corrections 1947, you will find that there are over 70 words beginning with the prefix ‘hetero’, but ‘heterosexual’ is not to be found among them. Why? Because that dictionary clearly represents the thinking of a period in which the compound would have seemed tautologous. For the word ‘sex’ and the word ‘sexual’ are clearly defined in terms of male and female, thus: ‘the distinction between male and female’ and ‘relative to physical intercourse between the sexes’. What else, on this basis, can ‘sexual’ relationships be but relationships between the sexes? Thus whilst that dictionary certainly defines ‘homosexual’ as ‘having a sexual propensity for persons of one’s own sex’, it sees no cause to qualify the word ‘sexual’ for general purposes. Once you make a practice of qualifying the adjective ‘sexual’ by turning it into ‘heterosexual’, you at once imply that heterosexuality is but one variant of sexuality, of which homosexuality is another variant. The standard has gone and the norm has disappeared from view. What was once a deviation from normal and natural sexuality has become a variant as valid as the former norm. Now this sort of stuff, dear friend, gradually changes people’s perceptions in a very subtle way so that they begin to see what is aberrant as normal, even though different.
Since the social upheaval of the Sixties, men have become increasingly reluctant to pass judgment on departures from conventional (and normal) monogamous practices which former generations would have been bluntly hostile to, and quite rightly so. The
avant-garde of the Sixties and Seventies revolted against anything which even had the whiff of conventionality or traditional values, they were essentially iconaclasts destroying the old order and putting in its place the ‘new explanation’ or the philosophy of libertinism. In their wicked and childish rejection of what they deemed to be the ‘rigidities of the past’ and ‘societal stereotypes’, they went further and further in the direction of moral anarchy. Many good and God-fearing people. both Catholic and Protestant, did denounce this new godless ideology and warned of its dire consequences, but they were largely dismissed as the old guard refusing to accept the march of social and intellectual progress. Now this godless philosphy has caused immeasurable high moral damage in the West and undeniably has impacted the thinking of Christians, perhaps a great deal more than they are willing to admit. For example, many see nothing wrong with the use of profanity or women being indecently attired in seductive style clothing, such as mini-skirts, which plainly transgress the boundaries of propriety and one could go on. Suffice to say that many have assimilated the spirit of the age and have become desensitized to that which wrong and sinful. It is, as you rightly remark, dear friend, the reason why the dogma of the homosexual agenda has filtered through to the minds of the laity and clergy. We are less likely now to speak of homosexuality as an ‘abomination’ in the sight of God and as a henious sin that calls forth his wrath, as this is seen as disrespectful and even uncharitable,
notwithstanding that it is the truth.
It is now becoming, certainly here in the UK, well-nigh impossible to speak out against homosexual vice without being accused of a ‘hate crime’. Quite recently a godly couple who owned a guest house got themselves into jolly deep water because they turned away two homosexual men who had requested a double-room. Christians now feel very muzzled and even among their more worldly brethren, the more earnest men can seem like heartless Puritan priggs or like preachers of the fire and brimstone variety, devoid of any compassion. We are certainly living in very troublous times, but I think that the time will arrive when Christians will have to nail their colours to the mast and stand up and be counted. Perhaps that time is coming very soon.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
