Distraction

If one steps back and observes, one will see a commonality with all men, regardless of race, age or economic state. That point of commonality is "distraction". Of course, there are always exceptions, but in general, all men will have something to which they focus their attention, which draws them away from thoughts of eternity and immortality. Some men know and understand these concepts, but delivered choose to look elsewhere. Sometimes briefly, sometimes lengthy.
Other men have been raised from childhood to never think on these things and have developed into creatures of distraction, moving from one distraction to the next, never settling to focus on depth. On one hand, it could be argued that their state is not of their own doing, that they were raised from day one, to seek after the shallow it even the inane. But on the other hand, all men were created in the image of God and created to commune with him. Without excuse, all men are creatures of free will, inherently moved to sell out God.
I am not arguing that this distraction is necessarily bad. It, like any other option before us, can be used to help us or harm us. We must be mature and responsible and handled this freedom wisely. One could possibly relegated it to the same category as sleep. A necessity but only to be used as necessary.
And again, as I've said many times before, this must be attended to for ourselves and not others. What are we doing with our time? With what are we distracted? And for how long and how often? Do we use distraction to refresh and prepare for another round of progress? Or do we use distraction, over and over, to avoid reality? Ask yourself and be honest.

Born this way

One of the arguments of the “alternative lifestyle” crowd is, “We were born this way.”  In essence, the argument is built on the idea that one is born with certain passions/desires/preferences in regards to sexuality, therefore we ought to follow this path.  But is this really a valid pursuit?  Is this the way we ought to handle the passions or desires we have?  Is it valid to argue that these desires exist therein, therefore we ought to fulfill them?
What if our desires include pedophilia, bestiality or cannibalism?  Obviously, I am choosing extreme and/or perverse categories, intentionally.  One can include any desire one wants and the argument remains the same.  Does the simple existence/presence of a desire automatically legitimize that passion?  Does the possibility of a moral standard have any say?  We can offer arguments as to why it would be wrong to simply give into the passions of bestiality or cannibalism and most would agree.  But why do we agree with these arguments, based on particular foundational arguments, but not others?
It comes down to what we hold as foundational or authoritative.  For the Christian, the Bible and the teaching of the historic Christian faith has always identified LGBTQ as sin.  Can one really look to personal preference for foundational truth?  If we reduce truth to individual preference, we have gutted truth of any authority or legitimacy.

What works

In a strictly practical approach to analyzing life, we can simply ask, “What works?”  In other words, we can look at a variety of lifestyles, life choices and worldviews and ask if any of these “work”.  But in order to answer the question, we have to know what “works” means.  I would guess that most haven’t given thought to the criteria they use to determine if a particular lifestyle or worldview is successful.  Can we say the man who chooses homelessness as a lifestyle is successful?  We can if his goal was to be free of financial responsibility  and material ownership.  Can we say the pansexual is successful?  We can if his or her goal is to satisfy the sexual drive at any cost.  Can we say the business man is successful?  We can if earning their first million by 30 and ten million by 35 and they do so, at whatever cost.
But if we shift the goals of these life choice one space to the right, we would have to say that they have all miserably failed.  What really is at stake here is determining how we define success and upon what ground that definition is built.  Are we willing to define "success" upon our own thinking?  Are we willing to build our entire life and influence the lives of those around us, simply because we think we are doing the right thing, based on our own wisdom? 

Taking action

When we are moved to act, what is that which generated the need to act? Either external or internal doesn’t matter, what does matter is source of the move to act. Are we moved to act because of an emotional response or an academic response? In other words, have we thought about how we respond or are we simply acting from a state of passion?
It really does come down to this either / or situation.  Upon what is our response grounded?  As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that a response ought to be built upon that which is true, not that which is felt in the moment.  And this sort of thing doesn't just happen.  One must exercise or practice this response.  When spoken poorly to, when lashed out against, when criticized or mocked, how do we respond?  We must stop and think about what is the right thing to do, not merely respond, because a response like that will merely be based on flesh.  Of course, when one practices responding according to faith, eventually our immediate response will be based on faith,  But this we must practice and think through.