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.

That which we call reality

It has been in my mind to a larger degree, as of late, that our reality is far greater than those things we take in via our senses. The Christian worldview is made up of much more than simply physical behavior. To be a faithful Christian, we must learn to direct our thoughts and our actions by our spirit's leadership rather than that of our flesh. Of course, this is completely contrary to the average American way. It seems that our direction, almost from day one, is physical comfort and ease. In other words, what can we do to make ourselves more comfortable and find more free time.
Alternatively, the Christian ought to approach life as an opportunity to learn self control and to learn to love others. This really points to the primacy of the spiritual over the physical. When we focus on making ourselves comfortable and on being entertained, we are giving in to the leadership of our flesh. The reality of life after life after death cannot be ignored.
The pattern of our life, following birth, is three-fold. We start with our initial life on earth, the typical "go to school, get a job, get married, raise kids, retire and then die." Second is life after death, the period of time that most people (errantly) think of as eternity. But this disembodied state is very temporary and very unnatural. Third, is life after life after death. This is what we actually need to think of as eternity. When time finally comes to an end, all men will be given new resurrected bodies (remember, Jesus took the power of death when he resurrected and ultimately death is to be destroyed). Upon receiving our new bodies, we will pass through the final judgement. From this point forward is eternal life, either enjoying the immediate presence of God, as God is everywhere and in all things OR we spend our eternal life hating being in God's eternal presence. And this is the point of this blog.
If we spend our short time here on Earth focused on pleasing and entertaining ourselves, ignoring the spiritual side of reality, we will spend our eternity unprepared for the presence of God. Alternatively, if we see beyond the tiny sliver of reality we think of "it", and embrace an approach that realizes the spiritual and the physical, we will be prepared to enjoy an eternity rather than a mere century (at most).
Reality, for the Christian, is about using this time on earth, preparing our souls for eternity. If we have limited ourselves to comfort and entertainment, we have believed the lie sold to us by the world.
And we really ought to be better than that.

Don't confuse

In a recent conversation with an acquaintance, the term 'love' came up. I immediately responded with, "Love is not an emotion", with which he wholeheartedly disagreed. But alas, as is often the case, people don't think through and carefully articulate their terminology.
The way one may feel about love is an emotion. But love itself is an action and a state of mind. If we are faithfully following Christ's command to love our neighbor, we do so regardless of how we feel about him. Our feelings, in this case, are irrelevant. We love because it's the right thing to do. And no one dislikes love, giving or receiving.
But there are two other terms here to consider. One, "like", is completely an emotional response. We may hear a beautiful piece of music and because it emotionally moves us, we like it. We may really like to be with a particular person, because of the feelings we have when we are with them. That's all fine and good, but it not love. It is a focus on ourselves.
Two, "romance", is closer related to love, but still distinct from it. You may feel madly "in love" with someone, but it is really just an amplified "liking" of them. And if our marriage is built on romance, it is doomed to fail, for romance is fickle.
Our marriage shouldn't be built on liking someone either. For sure, we should like the person to whom we are married. But that will fluctuate as well, depending on our mood, on their mood, depending on the weather, or even depending on how our day went. But none of those things have any bearing on our love for someone else.
We love others because it is right and because it is a manifestation of who we are, as Christians. Jesus said it, let them know you by your love (John 13:35).

The Dynamic Life

Ok, I admit it, the title is a redundancy, in case you picked up on that.  Life, by definition, is dynamic.  In other words, our life is always full of life, active and moving.  Even for the couch potato, the assembly line worker and the elderly in the nursing home.  Of course, these are stereotypes, but a stereotype is a stereotype because it is built on the reality of the picture. 
So the title "The Dynamic Life" does not necessarily mean the "productive life" or "the positive life", but simply that life is ever changing, never static. As we go through our days, we are doing something, both physically and mentally.  We are either growing and improving or growing and diminishing.  There is no such thing as a static human being. 
So the question is, "Which one are you?"  In our day and age, there are so many possibilities for growth and improvement. But at the same time, there are so many opportunities for distraction and loss.  We can put in our eight hours a day of work and then waste the rest of our time in distractions and entertainments.  In this case, we are diminishing, as we are not using the mind and/or body that God has given us.  Or we could be using the rest of our time for the improvement of our minds, our bodies or the improvement of others.  Granted, there is the fourth option of our efforts going toward the diminishing of others, and unfortunately, this is common.
So where are we at?  A slow decline into mediocrity and waste or are we growing and improving.  We only have so much time, considering that most of us have to work and sleep, which is 2/3's of our day.  What do we do with the other eight hours?

The view of ancestral superiority

In a paper that I recently read, "The Perils of Omnisignificance: Language and Reason in Mesopotamian Hermeneutics " by Eckhart Frahm, the concept of appealing to the distant past as the repository of truth is found in first millenium BC Mesopotamia. The question that came to my mind, upon discovering this, is that of "why".  Why did the Mesopotamian philosophers, of that day, come to embrace the concept of ancient superior? Why did they believe that the past held the truth?  For the Orthodox Christian, we look to the first century truth as the fountain of truth, simply because it was the first century believers, who had been taught by Christ, living and learning directly under his leadership.
Of course, the Orthodox church does not limit itself to only what is found in the first century.  As the church has continued to grow and mature, our beliefs have not changed, but have been clarified over the centuries.  As we have come to cultural situations where explanation is necessary, the church has promoted learning and understanding, and giving energy to the clarification of doctrine.
But the original question, "Why did the ancient Mesopotamian philosophers look to the further past for truth?" remains to be understood, at least by me.  What was their thinking and their presuppositions built upon?  What did they know about their ancestors and philosophical/intellectual predecessors, that we do not?  To whom where they appealing?  To whom did they intellectually submit?
The time frame for this paper is first millenium Mesopotamia.  This would make these peoples contemporary with King David in Israel.  This would make these people the descendants, 500 years past, of Abraham, who came from Mesopotamia.  I do not, at this time, have an answer, but the idea of coming to an understanding of what drove ancient philosophers to embrace the hermeneutic they did, is fascinating.