Tuesday, March 27, 2007

(Fan) Mail

Despite the fact that I have no shortage of strange opinions, I actually receive very little feedback from my articles, save for the shaking of one's head from a friend. Nonetheless, I received an email today, which I will answer here simply because I've never done something like this before.

Edward writes:

Hello, and congratulations on a great article in the LODE under
OPINION. Simply based on the fact that you wrote an Article on what
you believe but did not write the final Authority that you stand
upon. The Article does not clearly state your stand for or against
one who is gay, homosexual, lesbian or the like.

Please read the King James Bible, for it clearly stands against sin
such as being gay, Leviticus 20:13 which is under law, and Romans
1:28-32 which is under grace, most especially important to you is
Romans 1:22. The woman caught in Adultery where is that in the
Bible? Your article would have been better if it stated where,
unless you wanted the reader to over look the fact that Christ did
not condemn the woman like you said but it was because she was
repentful, and of course knew she had done wrong, SINNED to be exact.

It is also a truth that Christ that Christ forgave her because she
was under law, knew Adultery wrong, and wanted yes wanted

Eric Jackson also writes morality has "advanced" without any
references but the fact of the POPE, who supposedly stands for god
but which god I am not sure, with his mixture of religion and only
religion recongnized for being a country with ambassadors. Which
raises the question, does this advancement then ok other things like
child labor, sex with animals, human slavery, prostitution, killing
for disagreeing, marriage of a 40 year old man and a 12 year old
girl, terrorism, etc., etc...????

We know more about Sexuality?? What is your authority on that?
Paul wrote what GOD told him to, that is if you would read the King
James Bible. Paul was not against it, but he was for obeying the
very GOD who gave him power to heal, created him, and above all
saved him from hell. To know the LAW better does not change the LAW
but should give a better understanding of the LAW.

In closing, I do salute you on your courage to stand and present what
you believe, but also wonder what your authority is to which you
stand. I do not expect a rational and kind response, but what you to
know this:

Christ loves all: John 3:16
Christ hates Sin: Romans 6:23
Believe in his death, burial and resurrection and thou shalt be saved:
Ephesians 2:8&9

The King James Bible is my final Authority what is yours? Your opinion
came from something.

Thanks for your time and GOD Bless,

I responded:


First, I would like to thank you for writing. I enjoy feedback because it
helps me in my quest to become a better writer.

My Authority is the Roman Catholic Church. As such, I draw from the
Church's teachings on issues of morality and doctrinal disputes. However,
being Catholic is a complicated matter, and one I feel cannot be
sufficiently explained in an aside in the midst of a short article. Thus
I referenced, but did not directly quote, incidents from the Bible. For
the record, I use the New American Bible.

My thoughts are somewhat conflicted concerning the use of references for
chapter and verse. In an age of technology, it's neither difficult nor
time-consuming to find particular passages in the Bible, and allusions
thereto seem sufficient for my purposes, especially as copious citations
clutter the source. But this is largely a matter of personal opinion.

I think you misunderstood large segments of my article. You write, "Eric
Jackson also writes morality has "advanced" without any references." I
did in fact write this, but I did so sardonically. Or so was my intent.
I do not believe that morality has advanced. I explained how one would go
about making the case for it however, and this was perhaps where you
became confused.

Allow me to reiterate myself to make my case more clear:
"[T]he number of people who state, and apparently sincerely believe, that
the morality of yesteryear is no longer applicable in the modern world is
astonishing. Being an evolutionary skeptic and a moral absolutist, this
strikes me as peculiar..."

And again:
"Obviously an appeal to technological superiority is an illogical
recourse. It is a convenient ploy for the intellectually dishonest, and it
affords one a pass from surveying human history and philosophy. Like the
accountants of Enron, you can just make it up as you go along."

In short, like you I believe in Truth which does not change.

I didn't specifically condemn homosexuality because I feel that this
detracts from the issue at hand. By outing myself as one who views
homosexuality to be immoral, I risk losing a portion of the audience I
wish to convince of something. This shouldn't be the case, but it often
can be. My point was that Christianity and homosexuality (acts, not the
orientation) are opposed. My stance on the matter was thus essentially

Hope this clears a few misconceptions up, and thanks again for taking the
time to write.

God Bless,

Well that was fun. Next time I get mail we can do it again. Or not.

I guess I could go either way on this one. Your thoughts?

No comments: