Saturday, January 06, 2007
Eugenics has multiple connotations. The evil form of eugenics is the killing of people or forced sterilization of people so that they may not pass on their genetics to descendants.
Today, genetic engineering and medical science are altering, opening up many other instruments of coercion or force beyond death and sterilization.
Surgery, pharmaceutics, and other means are making it possible for humanity to alter the flesh in ever more subtle ways.
Is all surgery and pharmacology evil?
Well, Jesus recommended that people who couldn't stop themselves from say sexually sinning against children to have themselves castrated. Also, on the mundane level, everything we eat affects the function of the flesh for better or worse. The apothecary started out as one who simply watched the effects of ingestibles and combinations of ingestibles on the various states of health and disease. Those things are not inherently evil. God, after all, provided the garden for us to eat and use wisely, fairly, and sustainably.
This does not mean that the spirit is still not able to affect the flesh and sustain it without the garden matter. It is. It is a state of being, mind, spirit that controls the gate.
Now, all of this raises the issue of what is the desirable state of the body, both fleshly and spiritually. What spirits are desirable to control the flesh? What spirits are desirable to control the soul? What is the good versus rotten fruit? Where is the strait gate? What is properly ordered flesh and soul?
Properly ordered flesh and soul is that flesh and that soul that is one with the unselfish spirit, and it is selfish to tell people that all flesh as born is born in a healthy state.
The question now arises as to whether or not one practicing spiritual transformation is necessarily rebelling against the real (the perfect) and the creator of the perfect. Is one's spiritual transformation an act of coercion, offense, punishment? Is it taking power into one's own hands that one ought not to hold? Is it usurping that which one ought not seek to usurp? Does one have the right? Is it right?
It all depends upon the spirit you think is that creator, the prime mover of existence, the fact of your very being (existing). It all depends upon the direction of that transformation relative to that prime-moving spirit.
First of all, spiritual transformation to the good and perfect is not possible to obtain by error. The perfect will not allow in error. The perfect is in total control of this. We in this less than perfect state cannot force our way by our willpower into the state of perfection that is perfect order. We are completely beholden to that which is already, and always has been, and always will be, perfect to enter into that state.
Second, spiritual transformation that heads in a deviant direction will never attain that perfect state. It may hold itself out as a shining example for a while. People or souls will be misled by that shining for awhile, but the false light will burn out.
Such is the light now that is calling for viewing the state of homosexuality as healthy, wholesome, healed, healing, saved, saving, and the rest. Will the path of homosexuality heal and save, or is it caving into confused, disordered lust of the flesh that ultimately is a path that will miss the new heaven and lead its followers further and further away from the real healing and saving and finally total health and the completely saved condition and state?
Does homosexuality open the wrong gate, the crooked gate? They call heterosexuals "straight."
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. (Isaiah 40:3).
What does that tell you?
The homosexuals are now up in arms over farmers looking into hormonally controlling their farm animals sexual behavior. The argument is that anything that comes into this world or that is impacted by the environment is not to be altered. This is an indefensible position. It isn't a question of whether or not to affect change. It is a question of the direction in which to change. After all, the homosexuals have been advocating change in society from not accepting homosexuality to generally accepting it.
Of course, we've known for some time now, many decades, that hormonal balance has everything to do with sexual orientation. The question is which hormonal levels are optimal on the mundane level and how best to accomplish the optimal.
Is it a matter of a person's freewill choice? Yes. No one ought to coerce it. Do parents have the right to exercise such choices over their children or does the state have the right to coerce the parents concerning such matters? That's the big mundane issue here.
The current state is a house divided. It is built upon coercion. The homosexuals are clamoring for state intervention into the households of parents who would choose to balance their offspring's hormones to effectuate heterosexuality.
Rather than coercion, they ought to state their case and let the spirit fall where it will.
Of course, the homosexuals are concerned that the coercive force of the apostate state will be turned against their kind. They think that they must close the door on changing the hormonal state on animals and people in order to prevent its use in reducing or eliminating homosexuality all together by state decree.
Here we are presented with the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a disordered state, as the Holy Spirit says.
Is the Real Church saying that the scientific manipulation of hormones is correct? It is correct for those who cannot through sufficient faith effectuate ending their sinning. It is exactly the same thing Jesus meant when he said that people, souls, are better off as eunuchs rather than pedophiles. Remember, it isn't all the results of science that are evil. It is the reason behind the developments. Are they selfish?
True, science is based upon testing and that's limiting. In the mundane though, science done by those who are not in it for private gain but rather to help unselfishly does not preclude its adherents from finding the strait gate through which science becomes unnecessary and ineffectual. It isn't the science that is the right means. It's the unselfish spirit.
Do we say that a parent can do anything he or she wishes with his or her offspring? Are we saying that the state cannot intrude under any circumstances?
We are saying that the divided house cannot stand. We are to warn clearly and plainly and let the sorting commence.
God practices eugenics. Nature practices eugenics. Satan practices eugenics. God purges and so does Satan. It is a matter of semantics. It is all contextual. There is the relative, and there is the absolute. God and Satan are diametrically opposed even though people have such a difficult time distinguishing between them what with Satan's faÃ§ade.
Jesus didn't come here slaughtering homosexuals. He came here to heal those who will be healed. The rest will go the way of everything that rejects the healing of the highest heaven. It is the way of it. This is the warning. It is not unforgiving. It is not coercive. It is not hypocritical. It seeks no pain and suffering for the ignorant willful. It seeks for them to turn in repentance. It seeks universal repentance, even though the essence of evil must be destroyed. That's the motive. The motive is freedom from evil.
Change your spirit and change the flesh and the soul. That's the message of Jesus. If we stop believing that anywhere along the line, we fall short. If we stop believing it just because we don't receive instant gratification, instant new heaven and earth, we fall short. Our souls do not consist of the flesh, and our salvation is our patience.
Don't take your cues from the confusion of baser animals. They weren't given the human brain. You were. They look to you.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)