The Most Rev’d Peter Akinola is the Archbishop and Primate of Church of Nigeria Anglican Communion
THE CHURCH of Nigeria is an Evangelical Church. It upholds the authority of scripture and is unreservedly committed to mission and evangelism that results in conversion of people to the Lord, church-planting and the caring ministry. In this Church, we teach about the total depravity of man and his absolute need for salvation through faith in Jesus the Christ. For us, therefore, adherence to scripture is not only paramount, it is also non-negotiable. In matters of faith and practice, scripture provides sufficient warrant for what is considered right and what is judged to be wrong.
In recent times, we have been told that the issue of homosexuality is relative. We believe it is not a relative matter. In the context of our part of the Church and society, we see it as a behaviour that is expressly forbidden and roundly condemned in scripture. For instance, Leviticus 18.22 commands: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (See also Leviticus 20.13; Genesis 19.1-14, 13.13; Romans 1.26-28; cf. Leviticus 18.23.)
This is why it is such a crucial issue that it cannot be treated on relative terms, or accepted on the grounds of local pressure. Instead, it is identified in scripture for what it is — sin.
The point here is not of separating from sinners, with a holier-than-thou attitude, but objecting strongly to yielding to the permissive and satanic spirit, the worldly spirit of a materialistic, secularist and self-centered age, which seeks to mould everyone into its own tainted image.
Total depravity: “Potentially we are all capable of being a Nero or a Hitler. It is largely a question of lack of opportunity for self-expression. The simple act of coveting (which we have euphemistically renamed ambition) is stealing but for lack of opportunity. Lust is adultery but for lack of opportunity. Hatred is murder but for lack of opportunity. There is no moral distinction between men in their potential for wickedness: only the accidents of life place different kinds of restraint upon each of us. In spite of man’s tremendous creative energy, human nature is totally depraved at the source and any other view of man is dangerous in the extreme. This sad fact is recognized very clearly by the formulators of the Westminster Confession (XVIII.7):”
Further ..”To act acceptably before men is not beyond most of us for much of our lives, because outward conformity to the cultural standards of our society is usually advantageous and does not require that we be inwardly what we seem to be outwardly. But to act acceptably before God is quite a different thing for He demands inward conformity. Concealment is proper in social relationships and is largely covered by the word courtesy. In many aspects of social intercourse, human behaviour is acceptable and the exchange of service, ideas, and materials proceeds smoothly and without the effects of the Fall creating any serious disruptions. ”
Though I am really no fan of this brand of theology (it is grim and dreary almost beyond comprehension), it can allow for us to be a bit more empathetic towards those who we are quick to judge as evil. This awareness and empathy is something I often see lacking among those of us blessed with health, the love and support of family, wealth and all the other blessings of this life.
Wow.
Let’s just say that there is a huge difference between the U.S. and Nigeria, and that that differernce includes issues other than homosexuality.
A word of explanation. The Westminster Confession is thoroughly Calvinistic in orientation. I agree the notion of total depravity is a bit dreary, to say the least. It certainly is not Orthodox.
My point in posting it however, is to show the contrast between European (and American) Anglicanism and third world Anglicanism. We’ve seen Anglicanism slide into complete cultural irrelevance in the First World largely because of its wholesale accomodation to secular morality. Anglicans in the third world are closer to the received tradition, even if we don’t agree with their theological explications in areas.
Note 1: Total depravity: “Potentially we are all capable of being a Nero or a Hitler. It is largely a question of lack of opportunity for self-expression. … Though I am really no fan of this brand of theology … “
I don’t see the point or the relevance.
Note 2: “Let’s just say that there is a huge difference between the U.S. and Nigeria, and that that differernce includes issues other than homosexuality.
… and that difference and its relevance would be what?
I should have posted my source: they were from Arthur C. Custance who was an apologist for Calvinism, not from the Church of Nigeria. However, the quote cited here appeared to contain some Calvinist “catch phrases”.
Augie, my point was broader than SSM. There is something democratic about the Calvinist approach: none of us are really any better than anyone else except by grace and even luck (fortunate circumstances). This should influence the manner in which we deal with others, imo.
#6. JamesK, your intuition about Calvinism is true and vital. You’re on to the crucial importance of full humility before God, which does indeed set us all at the same level. That level, as St. Paul shows in the first chapters of Romans, is a low one: we are all condemned as sinners, whether we follow the Mosaic law or not. But for Jew and non-Jew alike, salvation is now made available for us by our loving God in the person of Christ. Only by being truly humble (understanding our true status as limited, sinful creatures)and repenting of our sins can we begin to accept God’s grace. When we accept Christ, we accept the notion that our own ways are not sufficient: our love inadequate, our desires selfish, our understanding limited. When we accept Christ, we choose to emulate the divine love instead, to desire God’s will over our own, to pray for divine understanding that surpasses all human understanding. Again, this is only accomplished if we remain humble, constantly reminding ourselves that without God’s grace, we are still sinful and inadequate.
Humility is therefore the key not just to repentence but also to living in the hope of the Kingdom of God. As we decrease, God increases in us. And this is true for everyone, without exception. The more spiritually mature person understands that the maturity, like all blessings, is a gift, and does not hold himself as more worthy than the less mature. God is not partial, as St. Paul tells us. All are in the same condition, all are called to the same salvation, all who respond are blessed with the same grace. The ways in which the grace is manifested differs from person to person, but not the grace itself. In matters of justice and mercy, God treats everyone equally. As part of the conditions of salvation in Christ, we must do the same.
Calvinism (which is an excessive logical extension of Augustine’s anthropological teaching that man was totally depraved by the Fall) makes the mistake of emphasizing depravity and punishment over God’s mercy. Orthodoxy, however, does not. The Orthodox vision is the same as the Scriptural vision, which understands God’s justice and His mercy in their fullness and in right relation to each other. The repentant Christian, the one who accepts his own sinfulness, his need for humility, AND the fullness of the salvation offered through Christ, knows that there is no contradiction between the two.
Let us offer humility to our God, so that He may show us even more the infinite riches of His grace.
Cheetah wrote: “2. You said that marriage is for procreation. I beg to differ. We need to curtail our reproduction. Does that mean we do not marry?”
Why do you believe that we should curtail reproduction?
On what Scriptural basis do you cite for this type of belief?
Cheetah wrote: “3. What say you about all the lonely hearts of gays and lesbians everywhere who are yearning for their heart’s desire. You deny them their marriage? You destine them to suffer for the rest of their lives for something they have no control over, their love for members of the same sex?”
Not every desire is righteous. Desire that flowers into passion leads us away from God, not toward Him. Physical and emotional unions between the same sex can never be marriage because they do not reflect the reunion between the male and female that God gave us marriage to help achieve.
It is not love for the same sex that is the problem, it is erotic desire for the same sex that is the problem. You are equating the two. Erotic desire is always in need of control, even within marriage. Many people over the years have found the deepest fulfillment in celibacy. Celibacy is a direct and forceful challenge to the sex soaked culture in which we live, a culture that demands any type of perverse sexual desire be given expression as the “right” of the individual. Only chastity, celibacy, modesty and self-control are unnatural and perverse.
Marriage and Celibacy
Celibacy is rarely a proper vow for anyone. I don’t see how one can love humanity in the collective sense when they have never experienced it on an individual level. It’s just so much theorizing otherwise. There are some who can love strangers with the depth and sincerity that the rest of us have for our family members (Mother Teresa comes to mind), but this is a truly rare gift. Committing to one person through the loss of youth and health and raising children with all its difficulties seems the best way of finally losing a little bit of that deadly serious self-centeredness we seem to have.
That being said, the approach to marriage in Scripture perplexes me. St. Paul hardly gave it a ringing endorsement, recommending instead that people remained as he was (single) and recommended it only as an afterthought to those who were “weak”. In addition, most of the Old Testament prophets, even the ones “after God’s own heart”, were at the very least polygamous when they didn’t have an outright harem of concubines. In an era when merely talking back to one’s parents earned one a public stoning, the relative silence on this is curious, indeed.
Where do gays and lesbians fit in all this? I’m not sure. Again, I can only go by experience, which I must admit is rather limited, and I can say those I do know are certainly no less virtuous than anyone else, but they’re also not the types who define themselves by that characteristic alone. I believe in healing people of tendencies towards sexually objectifying themselves and others, but non-specific “attractions”? Hmmm.. again, don’t know. I hesitate only because if someone told me that I could no longer consider Bach or Rachmaninoff to be “beautiful”, even if it were good for me, I don’t know if I could or would do it. It would hurt in a very deep and personal sense, and I wonder whether this is analagous in any way to the situation that gay Christians go through with this “reparative therapy” stuff. But again … I’m grasping here.
overpopulation myths…we can take every man, woman and child in the world, put them in 4 person apartment houses and fit the entire world’s population in the state of Texas…If we, as Christians, don’t start “repopulating”, the Muslims will overtake us and there won’t be anything left…They are already all but taking over Europe…
Cheetah
Why do you feel you need the approval of any particular religious denomination. Why don’t you just lead your life as you see fit? There are groups of people who consider themselves to constitute a church which advocate your views, why don’t you join them? Membership in the Orthodox Church is voluntary.
As a secular matter, the historical record shows that human beings can gratify themselves in any number of ways. Society has a right to choose the types of relationship to which it gives special legal status. Western civilization has chosen to reward people that joint together with the potential to bring children into the world OR the ability to provide a good home for children. Even if a couple doesn’t have children, they can serve as foster parents or adoptive parents for needy children.
If your interest is soley in human relationships you don’t need legal status. You can live together, share funds, leave each other property in a will and execute a medical power of attorney for each other. This can be done today.
Talking Past Each Other
Cheetah, you can address issues raised by homosexuality on at least two levels: first, a matter of public policy and second, as a religious matter.
The status of homosexuality as a secular matter, is just that. A secular debate among various citizens. So far, gay marriage has been rejected by the electorate and only endorsed by a few isolated judges. Only a small percentage of the population defines itself as exclusively homosexual, and the remainder of America does not believe that a upheaval in our society is required to accommodate those folk.
As a religious matter, Orthodox Christians accept teachings of their Church as true and as controlling of their conduct. Orthodox Christians, like many other Christian Churches, believe that Holy Scripture as well as the Traditions of the Church clearly identify homosexual conduct as immoral and offensive to God. Christians believe that God is all-wise and that sometimes His ways are difficult for us to understand because we are like children compared to God. This means that Christians trust God’s wisdom even if, at the time, the teachings are difficult. Christians believe that sexual impulses need to be mastered and directed properly. Christianity does not teach that this is easy, it openly teaches that it is difficult to do so, but, it is worth doing. Christians believe that our Faith and our minds should control, not our sexual urges. We don’t believe that sexual urges make a good basis for decisions.
In my life experience I have encountered many situations in which a person deeply and firmly believes that the emotions they are experiencing should be given the respected status of love. I have had people explain to me that they “love” the man who just beat them. This is not love it is unhealthy low self-esteem and dependency. I have had people tell me that cheating on a spouse was acceptable because they were acting on love. Hurting a spouse and breaking up a family is never the by-product of true love.
So human beings can be very confused and misdirected if they simply follow urges and directions. My personal experience is that there is no true and lasting happiness apart from God’s ways, there will never be any true peace or satisfaction in life without God. This is my observation from my own life and the lives of those I know well.
You have a right to decide whether you will accept the Orthodox teaching on this matter, or the teaching of some other religious group. Why do you think it important to change the teachings of this Church since you are free to reject them or join another religious group.
Check out Narth for information on reparative therapies.
(Not too sure how a therapy that is voluntarily taken on can be “harmful and invasive.” Are you sure the gay lobby isn’t threatened by reparative therapy because it challenges some key ideological claims about gay self-identity?)
#10. JamesK, you wrote:
“In addition, most of the Old Testament prophets, even the ones “after God’s own heart”, were at the very least polygamous when they didn’t have an outright harem of concubines.”
What is your Scriptural source for claiming this?
You also wrote:
“St. Paul hardly gave [marriage] a ringing endorsement, recommending instead that people remained as he was (single) and recommended it only as an afterthought to those who were ‘weak.'”
You are partially correct, in that St. Paul didn’t prefer marriage for himself. Let’s remember, though, that St. Paul also confidently believed that Christ would return during his lifetime (the 20-cent academic term for this concept is “imminent eschatology”). He therefore thought that under the circumstances, marriage was a distraction from the very urgent business of preparing for the final judgement. But this didn’t mean that he disapproved of marriage. Quite to the contrary, he spoke of it as participating in the mystery of Christ’s union with the Church. This has become the central tenet of the Christian theology of marriage.
Bill, you can find info here. Note that I do not endorse the point of view that polygamy is to be encouraged. I’m simply noting the prevalence of it among the Old Testament prophets.
Moses:
2 Wives, Zipporah and the Ethiopian Woman
“And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.” Exodus 2:21. (See also Exodus 18:1-6.)
“And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.” Numbers 12:1
Abraham:
3 Wives – Sarah, Hagar and Keturah
“Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.” Genesis 16:1
“And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” Genesis 16:3
“Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.” Genesis 25:1
King solomon:
1,000 wives – Sidontans, Tyrians, Ammonites and Edomites
“And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.” 1 Kings 11:3
#17. Female Cheetah, you asked:
“Does ever belief of an Orthodox Christian have to be scripturally based?”
The answer is yes. Scripture is the Word of God we are called to obey. The theological writings of the Church Fathers are commentary on Scripture. While they accurately (in most cases) guide the faithful in the ongoing process of conforming the mind and actions to Christ (also the Word of God), they are not themselves the Word of God.
It’s popular these days to speak of “making the gospel relevant to the world,” but this is wrong-headed thinking. It is better to speak of “making the world relevant to the gospel,” which means “bringing the world to the point of understanding the gospel.” The genius of the Fathers was to bring Hellenistic and other cultures to the point where they could understand and accept the Divine Word. While they spoke in the language of philosophy, the Fathers did not conflate philosophical precepts with the Bible’s revealed truth.
This is the true task of theologians today as well. Every era has beliefs that seem attractive and self-evident, but Christians must hold or not hold them according to whether or not they conform to the truth of Scripture.
#20. JamesK, thanks for providing the list, which does indeed show that polygamy was a part of Biblical society. However, none of the prophets whose words are preserved explicitly as prophecy in books bearing their names are shown as polygamists (while Hosea is on the list, his polygamy is only assumed).
On to the more important point, which is that the OT and NT show that between the time of Abraham and the time of Jesus, polygamy was gradually abandoned in favor of monogamy. We have to look at the Bible as a whole before saying that it supports or doesn’t support a particular custom. Otherwise, we lower ourselves to prooftexting.
Cheetah wrote: “Because the planet is overpopulated.”
You’re buying into a lie. The problems — such as poverty, starvation, etc — cited by many who seek the demise of humanity are distorting the truth. These human tragedies are not caused by overpopulation, but by mismanagement of resources and the intended destruction of people by governments. Paul Ehrlich’s disaster predictions never came to fruition.
Cheetah wrote: “Are you a Protestant Fundamentalist. If you are a proof texter I can not argue with you. I will present this to my biblical studies group and get back to you.”
It has nothing to do with being a “proof texter,” but pointing out that your belief in the overpopulation myth in contrary to historic Christian understanding.
You statement that somehow “people” must solve the problems on population is an unbelief statement. It places your faith in the workings of man, rather than the Creator. In essence your proof text to curtail human population is found in secular writings of self-determinism, rather than revealed Scripture.
Bill wrote: “On to the more important point, which is that the OT and NT show that between the time of Abraham and the time of Jesus, polygamy was gradually abandoned in favor of monogamy. We have to look at the Bible as a whole before saying that it supports or doesn’t support a particular custom. Otherwise, we lower ourselves to prooftexting.”
I would also add that Christ himself defines what marriage was intended from the beginning with his response to the Pharisees.
#14 — A bit off the main topic, but I’ve seen the world population in Texas idea. It works for packing a box, but not for life. If you think about how to provide them all with one glass of water for one day, you have problems. Bigger problems if you remember they will all use the toilet the same day. Not to mention eating, working, going to school. Those are the uncomfortable problems of world population; just palin living from day to day.
Overpopulation?
The planet produces enough food to feed everyone. The problem is distribution. Food distribution is blocked by politics in many important cases. The famine suffered by the North Koreans is artificial, it is the result of the policies of the North Korean government. It is probably the result of an intentional decision to keep the population helpless. Food aid has been blocked in Somalia and Sudan by armed militants for political reasons, again, hunger was being used as a weapon. Robert Mugabe has taken Zimbabwe from a net food exporting to widespread famine as he has destroyed its agricultural sector. Mugabe has received little or no crticism for his suicidal policies from African leaders, even neighboring South Africa which is dealing with refugees from Zimbabwe.
Efforts to control disease are often blocked for political reasons. Zambia needs to fight its malaria problem but it can not use DDT to kill the breeding grounds of mosquitos. It has a very high unnecessary death rate for malaria. Singapore effectively used DDT to get rid of its mosquito population, but, this was done before DDT was banned.
New varieties of food grains, varieties that can increase production by factors of 10 and 20, have been partially blocked due to opposition to genetically modified food. The opposition to GMF is a tragedy and is based on hysterical, non-scientific concerns.
Much well intentioned aid to the Third World has done little but build up the Swiss bank acounts of corrupt goverments. One of the biggest obstacles to economic properity in Africa is the refusal of the EU to lower its trade barriers in agriculture. The US has offered to lower its trade barriers, however, that would be disastrous to U.S. farmers if the EU didn’t lower trade barriers at the same time.
James K writes in #10: â??Celibacy is rarely a proper vow for anyone.â?? Wow. What a sweeping statement. First, in my comment, I never mentioned vows and was not even considering them when I made my post. Vows of celibacy are only appropriate for those who live an ascetic life in a community that supports such an endeavor, helping the members to stand against the worldâ??s temptations through concentrated prayer and fasting. Those who are called by God to a monastic and ascetic life should respond. It is not as rare a calling as some suspect. IMO it should never be rejected out of hand with the type of assumption inherent in your remark.
That being said, it perhaps would have been better to use the word chastity as that connotes a spiritual/emotional state that allows for proper sexual expression within marriage. However, there is a rather large class of people for whom celibacy as a way of life is always appropriate: those who have been married, but no longer have a spouse (death or divorce). It is the teaching of the Orthodox Church that it is better not to remarry upon the death of a spouse, but to remain in a chaste and celibate life. Also even with oneâ??s partner still here, there are often medical condtions that prohibit sexual relations. Celibacy in those cases is quite necessary to maintain the integrity of the marriage.
IMO that those who are divorced with children to raise should also commit themselves to celibacy as the preferred way of life and not immediately go searching for another mate.
Placing Personal Gratification First
Michael, don’t you think that a large part of the cultural revolution starting in the 60’s here in America promoted the idea that family or social responsibilities that get in the way of personal gratification should be set aside. Personal gratification has become the greatest good in life and a measure of the successful life. If children inhibit your personal gratification then they are set aside, if elderly inhibit your “freedom”, they are set aside. The current generation of young people are really shocked if you suggest that someone would forego maximizing personal gratification for a greater good.
Michael: “To the Jew celibacy is not only unnatural but definitely contrary to the will of God Who commanded man and woman to be fruitful and multiply and Who created the earth “not a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). Marriage, therefore, is not a necessary evil but the joyful consummation of human destiny. . . . The Jews never doubted its legitimacy, for, according to the Rabbis, he who is unmarried lives “without joy, without blessing, without goodness” (Yebamoth 62b). Apart, man and woman are incomplete for “the human being is man and his wife.” (69-70)”
If lifelong celibacy is to be considered the apex of Christian virtue (note I said celibacy, not chastity which is what’s expected), why do the Orthodox reject this tradition unlike their Catholic counterparts? I don’t agree with the Jewish position that it’s ever “contrary” to God’s will, but I have met some elder priests who I believe have closed up and hardened to the world after a lifetime of isolation. This is not for everyone.
My position is simply that lifelong celibacy is the path of a few who are given this gift. It should not be mandatory for those wishing to enter the priesthood. It appears that the Orthodox concur with this.
JamesK: Certainly, the RCC position on clerical celibacy is not in accord with the, I believe, Third Ecumencial Council. As in many issues of the spiritual life, the Orthodox Church recognizes the antinomy of life in a fallen world. The monastic life is often described as the angelic life and praised as the apex of Christian virtue. At the same time, marriage is recognized and joyously celebrated as reflective of Christ’s union with His Church, fructifying the creation as well as integral to many people’s salavation. Both states are vocations within Christ’s Body. Both are necessary to fully allow the re-sanctification of the Creation.
You are correct, to force celibacy on all priests is clearly not Orthodox. That being said, celibacy would be required of any man who had homosexual leanings, if he were allowed to receive Holy Orders at all. A married priest who divorces, must leave the priesthood and even a widowed priest who wishes to remarry faces a tough road to remaining in the priesthood.
People who get married without the proper preperation and do not live a life of repentence and prayer within marriage also turn hard and cold. I’m sure you have seen such people.
Missourian, you are correct. Those of us who lived through and participated in that Satanic rebellion known as the Sixties, have much for which to repent. The foundation of the rule of law was also attacked and severely undermined during that time as well. Fr. Seraphim Rose correctly identified the prevailing ethos as nilistic materialism. So many of the issues we discuss on this blog are only embedded in society because of our surrender to that darkness.
I am not a schismatic, neither was Fr. Seraphim. Much of his critique of modern culture and of the modern American Orthodox Church was and is correct. I do not agree with everything that he said, but his thought was always penetrating and challenging and should not be cavalierly dissmissed by a perjorative charge that has no basis in fact. If you consider Fr. Seraphim a schismatic just because he was part of ROCOR what do you consider St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco.
If you want an example of how to live an Orthodox life in the Bay area, look to him. Visit him at the Joy of All Who Sorrow Cathedral, pray to him for his intercessions. It is his example that Fr. Seraphim attempted to emulate. I leave it to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth, but I believe Fr. Alexander Schmemann perdicted that he and Fr. Seraphim would be on the same icon at some point in the future, like Peter and Paul, eternal brothers in Christ despite their arguments and differences in this life.
There are a great many American converts to Holy Orthodoxy in all jurisdictions who look with love and gratitude to Fr. Seraphim–his writings and the example of his life showed us the value of the Church and IMO paved the way for the flowering of Orthodox monasticism that is begining to take place here.
You should also know the history of ROCOR and why it takes the position it does. IMO it is time for ROCOR to come back, but at the time it was formed, it was a valid alternative to a Russian Church riddled with Sergianism and out-right betrayal. IMO, the creation of the OCA was driven by similar forces and had a similar validity, it too should be reabsorbed.
If nilistic materialsim was not the prevailing ethos of the sixties, what was? If personal gratification before all else is not the ravening bastard child legacy of the sixties, what is? Do you really see any substantial difference between, “Do your own thing” and Gordon Geko’s mantra, “Greed is good.”
I could go on and on. It has taken me a long time to begin to heal from my own brush with the sixties dementia and it is only within the Church that that healing could have taken place. The Holy Spirit led me to the Church, but Fr. Seraphim was one of the agents. His words always force me to my knees in prayer, even when, at times, I ultimately reject his conclusions.
The answer to your heart felt dilemma expressed in your post #27 lies in the choice between Christ or sin, between the Church or the world. Despite the seeming clarity of the choice in the abstract, it is usually a choice that rends the mind and heart of all who make or even approach making it as you obviously are. It is so much easier to remain complacent and go with the mind of the world. I will pray for you, please also pray for me.
Female Cheetah: I cannot adequtely answer your question in post #35. I was ennuciating a general principal that in my experience is protective of both women and children coming out of a divorce. It is not meant as a comment on you or your choices. If I added to your pain, forgive me.
Cheetah
I am very sorry that I hurt your feelings, it was not my intent.
Cheetah, Note 34, United Nations
I think you and I probably have divergent views of the United Nations.
The 800 page report recently made public by Paul Volcker shows systematic and severe corruption at the United Nations. Saddam Hussein had little difficulty buying off dozens of United Nationsl officials. This was an $11 billion scandal. There is good reason to believe that Kofi Annan is just a out and out crook. When you get a chance you might check into Inside the Asylym, Why the United Nations and Old Europe is worse than you think, Jed Babbin.http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260883/002-0116309-4076023?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance
Setting aside the corrupt collusion between the United Nations highest officials and Saddam Hussein. You can also look at the U.N.’s failure to protect the innocent in Uganda, Rwanda and Eastern Europe. A great deal has been written about these issues.
I wouldn’t look to the United Nations for much.
Female Cheetah wrote: I am starting a campaign on Alternet to write to the UN to get help with Bush’s abuse of power. Now what is the EU’s relationship to the UN? From your post it seems that the EU is behaving worse than the US. Where is your source for this information?
What abuse of power are you referring to?
Note 36: Cheetah, you may find this quote interesting:
“People who claim to be absolutely convinced that their stand is the only right one are dangerous. Such conviction is the essence not only of dogmatism, but of its more destructive cousin, fanaticism. It blocks off the user from learning new truth, and it is a dead giveaway of unconscious doubt. The person then has to double his or her protests in order to quiet not only the opposition but his or her own unconscious doubts as well.”
Rollo May
It sounds as if your liberal friends may be suffering from this. Unfortunately, you’ll find this just as often even within Christian circles. I was once banned from a site for merely commenting on my personal feeling that Catholicism bore some truth in its theology. Being Calvinists, they were none too pleased, believing instead that no “Romanist” is in Heaven. Oh well.
This blog is unusual in that Fr. Hans rarely removes comments unless they are profane or inappropriate. He allows all sorts of divergent opinions on things even if they contradict Orthodox doctrine, I think not to simply allow a free-for-all but because discourse is needed when one is pursuing knowledge. I respect that.
I have a blog? Hmm … perhaps it’s one of my other personalities. I try to keep them locked up but apparently one got out. Maybe you’re thinking of Jim Holman who has a blog.