Church History Exam, Imperial Church

Describe changes to the church that were the result of the new relationship with the empire under Constantine.

During the 4th century, the church had begun to experience some major changes. With the rise of Constantine, and his takeover as sole emperor, the church found itself in a reversed role. Constantine claimed that the Christian God, whom he believed to be more powerful than those of the pagans, helped him capture victory. With this, he began to enact a series of measures to promote Christianity as a public-supported religion. This all started with the Edict of Milan (313 AD), which ended the persecution of Christians.

The Church now found itself in a new position. By raising it’s position within society to one parallel to paganism, as well as removing the threat of persecution, Roman citizens flooded the Church This produced two circles of Christianity: those of the nominal nature, and those whom were truly believers. With the flooding of individuals came the competition amongst churches to swell member sizes, leading to a loss of the previous concerns of the church.

Whereas the Church had previously worked absent of the civil authorities, the church now worked alongside it. Constantine sought to flood priests with styles of worship that fitted the majesty of the empire, instead of its former humble beginnings. Priests now wore pomp attire, choirs were added, and processionals were introduced. Soon Imperial theology began to seep into the church. Three major additions were made: 1) Whereas the Church had historically seen poverty and meekness as a blessing, the flooding of Roman aristocrats produced a theology that saw riches as a blessing, 2) A new clerical aristocracy developed, 3) As seen in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the idea of which the early church held dear of Jesus’ return and establishment of the kingdom were swept aside, and instead focused on the idea of the church and roman empire ushering forth such a kingdom.

The combination of imperial theology, as well as the additions of nominal Christians, produced various responses by the Christian community. Four in specific: 1) Certain Christians, such as Eusebius, believed this was the climax of history, where the church and empire rose to great heights, 2) Certain Christians had seen the intrusion of the church as a perversion, and ran to the deserts to pursue lives as monks, 3) Certain Christians saw it as a heresy, and progressed to schism in the form of Donatism, and finally 4) Certain individuals recognized the threats of nominal Christianity, and decided to stay and combat them intellectually (the great Doctors of the Church). These four responses, due to Constantine’s newly created relationship, where to have profound influences on the future discussions and directions of the Church.

Describe the meanings and theological uses of ousia, physis, and hypostasis in Nicene theology.

During the first great ecumenical council, Constantine sought to call the various bishops and Christians together to 1) Develop a form of official practice and doctrine, and 2) Contain a sense of unity amongst the Christians that would further produce stability within his empire. Of great concern at this debate, was the description of the trinity. Eusebius of Nicomedia had taken Arius’ argument of Arianism, the idea that Jesus was merely a creature whom has not existed for all eternity, but was rather a creation of God, and proposed it with a sense of authority.

After stunned into the realization that this heresy contained, Alexander of Alexandria spearheaded an attack on Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia’s Arianism. Central to this attack was the drafting of the theological terms ousia, physis, and hypostasis. We may explore their definitions as follows:

1) Ousia: Is defined as the same essence or substance. In practical terms, we may finitely and imperfectly see it in the example of species. A horse compared to a kangaroo bring about two separate ousia, or essenses. In the form of the trinity, ousia helps us understanding that the same essence of the trinity expresses their divinity. This essence is that the trinity and it’s persons are eternal and infinite. Being of this essence, they exist within one another, and share the same will (Perekarisus).

2) Physis: Is defined as distinguishing characteristics. In practical terms, we may finitely and imperfectly see it as the distinguishing characteristics between a horse and a donkey. Although they may have similar characteristics (four legs, etc), they contain distinguishing ones as well (their size, speed, makeup, usages, etc). The distinguishing characteristics of God (his omnipotence, love, grace, etc), allow us to see it in comparison to us, as well as to the distinguishing characteristics amongst the God-head. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each contain distinguishing characteristics, however are still of the same essence.

3) Hypostasis: Is defined as the expressive persons. Although two horses may both be of the same species, ad contain the same physis, Buttercup and Silver are two persons. They are not one mere horse, but share in the ousia of them being horses. This helps us understanding that although the trinity shares the same essence, it contains within it three unique persons: Father, Son, and Spirit.

Describe the new relationship between the church and empire under Constantine. This includes (but is not limited to) the role the church was intended to play.

Although it is an assumption, it is not wild to believe that Constantine saw the Christian God as a powerful means of solidifying his empire. After all, he had pursued worship of the pagan God’s while claiming his status as a Christian. For this reason, some had argued that Constantine sought the fusion of Church and Empire as a means of furthering stability and control. To Constantine, the church played an important role of bringing about stability within the empire. Where previously empires had sought the favor of the God’s to bring about the glory of the empire, Constantine saw the key as the Christian God. If he could appease this God by favoring his believers, the Christians, then he could strengthen his empire.

The relationship was thus fused. The Church took up imperial characteristics. As a result, the church was to play the role of shared stability. Instead of dealing with the divisions brought from past conflicts, Constantine sought to use the potential of the church to empower his reign. In the eyes of such thinkers as Eusebius of Caesarea, the role of the church was to ride the vehicle of the empire to the heights of Christianity. The empire empowered the Church to reach levels and numbers unseen previously. Capital and numbers were established to pursue bigger churches, and wider measures. However, this brought with it several confrontations.

((BELOW IS A COPY OF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1, AS IT RELATES TO AND ANSWERS THE ABOVE QUESTION AND MATERIAL))

During the 4th century, the church had begun to experience some major changes. With the rise of Constantine, and his takeover as sole emperor, the church found itself in a reversed role. Constantine claimed that the Christian God, whom he believed to be more powerful than those of the pagans, helped him capture victory. With this, he began to enact a series of measures to promote Christianity as a public-supported religion. This all started with the Edict of Milan (313 AD), which ended the persecution of Christians.

The Church now found itself in a new position. By raising it’s position within society to one parallel to paganism, as well as removing the threat of persecution, Roman citizens flooded the Church This produced two circles of Christianity: those of the nominal nature, and those whom were truly believers. With the flooding of individuals came the competition amongst churches to swell member sizes, leading to a loss of the previous concerns of the church.

Whereas the Church had previously worked absent of the civil authorities, the church now worked alongside it. Constantine sought to flood priests with styles of worship that fitted the majesty of the empire, instead of its former humble beginnings. Priests now wore pomp attire, choirs were added, and processionals were introduced. Soon Imperial theology began to seep into the church. Three major additions were made: 1) Whereas the Church had historically seen poverty and meekness as a blessing, the flooding of Roman aristocrats produced a theology that saw riches as a blessing, 2) A new clerical aristocracy developed, 3) As seen in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the idea of which the early church held dear of Jesus’ return and establishment of the kingdom were swept aside, and instead focused on the idea of the church and roman empire ushering forth such a kingdom.

The combination of imperial theology, as well as the additions of nominal Christians, produced various responses by the Christian community. Four in specific: 1) Certain Christians, such as Eusebius, believed this was the climax of history, where the church and empire rose to great heights, 2) Certain Christians had seen the intrusion of the church as a perversion, and ran to the deserts to pursue lives as monks, 3) Certain Christians saw it as a heresy, and progressed to schism in the form of Donatism, and finally 4) Certain individuals recognized the threats of nominal Christianity, and decided to stay and combat them intellectually (the great Doctors of the Church). These four responses, due to Constantine’s newly created relationship, where to have profound influences on the future discussions and directions of the Church.

((AN ADDITION TO THE INFORMATION COPIED ABOVE))

As a result, the actions of Constantine were to greatly affect the role the church would play in the future. With the moving of the capitol to Constantinople (former Byzantium), Constantine set in order the future of the western church. The West and Rome had been sucked of its power. Only time would be needed until it was fully sacked and taken over in 410 AD. A power vacuum remained, which the Latin Western Church quickly filled. With the coming of the barbarians, and the examples of such great leaders as John Chrysostom and Ambrose, the church naturally filled the role allowed by the barbarians to facilitate order. This then grew to the latin-centered Western tradition, which found its later fruition into the modern Catholic church and the resulting Protestant reformation.

It had all started between the relationship of the Imperial Church and the Empire. If it was not for Constantine’s desire to fuse the two and strengthen his hold, history would perhaps tell a very different story.

Explain the theological and ecclesiological events leading up to the Council of Nicaea

Within the city of Alexandria during the 4th century, a theological conflict grew. The famous and well-followed presbyter, Arius, began to adhere to a doctrine that taught that the Word was not of the same essence of the Father. Instead, Arius taught that the Son was merely a creature, begotten of God, and created by him before the creation of our physical world. Alexander of Alexandria saw the heresy behind this: to deny the divinity of the Son was to deny the validity of the incarnation, which in turn meant God did not suffer for our punishment on the cross, but merely some creature. God’s wrath could not fully be revealed upon the Christ, and instead poses major problems for Christianity: If a simple creature could live sinless, why not man? Why the need of a cross to begin with, if God’s creature could merely achieve righteousness. The issue of grace is thus muddled.

This battle resumed until brought to the presence of the Roman clergy. Upon seeing this heresy, Constantine called forth the first great ecumenical counsel in 325 AD. The issue, besides solving some unified practices, was to bring about a solution to this problem: to bring about the proper and official Christianity. Eusebius of Nicomedia, a bishop who represented Arius and the Arians, defended the position in hopes that the argument, once explained, would be universally accept. The opposite occurred, and the heresy was combated. The groups unified to establish it as heresy, developing a creed (Nicene Creed), that expressed this. In addition, Constantine banished the Arian priests and bishops from their cities, further strengthening the unity of his empire and the Christian church.

Identify Arius

Arius was a famous and well-followed presbyter of Alexandria. With such a popular following established, Arius’ ideas began to grow. One which is central to Early Church conflicts, was that of his view on the nature of God. In wishing to adhere to the monotheism of Judaic tradition, Arius taught that the Word of God, the Son Jesus, was merely a creation. He taught that the Son was a created being, made before the physical creation established in Genesis. In short, the Son was not one with the father: not of the same essence. He was a separate person, a figure much like a Demi-God (Hercules). Arius had taught these teaching, and quickly found opposition from such Orthodox Christians as Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. With the help of his secretary Athanasius, Alexandria combated this heresy, bringing it to the Roman clergy, and finally to the Christian world before the Council of Nicea. Arius, since he was not a bishop, could not argue before the Council, and instead had to rely on Eusebius of Nicomedia to further his arguments. Upon being exposed to the Christian Church, Arius and his idea of Arianism was quickly rejected. He was labeled as a heretic, condemned by the Council, and banished from his city.

Identify Athanasius

Athanasius is popularly known as the ‘black dwarf’, due to his small height and his darkened skin. However this term is quite deceptive, as Athanasius was a theological giant. A 4th century Doctor of the church, his past is rather obscure, and boasts of humble beginnings. It is believed that he was raised somewhere along the Nile in Northern Africa. Having spoken Coptic, and with his darkened skin, it is believed he came from the lower class of the Copts. Athanasius had experienced further humbling after pursuing the life of a reclusive monk. Jerome even writes about his possible contacts with Anthony. He had firmly established a relationship and popularity with the monks, which worked to his advantage as conflict found him later in life.

After experiencing the monastic lifestyle, Athanasius was accepted as the secretary under Alexander of Alexandria. It was at this time where he was heavily exposed to the heresy of Arianism, which would thus effect his theological contributions. Besides experiencing a series of four exiles and returns, boasting of such events as requesting an audience with the empire by grasping unto his horse’s reigns, Athanasius was tremendously popular with the people. We could say that two distinguishing characteristics were his disciplines monastic lifestyle, and his fiery support amongst the populace. For these reasons, it is understandable that such individuals as Eusebius of Nicomedia and the pro-arian emperor Constantius would find him as one of their most formidable enemies. These individuals would pursue his elimination, only to find him whisked away to the secrecy of the desert monks protections.

During these fiery exchanges and battles with Arianism, Athanasius wrote two important texts: Against the Gentiles, and On the Incarnation of the Word. Within these works, we find the meat of Athanasius’ contribution to the Church and theology: the incarnation.

To Athanasius, the central fact of Christianity and human history is that of the incarnation: the coming of God to walk with man. Athanasius argued that it was this very act that allowed us to have true communion with God. To deny Jesus as the incarnate God, as the Arians had done, was to lead to the conclusion that true communion was no longer possible. For this reason, a denial of the central fact of human history and Christianity, Athanasius’ fiery opposition is understandable. Using his disciplined lifestyle, and his popularity with the people, Athanasius is best known for advancing and protecting Nicene Orthodoxy via his powerful example and compelling incarnation-focused arguments.
Identify homoousios

During the great debate of Arianism vs. Trinitarians, such individuals as Athanasius found one term central: homoousios. It is defined as having the ‘same essence’. The result of this term is central to understanding the nature of the trinity. Working upon the Trinitarian hints found within scripture (baptism, etc.), homoousios expresses that the trinity shares in the same essence/substance: eternal and infinite. It is do to their same essence that allows the trinity to not merely be three separate Gods (polytheism), but a single monotheistic God that shares the same essence, yet is found in three persons. To be eternal and infinite is to reside within the same ‘space’, and as such the will of the trinity is one. This single will shows the difference between the trinity and a polytheistic concept, as polytheism contains numerous God’s containing separate wills.

Athanasius battled for this term, which we see advanced within the creed. Later, perhaps a result of his old age and a desire to see unity amongst the Church, Athanasius accepts a slight change. Certain individuals, perhaps of fear for the heresy of patrepassinism (idea that God the father came down as Jesus, not the Son), wished to use the term homoiousios (of similar essence/substance). The latter term, which Athanasius would have previously deemed heretical, seemed a fitting sacrifice for the During the great debate of Arianism vs. Trinitarians, such individuals as Athanasius found one term central: homoousios. It is defined as having the ‘same essence’. The result of this term is central to understanding the nature of the trinity. Working upon the Trinitarian hints found within scripture (baptism, etc.), homoousios expresses that the trinity shares in the same essence/substance: eternal and infinite. It is do to their same essence that allows the trinity to not merely be three separate Gods (polytheism), but a single monotheistic God that shares the same essence, yet is found in three persons. To be eternal and infinite is to reside within the same ‘space’, and as such the will of the trinity is one. This single will shows the difference between the trinity and a polytheistic concept, as polytheism contains numerous God’s containing separate wills.

Athanasius battled for this term, which we see advanced within the creed. Later, perhaps a result of his old age and a desire to see unity amongst the Church, Athanasius accepts a slight change. Certain individuals, perhaps of fear for the heresy of patrepassinism (idea that God the father came down as Jesus, not the Son), wished to use the term homoiousios (of similar essence/substance). The latter term, which Athanasius would have previously deemed heretical, seemed a fitting sacrifice for the unity of the Christian Church.

Identify Jerome

There are perhaps no other figure as comical, interesting, and profoundly influential as Jerome. It is said that Jerome was born old, hinting at the later crabbiness and grumpiness that defined his character. Not to say he was a terrible human being, but his approach was simply different.
A Church Doctor of the 4th century, Jerome was a student of Classical Latin literature. It was this literature that planted the thorn of sex addiction within his mind. Having always admired the beauty, the pornographic images contained within the latin classics was burned into his mind. As a result, Jerome sought to purge himself from it. His solution? Severe asceticism. Going as far as rejecting to bath, Jerome came to the conclusion that he needed to reject any amount of pagan literature and study from his life. To fill this void, he began an intensive study of the scriptures. This helped, and as such he believed that a study of the Hebrew, with the idea it was holy, would help even more. Finding it barbaric, Jerome continued to pursue this field. This even led to a pilgrimage that took him to Jerusalem. It was here he wished to study the ancient Hebrew in the ancient city, and it was here his dear friends Paula and her daughter followed. Paula, a rich widow, had invested heavily in monastic, and the two led twin monastic orders sharing their gender. With continuous discussions regarding scripture with Paula, he advanced his studies, until he was encouraged by a bishop and his passions to produce a version in Latin.

Having been helped by his study, and removed of his perversions, Jerome is best known for translating the bible directly from the original languages into Latin. It is a hallmark of church history: a result of Constantine’s shifting of power from the West to the East produced a cultural vacuum in the West which Latin law and philosophy filled. Latin became the lingua franca, and Jerome sought to provide a version Westerners could read. The results were profound. The Catholic Church, once developed into its Holy Roman version, even deemed Jerome’s version to be the source of authority. Translations such as the Kings James Version and others were translations from Jerome’s vulgate. The existence of the apocrypha works (Tobit, etc.), as found in the Catholic’s 77-book canon, are the result of his placement between the Old and New Testament (even though he stated they were not authoritative). Simply put, Jerome’s translation effective all of the resulting theology. The ideas of penance and purgatory possibly stemmed from Apocropha and his versions of translating, leading to specific practices in the modern Catholic church.

In addition, he served as an example to translating the bible into the vulgar language of the day. With this in mind, it is clear to see how immensely influential Jerome’s work had become.
In addition, Jerome’s work points to another specific area of interest: the rise of Latin culture, and the result it had on theological thinking. It verified the importance of the Latin, and how this tradition began deviating from the Greek. Once Rome fell in 410 AD, it is no surprise this Latin Christianity fills the power vacuum.

Identify John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom, known as the ‘Golden tongued’ or ‘Golden mouthed’, was another profoundly influential character of the 4th century church. An absolutely gifted speaker, John produced immensely dedicated followers through the merely gift of his preaching. So powerful had he become, that his mere works could spark revolutions.

With a background as a lawyer, and above all a monk, John Chrysostom was a devote and disciplined believer. The popularity of his preaching in North Africa lead to him being snuck out (of course, to prevent a riot), and sent to fill a vacancy within the bishop see of Constantinople. It was here he was to provide the contribution of his reforms. Perhaps having saturated the negativity of the imperial theological additions, the churches of Constantinople were in a decline. Clergy and bishops were often caught in the midst of affairs with ‘spiritual sisters’, as well as serious mismanagement and usage of church funds for their own luxury. John combated this with a series of reforms: 1) He demanded that bishops and clergy no longer live with ‘spiritual sisters’, 2) He called upon strict austerity amongst the clergy, 3) He oversaw a strained and closely-watched management of church funds, 4) He heavily preached that the laity remove themselves from their nominal Christian practices, and move from knowing sport’s icons to knowing their bible (he exhorted them to live righteous and holy lives).

Also a defender of Nicene Orthodoxy, he was quick to draw conflicts. The current chamberlain Eutropis had the illusion that bringing John to the city would produce some goodies. He was sorely mistaken. As a result, several clashes occurred. One, which was specifically revealing, was Eutropis’ pursuit of individuals seeking asylum from his wrath. These individuals ran to Saint Sophia, where John accepted and protected them. When Eutropis came knocking, John was quick to remind him that no bloodshed would be spilt there. The result was, that by the merely popularity and weight of his words, John’s actions led to the downfall of the wicked chamberlain. John had drew the emperor’s side, which funny enough led to Eutropis loosing power and running from those he formly persecuted to St. Sophia. As he had done earlier, John offered protection, and prevented the public from murdering him. After Eutropis believed St. Sophia couldn’t protect him, he foolishly ran away to be killed.

These conflicts continued with later with other royal officials. They ended the same: with John coming up successful against the throne. It is this contribution that we find invaluable to the early and latin church. Along with Ambrose, John Chrysostom successfully repelled efforts of the empire. His popularity, and ability to provide provision, hinted at the future of the Latin West after the barbarian invasions and the need for order (which the latin church then fills). After several struggles, John was banished to Cucusus. Here he turned to the pen, and drafted numerous worked that further angered the Arians and Throne. He was then pushed even further to a hamlet by the black sea. On his way there, he had been pushed to the limits, and neared death. He asked the soldiers to take him to a small church near the road. Here he took communion and gave perhaps his greatest and most beautiful sermon: In all things, Glory to God. He then died.

Identify Pachomius

During the 3rd century, several potential beginnings to the monastic movement are seen. In response to the persecutions of that time, individuals sought the desert for solace. The Hermit Paul and the monk Anthony are such examples. They had sought solitute in abandoned cemeteries and warehouses, seeking to further their relationship with god through simple solitude and meditation. These individuals had attracted serious respect amongst the laity and clergy, and their efforts were known well enough to provoke individuals to seek discipleship. One such example, Martin of Tours, shows the potency of such value. The topic of an extremely popular book at the time, Martin of Tours was a monk known famous for tearing his cloak in half, which he gave to a beggar and later received a vision of Jesus clothed in the cloak (‘do this to the least of these, and you do it for me’). The ragged Martin would later be appointed the bishop of tours, much to the objection of the surrounding aristocratic clergy.

It was during the 4th century that we see a new addition to monasticism: communal monasticism. Stemming in the reaction to Constantine’s merging of Christianity and empire, individuals fled for the pureness of the deserts. One such individual, Pachomius, sought to accomplish such a lifestyle. Pursuing the monastic principles, Pachomius decided to create a communal order that would focus on shared living and contemplation. His first such effort failed, which he responded by kicking individuals out and creeping stricter rules. This produced success, and the self-sufficient monastic communities grew. Soon Pachomius found himself overseeing 9 different communities with 100+ monks per group.

An additional contribution Pachomius gave to the monastic lifestyle was that of hierarchy. He had positioned a strict hierarchy within the monastic commune, consisting of himself as the overseeing Abbot. However even in this, Pachomius was a servant to the others, and so described the hierarchy. Individuals would petition to join the order outside their establishments, where they would be tested to endure, and then accepted and implanted.

Pachomius, as well as the monastic movements in general, had a tremendous effect on the Early Church. The monastic ideal was actively sought after. We see this in the monastic experiences of Athanasius, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Augustine and others. The disciplined lifestyle was a sobering reminder and model within the nominal Christian masses that now swelled the imperial churches. The above names, whom all influenced the church tremendously, are clearly products of such an influence, and it is here that we see the value and effect of Pachomius and others.

As the 5th century approached, these monastic communities adapted in the West to serve more a function of charity amongst the poor and needy.

Community

Greetings!

God has destined us for community. Since Genesis, we have been designed to participate in collective bodies. Ultimately, God Himself lives in community with Himself (trinity), and by His grace, extends an invitation to participate this majestic community. We find purpose in this community. Our intended design, our meaning, is to come into community with God!

His son Jesus went as far as the humiliation of the cross to bring us into the life-giving purpose of community.

However we do not merely participate from an individual standpoint, as secular American society tricks us into believing. As God made humanity as a family, emphasizing the goodness of being together, we find our secondary ultimate purpose: living in community with one another.

“For the entire law is fulfilled on one statement: Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5:14). God gave the Jews the Law to teach them proper communal living with both God and each other. When we disobey this mandate to live as a community, sin enters the picture: “If you bite and devour one another, watch out, or you will be consumed by one another.” (Gal. 5:15).

In other words, we’re not to merely acknowledge each other’s presence, and restrain from doing each other harm (the message of world religions). The radical re-orientation of Christianity occurs in this: as Christ poured his life ultimately to attain and cleanse us for community, so are we to pour our lives into each other! This is the radical Christian community! The concept of discipleship! The pouring of lives for one another to reflect God’s pouring of His son into ours! Our ultimate model is in Christ, and as followers we are to emulate the sharing of this thing called life. The acting of this verb called love.

More than any other illustration, God describes us as a family. A bride and bridegroom. Brothers and sisters. We must not confuse the terms. We are not the simple worldly community that calls us to respect communal laws and presence. We are not merely a family bounded by blood relations. We are bonded by the fulfillment of laws in Jesus, and the bounding of sin by His blood!

We are a spiritual family, adopted into God, and called to live, serve, minister, and love as a community. A body. A single entity under Jesus’ lordship and example.

The challenge is as follows: With the golden opportunity of living in an actual seminary community, how are you living? Are your relationships merely associations? Simple friends? Shared identities in a seminary-academic institution? A vocation? Do you see it as merely a ‘responsibility’?

Or, is it something greater? Does it reflect the worldly examples of friendships, community, and family, or does it reflect the radical Holy Spirit empowered, Jesus-modeled, communal family under God?

If the former, how then will you move towards the two ‘Great Commandments’ (Matt. 22:37-40)? How then, shall you live with your Brothers and Sisters?

“Carry one another’s burdens; in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone considers himself to be something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself.” (Gal. 6:2-3).

“I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples. If you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35).

Argument Against the So-Called ‘Gay Gene’

In response to an inquiry regarding homosexuality being genetic, and the Chandler Burr argument.

There is no scientific evidence that a “gay gene” exists. I ask for your patience in reading this lengthy response, as I woke up at 5am to offer a satisfactory answer.

You must first ask yourself what is science? To make a scientific statement, such as homosexuality is genetic, you are not making a relative statement, but one that is scientific, and must be testable and empirical. A few observations must then be made about the source you provided as ‘proof’.

1.    Scientific research/argument from a political pro-gay rights group, whose goal it is to propagate a pro-homosexual agenda on society, is hardly a bias-free source for science. If anything, a red flag flares up since it is soaked with pre-suppositions on how they will evaluate the scientific research.

2.    This is not genetic. There is scientific research with empirical/quantitative analysis, and then there is clinical research & observation. In order for something to be scientific, it must be testable. If not, it falls into the domain of the ‘lesser’ sciences (you cannot empirically test whether a ruler will be a dictator, but you can gather a ‘trait profile’ of certain similar observations in dictators. However, because we have not located a “dictator gene” we cannot replicate and test this study, and therefore it is not hard science).  One provides testable results, the others compiles observations. This is a serious difference.

To make a claim gender orientation is genetic, as done earlier, one would need to point to scientists, not a political activist, and work from the scientists work, not the polluted assumptions and insights of a biased political activists’ assumptions. The activist seeks to find information that supports his cause (reading into the work). This happens with ‘gay gene’ studies and this article.

As mentioned earlier, if one argued that sexual orientation is generic, he must provide the testable proof of this gene, and be able to replicate this proof in further peer reviewed studies. This was not done. Rather, a political argument was given. The proof of the “gay gene” was not given, but assumed. However this is not surprising, as evidence for a gay gene does not empirically exist. Rather, it is a distortion made by media and pro-left/gay-rights activists upon related research.

We could sum up this paper as follows: we observe an invisible trait that may or may not be hidden but we cannot give you any ‘gay gene’ genetic proof. We assume it is there by observation.

This is not science. You MUST provide the ‘gay gene’ to say it is genetic. In addition, the research much of his assumptions rest on is lackluster (gay gene studies have not been reproduced, etc). Burr also gives inflated numbers (understandable given his political agenda), such as higher 9% homosexuality rates, instead of reasonable 3-4%.

I will repeat, there is no evidence that shows homosexuality is simply genetic. This article does not show it is genetic, but in terms says, in summary, observations are made so it probably has genetic roots. That is not scientific evidence, but politically poisoned speculation.

Even then, behavior-gene studies are poor: Science 1994

“Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated… ‘it is hard to come up with many’ findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated.”

In rebuttal to the twin argument, head of one of the largest genetic research groups says:

“While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality [these authors being two American activists], we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment”
In the words of the researcher Dean Hamer, who studies this topic of the ‘Gay Gene’, regarding whether homosexuality was solely biological:

“Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors.”

For something to be gene specific that produces a behavior or trait, it must be what geneticists call ‘inherited’. An example is eye color, which is genetically inherited, and we can point to a gene in which it is passed down.

Inherited means directly determined by genes (exp. eye color). There is no way then, of changing this via altering one’s environment. It is set in the genetic structure of the person (you cannot change their environment to change their eye color). Sexual orientation is not this at all (as my friend shows example of, and thousands who become heterosexual mothers, fathers, etc. show). Individuals choose, recant, return, etc. of their orientation. They can move from one orientation from another, and many have sexually done so (a simple Google search will suffice).

At this point then, we can see a difference in something inherited genetically (specific genetic structure that causes a trait such as blue eyes), and something that is heritable.

For explanation, let us show how All Basketball Players are born to be basketball players. We will use three fields:

1.    Twin studies.
2.    Brain dissections.
3.    Gene ‘linkage’ studies.

Sounds quite scientific, no? First, the twin studies: We will find that if one twin is a basketball player, you will find that the other is more statistically likely to be one. The percentage of pairs in which both twins are bb players, or not, is a concordance rate. You find that this rate is high, like that rate for sexual orientation.

We’re on to something! There must be an underlying bb gene as hinted in twin studies! We must continue exploring…

Second, we cut the heads open of several dead basketball players. We locate a portion of the brain where basketball functions occur. We compare it to that section within non-basketball players, and find that it is larger in the bb players. We then conclude this to be evidence that it is a biological factor of the brain section that predisposes someone to become bb players.

Third, we study gene “linkage” studies. We study bb players, and notice certain clusters of genes that are similar among bb players. With the supportive information in the first two points, we have proved that basketball players are genetic! No? We can expect the headlines ‘Scientists have found the Basketball player gene!’.

Actually, we cannot. In response to the third point: Some genes such as height, athleticism, quick reflexes, etc., are associated with playing basketball. They, however, DO NOT CAUSE basketball players. One may be likely to play because they have these genetic traits, but no one trait is the actual cause of basketball players, just the response there-of.  Saying otherwise is unscientific. These may be common amongst bb players, but they are not the “basketball” genes.

We can say male homosexuality carries similar traits (tendency for shyness, anxiety, intelligence, sensitivity, aesthetic abilities, etc), however this is not an area heavily explored by scientists. These genetic linkages are not the cause of orientation, but a response to traits. A willful response.

In response to the second point, the brain changes with use. Playing basketball exercises that area of the brain, vs. those who do not. Growth and changes occurs. We are judging post fact, and making the assumption that portion causes basketball/orientation when in reality it is simply being worked upon willfully by those individuals, leading to the change.

In response to the first point, we merely have observed what the gene linkage studies have done. A mere response to environment and certain traits. Understandable, given the closeness of genes, the shared environment, and the gene linkages (shared size, traits, etc).

This “basketball gene” is as scientific as this “gay gene”. We have used the same arguments that political activists like Burr distort. If the basketball argument seems hardly scientific, then you can conclude the same about the “gay gene”.

In conclusion, how does science, not a political activist with a clear agenda, define sexual orientation? Mainly by psychological, social, biological factors.
“At this point, the most wifely held opinion (on causation of homosexuality) is that multiple factors play a role” (‘Gay Brain’ researcher Simon LeVay)
“Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality” (Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist)
“I know of no one in the field who argue that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.” (Sociologist Steven Goldberg).

IN SUMMARY: 1. We have observed that Burr is clearly a biased individual reading into the researcher for the propagation of pro-homosexual agenda. He reads into the research. 2. We have defined what we mean by ‘scientific’, and have shown that there is no testable body of scientific proof we can replicate on the topic that ‘sexual orientation is in the genes’. 3. Burr’s argument is from a series of observations, not hard scientific evidence. 4. Associating genes with human behaviors is incredibly poor, as pointed out by Science magazine’s 1994 article. 5. Twin studies argue in favor of environmental response, rather than a specific gene. 6. It is not genetically inherited, but heritable. 7. Saying sexual orientation is genetic is as accurate as saying basketball players are genetic; that your genes would determine you will become a basketball player vs. your genes will determine what your sexual orientation will be. In reality, certain gene traits will be noticeable in basketball players, but NOT THE CAUSE THEREOF, just as certain gene clusters may also be noticeable in homosexuals, NOT THE CAUSE THEREOF. 8. This fits the practical experience of people shifting back and force from sexual orientations. 9. Twin studies, brain dissections, and gene linkages do no mean it is genetically inherited and thus unchangeable (opposed to something directly genetically & unchangeable like blue eyes, etc).

And finally, 10. There is no evidence or proof, as Burr would want you to assume, that sexual orientation is purely ‘in the genes’. That is not science. No research on the subject is making that absolute statement. Rather, it is a combination of media presentation, and political agenda distortion, that cause you to think otherwise. I would further comment that I implore you to seek the research free of any bias baggage or political agenda you carry, or that of commentators. Go straight to the source, and ask yourself this very important question: am I looking only for information that affirms by assumptions, or am I alleviated to observe this issue in a free manner.

Science instead argued for a complex response to the three earlier factors, which I would place extreme emphasis on one’s willful response to it.
Simply said, sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.

WITH THAT ASIDE: One final say, given we’ve run through the scientific realm. Something of the spirit must be mentioned, as it’s authority rises above that of science. Man is terribly flawed. As Burr shows, we pollute ourselves with bias. We can both look at the same scientific study, and come away with two wildly different conclusions. This is why so much philosophy conflicts. Man and his thinking, simply said are flawed (1 Cor. 1:20). We are depraved. We are, in short, sinful. We blind ourselves with ourselves. Burr seeks to find that orientation is natural, because he has an agenda. This hints at a greater need. It hints at the fallibility of man, and a need to alleviate us from ourselves. It hints at a need of revealed knowledge.

This is one reason why it is so necessary to have something that alleviates you from human frailty. I’m not talking about a strong ideology, but true perfect wisdom, and true perfect wisdom can come only from the perfectly wise. In other words, God. He is the only being who is freed of imperfections, or faulty reasoning, or poisoning bias. He is the source of truth, which is absolute, not relative. He allows us to submit our faulty will to Him, and instead attain true pure knowledge by the means of his revelation. From this revelation, this truth, we can respond. One of these truths is that real change exists. Revelation makes it clear in His revealed scriptures that homosexuality is a sin. God would not make something natural a sin (such as being black, or having blue eyes). Rather, sin is the willful choice, and the supportive action, to do something against God’s will. Homosexuality is placed alongside other behavioral sins. It is important to notice that someone like Burr places the need to prove homosexuality, a behavior, natural, because it would then justify such immorality. The individual places this desire as an idol. However perfect revelation shows otherwise (Romans 1:26-28, 1 Tim. 1:10).

Science is not an absolute source of truth. It merely provides us observations (not meaning, or purpose, or truth). Science does not have all the answers, as you cannot even prove that statement with science. We see an example above.
Our revealed source of truth, for good reasons, shows us that homosexuality is a behavioral response. A willful decision supported by actions. It is one that can be changed, as we see in Romans 6:11 where Paul is speaking to the Corinthian church, who among their members had individuals who were sexually immoral, homosexuals, and drunkards. “Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.” (Rom 6:11).

God, in His wisdom, has offered true change. Real change. In his Son, forgiveness, and God-empowered change can occur.

One more real life point:

A militant lesbian, who was entrenched in the lesbian lifestyle, now sits within a seminary classroom. She speaks openly of what she has done, and how she considered it to be central to her very being. It was her very identity. After such a lifestyle, she came to God, and was cleaned, washed, forgiven, empowered. She was removed of such desire for behavior. Where her desires were once sexual relations with her gender, they are now a godly husband and children. She had no ‘gay gene’. She did have real change. A gene does not produce depression, but the response to environment and situations. The same of homosexual orientation. And with both, and even behavior and action, forgiveness and real change are found in Jesus (1 John 1:9).

The above argument fits within this revealed truth. This female’s experience, which my wife knows, is not suppressing her ‘natural inclination to be gay’, but has rather been given freedom, and the power to change. I married a woman who was told she would be OCD, PTSD, and severely depressed all her life by psychologists. Her father suffered a brain aneurism when she was young, and for years she self-mutilated, attempted suicide, and suffered severe depression. Psychologist told her these were rooted in brain fluids. Serotonin levels. She would need to deal with such things for the rest of her life, day by day. Then, she came to Christ. She was healed of 8+ years of what psychology attempted. All those years of ingrained behaviors. Gone. Done. Vanished. Now, empowered, forgiven, and washed anew, she is completely different.  “Christ has liberated us into freedom” (Gl. 5:1).

There is true change to sinful behavior. The absolute source of truth, God, reveals to us that he did not make us for unnatural relations, but rather explains that such is a behavior which goes against his created order, and is such sin. However even then, he offers us the solution to change such behavior, one that is not within science, but in His son (2 Cor. 3:17).

Sources: Argument &  outline from Is There a “Gay Gene”? narth.com/docs/istheregene.html.

Discussion: Abortion I

Leonard Goenaga: Interesting note: If a property owner invites someone into their private property, and then kills them, they are charged with murder. However, in an abortion, a woman invites a child into their body (sex), claims the human life to be their property, and executes innocence via abortion. The legality of private property with two very different moral outcomes.

Friend 1: MOST abortions are the cause of an unwanted child in a woman’s body, thus, wouldn’t that NOT be an open invitation? And what about rape? That’s forceful entry.

Leonard Goenaga: Rape makes less than 2% of abortions. We are talking about a super majority.

Also, regardless of whether a child is wanted (God forbid a human life be more important than another persons wants and desires), individuals openly have sex. Overtly, the result of sex is possible pregnancy.

Any woman who has sex knows there is a possibility of getting pregnant. The person who invites the person to their house knows there is a possibility they will actually come.

In other words, abortions are the cause of an unwanted child in a woman’s body. What a terrible terrible reality! Someone desires selfishness to a point of eliminating human life. In legal terms we call that murder.

The open invitation arrives by the willful decision to pursue sex. It is purely something not forced upon them (minus the super minority of rape).

Friend 2: Sex is not an invitation for a child.
Do you use birth control?!?!
My point exactly, just because you have sex, it does not mean you are inviting a child into your life.
Married women have abortions, not just young women.
There are 3 reasons why people have sex (willingly)
1. Love
2. Sexual attraction
3. They want a baby

And don’t forget rape victims. That is NOT an invitation to a child. And don’t forget women with health complications either. They have the right to chose their life, over someone who has not been born yet, heck, who is not fully developed and is a fetus.

Not everyone wants a baby. Atl least at that given moment. Should 2/3’s of everyone else who is having sex be banned from making love?!? You (by this I mean people with this mentality) can’t control their sex lives. They will have sex because they want too. NOT because they want a baby. Sex does not equal inviting a baby into your life.

This is really a ridiculus comparasson. You have FULL control into whom you invite to your home. You do not have full control about when you get pregant. And the only possible suggestion that can stem from this logic is “don’t have sex.” But over half of new borns are not planned. You can’t ban 2/3 of the population, further more, you can’t even inforce it. Do you know that oral sex is against the law in the state of Florida?!?! How many people do you think get blow jobs?!?! It can’t be enforced.

Further more, there is a seperation of church and state. People need to keep their religion out of politics and try to control WOMEN’S bodies. It’s THEIR body, nobody elses. If people will try to mix church and state, we will soon be little the middle east, controlled by religion, even if we do not all share the same religion. We have a seperation for a reason.

Friend 3: I would argue to say that most abortions are not wanted or desired, but women feel its the only option and are rushed into making a life changing decision… Maybe they are afraid of what others will think of them for getting pregnant without a husband (judgment from over-righteous), maybe they do not have any emotional or financial support (feel they dont want to bring a baby into a world of misery), maybe their significant other is threatening to leave them if they don’t… there are so many reasons other than wanting to ‘murder’ their unborn child!

Maybe what people should be doing is not accusing them of murder, but helping them find other options… instead of standing in front of abortion clinics with hate signs, maybe they should reach out to them with a loving arms saying ‘let us help you get through this, please don’t abort your baby’ or ‘have you considered your options?’ or ‘Can I give you information on post-abortion counseling?’… How many Churches do you know that sponsor single moms with unexpected pregnancies? Or offer post-abortion Bible Studies?

Most women don’t want to get an abortion… but sometimes feel they have no other choice… it is our job to promote abstinence but sometimes people make mistakes… shouldnt they feel as if they would be forgiven by the Church instead of judged?

Friend 4: Just going with the analogy here… So I have a party (sex) and then somebody shows up that I didn’t invite (baby). In L’s own words (almost): Overtly, the result of a party is possible party crashers.

Can I kill them? Well, no, not really. But if they’re in my house and eating my food and sleeping in by bed I think I have a right to force them out. Is it selfish to not want to give up my food and shelter to my uninvited guest? Or is that my right?

Leonard Goenaga: I do not think I need to argue that it is common knowledge that sex leads to the possibility of children, regardless of whatever method of control is used. Any moment of sex is an invitation for the natural possibility of pregnancy. If my wife gets pregnant, awesome! It does not mean it interferes with my lifestyle, and I now have a right of lifestyle > human life.

Sex is not > Human life.

No one should be banned from doing anything. The topic is life. Should someone be allowed to have sex? Sure. Should they also be allowed to deal with the consequences? Absolutely.

You have ABSOLUTELY FULL CONTROL about having sex. You can choose to do it or not. If you go jump out a plane, you can very easily die. Although the rush is there. You can choose to do it or not. If you die, it may very well be your fault.

Regardless of how good sex is, you have a right to do it and should also be responsible for its results. Nature shows us sex produces children.

The fundamental question is this: why in the world do you have any right to begin with? What is the root to having any right or liberty? This is human life. Because you are human, you have inalienable rights. Then there are secondary rights (privacy, protection, etc) bestowed by a government.

You could not have any right unless the sanctity of your life was presumed. The dead have no rights, only the living. The right to anything would be meaningless if the right to life wasn’t presumed. Government rests on the foundation of preserving life, which then leads to possible secondary rights and liberties.

For this reason, a child’s life, whom by the way has every necessary component from growth at the moment from conception, and only needs nourishment and time like everyone else, deserves the same fundamental essential right of life than a woman’s desire for sex.

Lifestyle does not trump the essential preservation and sanctity of life.

You cannot argue that a person has any right, whether to sex, or to privacy, without assuming they have a first essential right of human life. This is the hypocrisy of the pro-choice argument.

PS: Again, you have full control over whether you can get pregnant. It’s called choosing to have sex. You do not need sex like you need water, or food. It is not necessary to human living. We willfully engage in sex, with the natural response of pregnancy. For that reason it is absolutely in full control, as you can choose to do it or not. The  ramifications that you may get pregnant, and produce the miracle of childbirth, should sober one to the seriousness of the activity, and not be perceived as silly recreation. The murder of human life should be absolutely positively sobering.

If you were aborted, you would not be arguing for rights to have sex. You simply wouldn’t be.

@Friend 3: Sin is sin. We preach forgiveness of sin. Sinners leading sinners to repentance in Jesus. I’m not standing in front of an abortion clinic. Nor would I. Rather, people need to have their eyes opened to the absolute importance of human life. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be argued in favor of rights and liberties and desires and lifestyles, if we do not assume that human life is important enough to warrant any of those thing. Sanctity of human life MUST be presumed for any of that to mean a dime. It’s automatic. We assume it. We don’t say “You don’t have the right of the second amendment because my humanity means more than yours”. That was the mistake of slavery. People must hear this, because the ramifications of such selfishness is the murder of innocent children.

However, even in the deepest and darkest of sins, we find the purity of forgiveness. The first step of repentance is the acknowledge of a sin to repent of. If someone does not see it as a sin, they do not see themselves as needing a savior, and repentance. How I wish we could adopt those ‘unwanted’ children, who Christ said had direct access to God the father.

Looking at the pregnancy and women services of Christian organizations is  closer to how it is handled than the fringe. 1. The truth of human life. 2. The truth of true forgiveness.

@Friend 4: The difference in your analogy is that for one you can simply ask the person to leave. If they say no, and simply stand there, you cannot kill them. It would still be murder. You could call the cops, sure, but you could not kill them. In the case of abortion, you would kill the child. That is the very stark difference. Life’s preciousness established, the reality of having sex and producing such, means you are very much responsible. There is no right to good sex without consequences. Sex is designed very much with the purpose of pregnancy, and there is no right to continue having fun that would supersede human life.

In your example, you have property (a house and food), that you believe to be yours. However, you do not own that individual, because they are a human life (human life has ownership over itself; the opposite is called slavery). Inviting the person over relates more to inviting sex and it’s consequences, better than assuming some straggler wanders in. But even then, the comparison of humanity is clean.

PS: I also believe it to be quite woeful that the miracle of childbirth is compared to a ‘party-crasher’. The assumption there is that your right to party is more important than a human being (to fit your model, that party crasher would be killed for interfering with your ‘right to party’).

Another interesting note: You have every right to have sex, but you have no right not to get pregnant, let alone exterminate human life if you do. Oh society, what ever happened to that thing called responsibility, and dealing with the result of one’s actions? How dangerous this mentality of entitlement.

Falls Lake Dam, Hiking & Fishing, 10/12/09

Activity: Hiking & Fishing, 10/12/09
Location: Tailrace Fishing Area, Falls Lake Dam, Wake, NC
Conditions: 57 degrees C, Overcast/Slight Showers, Wind E at 3 mpg, 91% Humidity
Bait/Lures: 7″ Dark Purple Worm, Topwater Plug, Jigs, Mini lure.
Caught: Nothing

Greetings!

With the close of my Seminary’s Fall vacation, I just HAD to wet some lines. Still new to the area (its been about two months), I’ve been looking for a good place to go fishing and exploring. After some research, I’ve discovered Falls Lake, and decided to visit it’s eastern most portion this morning.

After waking up early and buying my fishing license, I drove a good 15 minutes to Tailrace Fishing Area, within the Army Corp. of Engineers section, and right behind Falls Lake Dam. I took about a 2 mile hike along Tailrace trial, which took me to the dam. I then walked across the dam to the edge, where I walked down to observe a small cliff-face. After this, I walked back, and forged my own trail along the sandy shore-line along the lake. After this, found my way back to Tailrace, and decided to wet some line.

I fished for only two hours, with no success. I tried a topwater chartruese plug for about 45 minutes, with no bites. I then tries a dark purple 7″ worm with no luck. I then tried a small sinking lure with no luck. This pattern continued until I had to leave. I’ll get the hang of it yet, and might even catch something!

Nice creek & picnic area within Talerace.

View of Talerace from atop the dam.

Sight alongside shoreline hike.

Hiking Elevation (ft)

Hiking Speed (mph)

My Performance

Activity:	Walk
Date:	10/12/09  10:38 AM
Distance:	1.47 miles
Time:	1:06:45
Speed:	1.3 mph
Pace:	46′ 09 min/mile
Calories:	182

Testing Video

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net

Testing Video

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net

Building Wife a Bookshelf

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net

testing

testing new blogging feature.

Discussions: Reponding to a Healthcare Question from a Friend.

David
To my FIU Republican friends, how do you react to the idea that FIU is a public option for higher education, and that since you are using the public option, why can’t healthcare have a public option?

Leonard Goenaga
If you would like to make loose references between public healthcare and colleges, then do the following: if you had the opportunity to go to a distinguished private school, or a public university, which would you pick?

Harvard or FIU? The answer is obvious. Private universities produce higher caliber programs, students, research, findings, professors, and the list goes on.

The US has the best colleges in the world, and these are not public options. The cream of our crop are our private ones.

So in this context, the private universities produce better institutions than the public. Same is said of healthcare, accept it takes it much further! 

For starters, healthcare would be something that would ensnare the public (like social security). It would deny you a freedom to choose whatever care and service for yourself. It would force payment for a program against your will, and unlisted within our constitution or as a ‘natural right’.

Greater still, our constitution tells us that any rights not given to the federal government is in the domain of the state. That’s why some states have public healthcare (which are terrible models). Look at walter reid hospital for a model of ‘public care’.

So if we follow the guiding document that states the delegation of power resides in states, that some fabrication of ‘natural right’, however passionately argued, is a debate to be had at the state level. This was designed for several reasons. Forcing north carolina to pay for new york’s health bill denies those individuals the sovereignty of self, and sovereignty of state. It is unconstitutional in its approach to a solution.

States should decide over this issue. If you disagree with your state, than you can move to one to your liking (its called freedom). If you want marijuana or public healthcare, you can move to Mass or cali (and see how terrible that experiment is). 

Jim
Leonard we need a national option because the health care industry is national.

You make a good point about how some states that do have public health are in bad condition. That’s because they don’t have enough money to run them thus requiring a greater economy of scale.

Finally medicare pays for old people, Medicaid for the poor. The federal government is already paying for healthcare and the grip that hmos have over hospitals and prices don’t help. Besides I’d rather foot the bill of an indigent that is receiving preventative care than the indigant’s problems due to lack of care which is what’s happening now.

You may have better results at private schools but lack of funding can do alot. Still for what you get from this public option, isn’t bad at all! All these reasons hide the thought behind public option. They are there so that those that can’t afford a private school may obtain the same education.

No one is saying abolish private healthcare. No one is saying we shouldn’t have public universities because the results may not be as effective. These are institutions that help those in which the market has squeezed out of affordability. May I also say that for education the results haven’t been dismal.

Leonard Goenaga
Thanks for your response. Pleasure to meet you as well.

You make several presumptions with your response. I’ll highlight them, and how they are invalid grounds for a rebuttal. The other points outside of these I’ll respond to as well.

This is what you are presuming:

1. We need a national option because health care industry is national.
2. States-run  healthcare fails because of not enough funding.
3. Preventive care argument.
4. Public option isn’t at all bad.
5. Private School affordability.

1. A. First, this argument is basically saying we need a national option just because its national. That doesn’t justify itself. Food is sold nationally. The flight industry is national. Transportation is a national industry. Add to this a multiple amount of additional industries which are national. Just because an industry is national, doesn’t mean we have to have a public option. One of the reasons we DON’T have public options in some of those sectors, is because the private market did such a better job that the public option was just a leech.

1. B. Something that MUST be stressed is authority. The authority you are referencing is a believe for it to be national. The authority I am referencing is the absolute high law of the land, the constitution. In it, it says:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (10th Amendment). I won’t go through the entire constitution, but it is very clear on what the US Government can and can do. Protect the nation. Collect taxes. Print money, etc. Nowhere is healthcare there. Nor foodcare. Nor housecare (all logical extensions of your logic). The Constitution is clear that this is to be determined by states. It maintains freedom, which is what our constitution seeks to protect. In other words, it is NOT a national right, and just because an industry is national (such as McDonald’s), doesn’t mean it needs a public option, especially when the public option fails in comparison to the private. Which leads to…

2. A.This is simply not true. Public education funding has increased tremendously over the years, and with no real results. It has not made improvements. You don’t extinguish a fire by throwing dollar bills at it. “Since 1985, real fed­eral spending on K–12 education has increased by 138 percent. On a per-student basis, federal spending on K–12 education has tripled since 1970. Yet, long-term measures of American stu­dents’ academic achievement have not seen similar increases.” (See this chart: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/images/b2179_chart4.gif).

2. B. States that have public options, like Mass., fail because the programs are bad. They have not that primal incentive. Multiplying the mistake doesn’t work. You don’t treat cancer with more cancer.

Good example: A city with some of the lowest graduation rates in the nation (Boston) is also the area with the most per-student spending. The place with the smallest per-student spending (Mesa, AZ) has the highest graduation rates. Money DOES NOT solve the problem, as we see in Public Education. (See Chart http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/images/b2179_chart5.gif)

3. A. Preventive care argument assumes even if people are given healthcare, they will take care of themselves. People are lazy. Many do not go to the doctor because American’s fear doctors, not because we can’t. Preventive care even assumes people would go in the first place, and you can’t force people to go.

4. Interesting enough, the response to point 4 is found in point 2. Those states-options are bad options. You already see the experiment at a smaller scale. Making it bigger doesn’t make it better, it just makes the problem bigger! Look at California! The state is gigantic (population, resources, and size wise). If they can fail with such crippling debt, what would make you think otherwise? Point two, your own admission, invalidates the assumption on point 4.

5. One reason many people cannot afford private school is because we’re forced into paying for public. Parents pay thousands of dollars to send their kids to public school already: it’s in your property tax. If my parents didn’t have to pay all that money, they could send me to private school, where I would have gotten a better education. If the government allowed people to choose whether they wanted to pay for private or public school, you would see where people would go. Public school is not a public option per-say, because we are forced into paying for it. Government doesn’t allow you to take those funds and invest in Private school.

Hope all these points, however long, will help you to see assumptions being made. In conclusion, this argument is grounded in freedom. Government, our’s in particular, is designed to protect man’s freedom. Forcing him into programs, especially ones that are $1,000,000,000,000.00 for 15-20 million individuals (a microscopic perspective of the population) denies man his freedom by forcing him to commit. It removes his financial freedom and forces it into a system that is not even as productive as the private models (see state-run programs like transportation, and walter-reid hospital, for dismal failures).

The government is clearly outlined in our constitution. This issue is a states issue, like many others. To force it upon people, people who are already tied up to paying $11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt, continued to erode their constitutional freedom, and their financial freedom.

It has failed on the states level. It has failed in other countries (compare our system with Canada and others), and it will only fail at a magnified level at the federal level.

11,000,000,000,000.00 for anyone who read this in full.

God’s blessings.