Houyhnhnm Land

Toward a more precise and brief exposition of the concept the Gentile Christian.

It was decided by Paul and the disciples (Acts 15) that it was a fact that the rule of love of neighbor was sufficient for the identification of all good acts. In the context of the understanding at that time (always a consideration) we would expect to see among the Christians model marriages and families, model employers and employees, model neighborhoods, model government.

The conditions for a happy marriage may be different now, but that means merely a different action ensuing from the same principle of the expedient application of the rule of love. One principle and two different actions, both derived from that principle under the guidance of one’s current understanding of the world.

Paul considered same-sex sex as domination, perhaps, as one male dog will hump another male to show dominance. As such it was reprehensible and reflected the spirit of hell. It could not have been natural in his thinking, of course, for then a benevolent nature would have wanted to produce more babies to account for the many deaths. So obviously it was a domination and rebellion against the very laws of nature itself (i.e., in his thinking, where the laws of nature work for the good of the humans in the production of children).

Today the situation is far different. Or rather, our understanding of sexuality is from a different perspective, namely from a world that has too many babies. Now that same benevolent nature would give us people who could enjoy each other without restraint and never have the first child, and never need recourse to all the artificial devices of birth control, the drugs and surgeries and even self restraint. Suppose homosexuals were in all other respect indistinguishable from the majority of the population who find the opposite sex more attractive. Suppose they were just like the left handers of this world, and were morally no better and no worse than these left handers. Wouldn’t we just jump for joy and call God’s blessing upon the homosexual and ask God to give us more? Must we still crucify the gifts of God? The straights have screwed up the world and God has given us a non-domineering same-sex sex, i.e., homosexuality, which, if promoted, can help save the world from over population.

The “necessary things” (Acts 15:29) were a clarification of the meaning of the follower of Jesus among the gentiles. They were to defer to the Jewish Christians at the table and they were to exercise self control as a signal of their allegiance to the Lord Jesus. This was the self restraint of the gentile Christian: being prepared (under control) and sensitive to the weakness of fellows on the path of the Lord, especially those following the “right” foot print of Jesus as Jews.

In a word: in all sincerity the gentile Christians were to apply the rule of love in their present condition, and be especially mindful of others on the Way (especially if a different foot print) and be always prepared to represent the Lord Jesus.

In this wise then the Council of Jerusalem gave the OK for Paul’s experiment with the gentiles, in making them followers of Jesus apart from the Jewish culture, i.e., lawless and beholden to the rule of love alone as totally sufficient and without need for supplementation.

Note: All this comports nicely with the lesson of John 5, namely that no interpretation of a communication of God may inhibit an immediate act of love.

Mr. President,

First of all I hope you are doing well. We are doing better and a lot of the credit goes to you.

Here is a smart tactic that will work. We have health care reform, but we need to understand better why we have it and especially why we have mandated that all Americans take part.

The fundamental principle of our union is this: we agree to live together in a free realm (like that conceived by Immanuel Kant). The first principle of that realm is that all people are equally endowed with dignity and respect. This is Kant’s mighty moral law that impels us ever toward perfection in our existence. That is the great given. What within those universal and categorical bounds are we trying to accomplish in a union together? We want, all of us, to live freely without external restraint and we agree to guarantee to all of us that our rights, given by God, may be restrained only universally (and not for just some of us), and that we have to agree by majority vote as to what those restraints might be. With regard to foreign relations and dangers we agree to bind together and be a single people and pledge ourselves ready for defensive duty if called upon. [This is not unlike a marriage where before the law is there is a singularity and no division.] We have a duty to each other to help ward off any restraint of our liberty by a foreign power. This now leads to health care.

We cannot expect to continue as a free people, making our own destiny in freedom, unless we are militarily strong and well educated and creative and productive and healthy. Our military readiness is in good order and we are well served. But we are not so well served by our health care, not well enough to be ready for the challenges that we face today for ourselves and for our children and for all who will live in our free realm. Consistent with our need for a better health as a nation, we will now impose a tax upon ourselves for the express purpose of making health care available to all people at no cost to the individual but only to the society. This is what health insurance is all about. We agree to pay up front and we do it as a society by means of a self-imposed compulsion. We will tax ourselves in the name of our common security from foreign advance and then say to our citizens, “Look, in the pursuit of happiness you will find little that is more important than good health. But even more importantly we need to be healthy for our security in this competitive and dangerous world. Now you can go to the doctor (at no charge to you*) and he will advise you how to get better health. It’s up to you then and upon your confidence in the doctor. The point is you really ought to go to the doctor now and then in order to be more healthy and thus better help us all together as a free nation to be on owr toes and in shape and ready for whatever may be coming at us.”

[* I am ignoring any co-pay and am focusing on the brunt of the doctor’s bill which will now be born by the entire society via the mandate.]

So, Mr. President, you can reach across the isle and give credit to the Republicans for suggesting this justification of the mandate (and its like jury duty too) and accordingly proclaim the mandate to be bipartisan and an example of how you are willing to accept a good idea once it is fleshed out.

In this way, I think, you could score a few points and catch the Republicans off guard, and find greater solidarity with the conservatives, be willing to accept many of their principles, e.g., legalizing medicinal marijuana. You ought simply to do this. Call for the rationalization of medicine but letting the doctor decide with the patient. Let the doctor be given all the facts of this drug and of his patient and then prescribe what he thinks is best regard bodily and mental health. Furthermore you might then also agree and side with the (true) conservatives with the recognition of the same-sex marriage. As we should get the government out of the doctor’s office with regard to therapy, we should also get the government of the driver’s seat with regard to marriage. The concept of the marriage is two free people who enter into a union of total identity with each other and with respect to others. It is a restriction of rights to say to the world that these two people have to be of the opposite sex. It would be like saying that two left handers could not get married. Imagine that. Two people who write with their left hands cannot get married. Or two people of different color. Or two people of different hair color, or all this never ending involvement in the lives of two people. This really ought to expand to include more than two people in communes (and this is a bit risky, I suppose), but let’s keep it at two until the divorce rate approaches 0, and we might decide it is more practical always to keep it at two. We are a free people. We decide together what shall bind us all. Either we will have a marriage of two people, or we will have no marriage at all, for we cannot restrain the rights of just some, but only of all together.

So let’s take what is intelligent and right for us our and our future in our common liberty, and let’s pull together and insure that our liberty shall continue and be an alternative for all people.

There is a logic which derives the health insurance/tax mandate from the commerce clause of the Constitution, but a more powerful logic can be developed in the name of national defense.