I hope each of you get to consider the meaning of this day.
Archive for the ‘christianity’ Category
Posted in "It burrrrrrnnnnsssssss!", Another Honest Conversation Eric Holder Won't Support, Barack Hussein Obama, christianity, entitlement culture, Faith, Faux Intellectualism, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, Taxes, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, Tools, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on November 11, 2012 | 3 Comments »
…is that the members often can’t realize just how stupid they sound.
A professor at FAMU and a faculty member in the Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation named Barbara Thompson has authored a book called ‘ The Gospel According to Apostle Barack – In Search of a More Perfect Political Union as Heaven Here on Earth’.
The absurd premise it is based on is this :
She provided a complete breakdown of the good that has happened during the President’s 4-year term. Healthcare, the economy, education and federal initiatives interests are the “Good news” from the apostle.
Government interference. Usurpation of power. Centralized Planning. And all the failure that inevitably comes with it. If this is “gospel”, then we live on Bizarro World.
Jesus never preached about “collective salvation” or having government taking care of “the least of us”. That duty was specifically delegated to us. And there are many reasons for this.
If she knows the gospel, then she should be ashamed for insinuating that this ersatz messiah is anything like the real thing. But then, she is a professor, and she obviously believes that government can and should be involved in our lives the way that the President advocates for, so clearly, education doesn’t really mean what it used to when the most educated among us know so much that is not so.
Posted in 'dialogues' with the left, accountability, Another Honest Conversation Eric Holder Won't Support, christianity, Faith, Faux Intellectualism, Hypocrisy, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, Priorities, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, Unfunded Mandates, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on September 6, 2012 | 9 Comments »
One of the continuous headdesk generators for me is the Democrat’s stubborn insistence that Christians should happily assent to the Democrat’s plans to steal from the rich and doll out to those they deem poor in the manner that they see fit. The Janus act gets old. On one hand, they continuously flog Justice Black’s perversion of “separation of church and state” to the degree that any public expression of Christianity is an opportunity for a very small minority to use the courts to suppress the beliefs of a majority based on the specious belief that their lives would be completely devastated by the mere exposure to a cross on a war memorial that they never look at anyway. On the other hand, they want to quote Scripture to promote the belief that the same people they want to marginalize should be enthusiastic about government picking their pockets to fund entitlements and welfare programs that it has absolutely no business engaging in. And they do this without any self-awareness of the disconnect between their pathological desire to banish all traces of Christianity from even the most tenuous or tangential connection to government and then their compulsion to drag it back out when it supports their desire to buy votes with our money.
And when the Democratic National Convention is in session, double standards are TWICE AS GOOD!
Case in point? Elizabeth “Fauxahontas” Warren’s speech yesterday. On a day when the convention delegates booed God three times, and Klanned Parenthood representatives spoke about the Left’s Holy Sacrament of Baby Killing for fun and profit, she again brought her travelling social gospel revival to the podium.
I grew up in the Methodist Church and taught Sunday school. One of my favorite passages of scripture is: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Matthew 25:40. The passage teaches about God in each of us, that we are bound to each other and called to act. Not to sit, not to wait, but to act—all of us together.
Senator Kennedy understood that call. Four years ago, he addressed our convention for the last time. He said, “We have never lost our belief that we are all called to a better country and a newer world.” Generation after generation, Americans have answered that call. And now we are called again. We are called to restore opportunity for every American. We are called to give America’s working families a fighting chance. We are called to build something solid so the next generation can build something better.
First, let’s tackle the scripture. Matthew 25:40, like every other commandment Jesus gave, was to the individual. I know that this confuses leftists, who only selectively read the Bible to begin with. But the other point that they forget is that we know that any other time, they would react like Dracula immediately after a garlic and sunlight cocktail at the notion that any action performed by government should be inspired and justified by the Bible. Yet when it comes to excusing themselves from personal obligations to their fellow man by virtue of collective action, they cannot quote it enough. If they bothered with the whole book, they’d have trouble reconciling the fact that Jesus never once commanded us to give generously to the government. This requires an understanding that “welfare” and “charity” aren’t the same thing. With this might also come the understanding that “charity” is a personal obligation of the faith, and not something to be compelled from us, as Paul made clear in 2 Corinthians 9:7. But if the Democrats were sincere in their reverence for the Bible, and their belief in it, and the requirement to live according to the labors of others, they would have to rethink welfare anyway, as Paul exhorted in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-3:12.
6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he[a] received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.
10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.
They should also pause and reflect on the fate of Ananias and Sapphira.
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.
7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”
She said, “Yes, for so much.”
9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. 11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.
Something to think about when invoking the spirit of Ted Kennedy, who spent most of his adult life spending other people’s money in the “War on Poverty”, yet died wealthy, listing to Al Gore talking about our hearts being found where our treasure lies also, as he jets around the world preaching the salvation of carbon indulgences with a Godzilla-sized carbon footprint.
Posted in Another Honest Conversation Eric Holder Won't Support, Being Dad, christianity, Correcting Revisionist History, Faith, Family, Faux Intellectualism, Long Shadows and Those Who Can't Step Out Of Them, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, Priorities, Shame, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on May 29, 2012 | 21 Comments »
I hope you all found something worthwhile in your Memorial Day Weekend. I know I did in mine. It was busy, and it seemed like I spent much of it on the run, but I still found time for the sober reflection that is the reason for the holiday, and heard an excellent sermon on Sunday about reflection and remembrance, the latter being important enough to be mentioned in the Bible more than 100 times.
Then later that evening, I got to watch Courageous, a movie about heroes who made a decision and a committment to be the heroes that every man should be. My oldest son watched it with me, and we had a very good discussion about the various topics raised in the film. It won’t be a candidate for an Academy Award, but I appreciate the fact that people like the producers of this film, and people like Tyler Perry are willing to make movies with small budgets, and short timelines to tell a story that encompasses values no longer embraced by the larger studios.
Then, Monday morning, we finally went to see The Avengers. It didn’t disappoint, but then with Joss Whedon at the helm, it would have been an unpleasant surprise if it did. What did surprise me was the insertion of some lines, and story developments that reflected some values that Hollywood hasn’t been too big on in recent years. I suspect that this was allowed to happen because it was based on comic book heroes, and therefore. those values could be mocked by those who felt the need as childish or simplistic. Sadly, I doubt the message will be received by the rest of Hollywood, much of which chalked the success of The Dark Knight up to “making the character dark”. After all, the truth doesn’t fit the narrative. It was an exhilarating experience to see a story unfold that allowed for sacrifice, determination, and redemption in the characters that didn’t leave me feeling as if the dreams of childhood were retconned by a society that feels an overwhelming urge to “reimagine” and redefine that which it finds itself opposed to.
It was a good weekend that was a celebration of the things that it should have been about, and I felt relaxed and ready when I went to work today. Then I read about Chris Hayes’ shallow pontification over the weekend. If, like me, you were busy having a good weekend, and decided not to shave points off of your IQ by watching MSNBC, let me fill you in on what Chris said in his show “Up With Chris Hayes” :
“I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war,” he added that “there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers,” but that “it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic.”
I know what you’re thinking. I didn’t know that Butch Maddow had a brother either. Yes, “Up With Chris Hayes” is a stupid name for television program, as it evokes images of this, which doesn’t really get me thinking “serious credibility” but in its own way, does make a certain sense.
The apology, as predictable as an afternoon rain shower in Florida, came less than 24 hours later, and underscored his focus and the true target of his remarks, demonstrating that he still didn’t understand why what he said was wrong. (Yes, Rutherford, I said “wrong” and not “offensive”. Deal with it. Or don’t.)
Regardless, Hayes issued an apology for his comments on Monday, saying that he was “deeply sorry” for the remarks. “As many have rightly pointed out, it’s very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots,” Hayes said in a statement. He said that he had made a mistake by conforming “to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war.”
While its fine to oppose war, secure in the knowledge that other will still join the military and lay down their own lives to keep yours safe, to fail to recognize that sacrifice for what it is, and deny them the very basic respect they deserve simply for having made the decision that you wouldn’t (for whatever reason) is the mark of an ingrate. You don’t have to have done it yourself to recognize that signing up (or accepting selection) into a service that will take you far from home and most certainly put you in harm’s way to protect your nation and your loved ones, or to be a part of something much larger than one’s own self-interest and benefit is an act requiring the kind of courage that not everyone choses today. The fact that one would choose to do it, either in the previous administration, or this one, indicates to me that they clearly see something obscured to the Chris Hayeses of the world, and reminds me of a famous movie speech delivered over a decade ago:
“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to. “
There are many ways to be a hero. Some will cast much longer shadows than others. Some will do it by living up to their responsibilities, no matter how much they would prefer an eternal adolescence, and some will do it by exhibiting valor and great sacrifice, up to and including the one life they have to give, for their country, or for their fellow man. That doesn’t always have to be a conscious decision to charge a machine gun, or exposing yourself to fire, because the first act comes with the decision to serve, and to be a target so that others won’t. It isn’t glamorous, but then, it doesn’t lack conviction, either.
Posted in accountability, christianity, Faith, Hypocrisy, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, Priorities, Shame, Tolerance of the Rainbow Swastikas, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on May 22, 2012 | 8 Comments »
Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church has a problem.
As the nation grapples with this topic made newsworthy by the President’s desire to not have to run on his record, people on all sides of this issue seem to be stepping up the rancor and rhetoric. Whether it is Expert Bully Dan Savage’s appeals for tolerance disguised as anti-Christian rants against school kids who dare to believe what their religion teaches about homosexuality, or pastors like this new subscriber to the Westboro Baptist Newsletter, there is an appearance of a desire to push both civility and understanding out of the discussion that we seem to be trying to have and not have simultaneously as a country on this subject.
In the case of Mr. Savage, I can at least understand and rationalize his anger. People sometimes get angry when they are being told they shouldn’t do something that they enjoy doing. Anyone who knows an alcoholic who doesn’t want to get cleaned up, and has been on the receiving end of the anger and resentment that comes from suggesting it knows exactly what I am talking about. Under that circumstance, I wouldn’t expect Mr. Savage to be a rational actor.
Pastor Worley doesn’t have that excuse.
As a Pastor of a Christian denomination, he should fully understand that there is an Old Testament and a New Testament. As a Pastor of a Christian denomination, he should fully understand that the New Testament gospel doesn’t preach hatred for the sinner. The measure of undeserved grace that we ALL enjoy should be sufficient to remind any believer that we are all sinners. This does not excuse sin, but is meant to motivate each of us to make the daily attempt to NOT do so. Despite the clear and specific admonitions against homosexuality that are contained in the New Testament, that does not excuse any believer from the commandment to love one another…a commandment that I find myself struggling with in increasing frequency. To do otherwise does not comport with this commandment. To do otherwise does not comport with the book of Jude, which states:
17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
20 But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh. [Emphasis Added.]
The Pastor does violence to the Word and the Spirit when he speaks like this. Shouting with anger and malice doesn’t make the sin he condemns any more a sin than calmly saying so. But it does make people defensive, and when they get defensive, they stop listening and start shouting. And when he attacks the sinners for their sins, in hate and anger, he embraces hypocrisy, and becomes a poor ambassador for the one whom he claims to serve.
I confess that my gut reaction was “If Dan Savage can take time out from bullying school kids for being Christians, then maybe he and the Pastor can have a cage match. But the sad fact is that the Pastor’s rant only makes people like Savage feel justified in their own hatreds, and makes it that much harder for those who want to speak the truth to a world that sorely needs it. I am ashamed of my Brother, and I apologize for him, but I am glad that we have the same hope of redemption, forgiveness, and grace that are the hallmark of the Christian belief, and are what sets it apart from so many other faiths.
Posted in accountability, christianity, Correcting Revisionist History, Faith, Faux Intellectualism, Hypocrisy, Institutional Stupidity, media bullies, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Priorities, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, Tolerance of the Rainbow Swastikas, Uncategorized, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on May 1, 2012 | 20 Comments »
…is that to be correct, it should be done into a mirror.
Accomplished bully, and, oddly enough, paid spokesperson for the anti-bullying movement, Dan “Attack Dog” Savage , is just the latest example.
Savage, “famous” for a sex column and grabbing headlines for such brave and unbully-like acts such as naming gay-sex effluvia after Senator Rick Santorum, and statements about how much he wants to F**k Santorum, and how he wants all Republicans dead recently gave a Sheridan apology for his bullying of high school students at a recent conference in which he launched into a tirade on the Bible, and then call the students who chose to remove themselves from his 15 minutes of hate by calling them “pansies” as they departed from his expertly rendered discussion against bullying.
Now, for those who like some justification with their assertions, you’ll note that he cites little to support his claims of the Bible containing “bullshit”. The Bible supports slavery, and was used to justify slavery? Tell it to the abolitionists who were waiving it with equal committment, Mr. Savage. Christians eat shellfish, and therefore are hypocrites, Mr. Savage? Tell it to Jesus, who said
14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”
There are also 6 other New Testament references that make it clear to anyone capable of reading and understanding, that this would be one of those taboos that isn’t taboo to a Christian, meaning, of course, that Mr. Savage was not correct when he decided to belittle the beliefs of a captive audience who did not have the opportunity to respond…much like bullies often do.
Missing the opportunity for demonstrating any real understanding, he recently apologized on his website, displaying the same tact and wisdom that has so recently put him back in the spotlight in an uncomfortable way:
I didn’t call anyone’s religion bullshit. I did say that there is bullshit—”untrue words or ideas”—in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying “motivated by faith”)—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don’t believe.
No, Dan. When you attack the basis for someone else’s beliefs, you are attacking those beliefs, and the difference between those whom you mocked when they shook the dust off their heels and departed, and you, is that they have read and understood that which clearly eludes you. But then, with a plank in your eye that is the size of a redwood, I’m surprised that you can drive a car without running into anything. But then, since people still hire you to talk about fighting back against bullying, my surprise is tempered with resigned disappointment.
Posted in 'dialogues' with the left, accountability, christianity, Disrespect of Rule of Law., entitlement culture, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, Rule of Law, Shame, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, Uncategorized, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on March 17, 2012 | 46 Comments »
If you do not ask the right questions, you do not get the right answers. A question asked in the right way often points to its own answer. Asking questions is the A-B-C of diagnosis. Only the inquiring mind solves problems. – Edward Hodnett
Nothing rings so loudly in our ears as the things that we heard someone else never say. – Me
This week, Rick Santorum found himself in the crosshairs not just of the Left-leaning media, but the media on the right, over one of several policy statements posted on his campaign website. The offense? Promising to prosecute laws that the Obama administration has shown no interest in prosecuting. Were these laws against illegal immigration? No, although being in support of those would have been controversial enough for some who supposedly occupy space on the right. No, his crime was far worse. He suggested that he would have his attorney general prosecute existing obscenity laws against hardcore pornographic materials. From his own website on the issue:
For many decades, the American public has actively petitioned the United States Congress for laws prohibiting distribution of hard-core adult pornography.
Congress has responded. Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”
The Daily Caller printed a story this week on Santorum’s policy statement that launched a firestorm of outrage by people who furiously tweeted, commented on Facebook, or blogged with one hand on how ridiculous this concept is, and how it is yet more evidence that he is unserious about becoming President. While the cries of “Get your hands of my [sticky] porn!” rose from many quarters, people who should know better began to weigh in with opinions about things that he didn’t say. I could cover them, but Stacy McCain has done a pretty good job of compiling some of them in his piece on the subject, which you should read, as well as covering the very interesting point that this breathless “news” story has actually been posted on the candidate’s site since JANUARY 9th of this year, but is only now a threat to America getting its rocks off. Stacy McCain also has asked the follow-up questions regarding the coverage of this “story” that in days gone by might have been asked by a good reporter, which makes me believe I should actually hit his tip jar. Hell, I guess not all of this should do this simply as a method to keep from succumbing to the gaslighting being done to us by the legacy media. And predictably, as the week wore on, the usual suspects weighed in with the usual answers.
“I find it ironic that Republicans (like Santorum) are out there wanting less government and government intruding into our lives, but when it comes to moral issues they want government to legislate morality,” says [Steven] Hirsch [co-founder and Chairman of Vivid Entertainment]. “It doesn’t work. It will never work.”
Thus once again ignoring that the bulk of law “legislates morality”, as it is intended to punish and discourage behavior that society finds is bad (murder, stealing, rape), and to not interfere with something that society finds is not harmful (having an honest job), or even encourage that which society finds beneficial (buying a home, saving money, having children). It isn’t that “legislating morality” doesn’t work, Mr. Hirsch. Law does it all the time. The real question is “Who’s morality shall we legislate?”
What I find surprising about this story is not that people on the left and the right are getting very excited about what Mr. Santorum didn’t say (that he is coming to your home to take all of your porn videos, and copies of “Sex With Animals”). If there is a sign of the times for our age, it is hearing the things never said, whether is Maureen Dowd hearing Joe Wilson’s unsaid “, boy!” at the end of his declaration to the President Downgrade, or the many, many plans for a christofacist theocracy heard by anti-christian and anti-theist bigots whenever someone speaks about the strong Christian influence on our body of law, our culture, and our founding as a nation.
Instead, the real story is the questions no one is asking. Questions like “Why do we consider it acceptable that we have such a body of laws to begin with, if the notion of their enforcement is so ridiculous/silly/offensive or wrong? We have all sorts of laws that regulate what materials can and cannot be sent through the mail. The FCC will issue fines for dropping f-bombs on the air, or having a “wardrobe malfunction” during a Super Bowl halftime show, and arguably these actions are far more tame than a download of “Snow White and the Well-Hung Dwarfs”, a DVD of “Debbie Does Everyone”, or the latest issue of “Barnyard Love”. If the idea of these laws is as ridiculous as Mr. Flynt suggests, then why doesn’t he spearhead the movement to have them repealed? Certainly, if they do not accurately reflect the moral sensibilities of a majority of Americans, then it should be a relatively easy matter for Congress to repeal them, right? After all, the issue is much more titillating and sexy than addressing insanely out of control spending, or even passing a budget, right? This is the same Congress that had time for hearings on baseball, and having professional activists and part-time students come and give testimony on the burning need to violate religious schools’ conscience rights and provide astronomically priced contraceptives to students who are so busy training to be the 1% that they need $1000.00 worth of birth control a year.
What does it say about us as a people that some among us feel so strongly in favor of hardcore pornography that we consider unfettered access to it to be a right, despite what our laws say about it? What does it say about us that the idea of continual non-enforcement of law is somehow considered to be a legitimate and laudable goal? Does this concept edify or delegitimize the notion of rule of law in a society that is supposed to be based upon laws and not on men? And what does it say about us that we as a society are so quick and eager to vilify a man who states among his many goals a desire to have law enforcement under his administration enforce the laws? When I ask myself those questions, I don’t like the answers.
Larry Flynt can say that there is no “there” there all he likes. As someone whose home is built upon the furious fapping of others, I would expect nothing less from him. But there is something about systematic exposure to hardcore porn that diminishes the humanity of both the object and the end-user. The gratification without effort or consequence can kill the ability to relate to and recognize the satisfaction of another, driving the emotional intimacy of a healthy relationship extinct as the use of another person merely to satisfy lustful impulses becomes a primary goal. Creativity also suffers, as we become programmed to react to what someone else has decided is sexy. But don’t just take my word for it. It’s recognized in all sorts of interesting quarters these days.