Ljubljana, Slovenia (photo from trekearth.com)
I have been trying to post on my latest revisions concerning consciousness, but between Blogger, Microsoft Word and Internet Explorer 8 it has been a disaster.
For whatever reason, Blogger will not post the new work from my PhD properly! I have posted Word footnotes previously.
Anyway, this post concerning universalism was on this blog previously and to be honest, I reason more of you would find this interesting than my latest work on consciousness. Most of you have not read it and it only had six comments originally.
It relates also to my PhD work.
But here is a sampling of my consciousness work...
Sir John Houghton defines consciousness as ‘a quality possessed by human beings’ and the extent that it may be possessed by higher animals is the subject of debate. Houghton (1995: 219). Although the human brain is sometimes compared to a computer, the human brain seems different as it thinks, feels, and demonstrates the property of self-awareness and consciousness. Houghton (1995: 92).
Rocco J. Gennaro of Indiana State University documents grammatically that the main term under review, 'consciousness' is derived from the Latin con (with) and scire (know). Gennaro (2006: 1). Michael Winkelman of the American Anthropological Association writes that common understanding of a model of consciousness includes attention-awareness, phenomenal experiences, self-referencing, learning and the use of information, interpreting meanings, having goals, and systems of social reference. It is suggested that consciousness manifests itself through the physical properties of the brain. Winkelman (2004: 1).
Biologist Alfred Gierer from Tubingen suggests that consciousness appears as ‘a system’s feature of our brain with neural processes strictly following the laws of physics’. Gierer (2003: 1). Gierer explains that there is not however, a general and exhaustive theory of human consciousness. Gierer (2003: 1).
Houghton admits it is difficult for many observers to accept that consciousness can be defined in a meaningful way or to describe it in terms of other things. Houghton (1995: 92-93).
Within my PhD consciousness is connected to human desires and free will.
Gierer reasons one of the difficulties with the problem of understanding human consciousness and understanding humanity is the question of human free will. Gierer (2003: 13).
GENNARO, ROCCO, J. (2006) ‘Consciousness’, in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Martin, Tennessee, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
GIERER, ALFRED (2003) ‘Brain, mind, and limitations of a scientific theory of human consciousness’, Preprint of a contribution to the symposium: Proteus im Spiegel-Kritische Theorie des Subjekts im 20, Tubingen, Max-Planck-Institute Biology, Tubingen.
HOUGHTON, JOHN (1995) The Search for God, Can Science Help?, Lion Publishing, Oxford.
WINKELMAN, MICHAEL (2004) ‘Understanding Consciousness Using Systems Approaches and Lexical Universal’, American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia, American Anthropological Association.
The interesting advertising campaign is from Dos Equis and was not with the original post. I have seen this campaign on television in British Columbia for the first time this week, but viewed it on Jake's blog months ago. The ads are both entertaining and in my mind somewhat philosophical at points.
No, I am not a huge drinker of alcoholic beverages, but I tried Dos Equis and it was quite good.
Please feel free to comment and yes I realize two of the clips seem perhaps identical but they are not.
Within the concept of soul-making theodicy, John Hick explains that once a human being dies a conscious personality continues to exist. Hick (1978: 12). He concludes that for soul-making to succeed post-mortem existence must include the ability to make moral and spiritual choices. Hick (1978: 13). Robert Smid writes that Hick believes that humanity will complete their soul-making via the afterlife, as a loving God must desire the salvation of all people. Smid (1999: 12). Hick reasons that since God has perfect knowledge of the human heart he would eventually succeed in bringing all persons in devotion to him. Hick (1970: 381). Hick holds to universalism, which John Ankerberg and John Weldon explain is the theological idea that salvation is universal and therefore as a result each person will eventually be redeemed in heaven in God’s presence. Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 503). John Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been considered by some well known orthodox Christians over the centuries as a viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this concept. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286). D.B. Eller writes that universalism affirms the idea that eventually all souls will be released from penalties of sin and restored to God. Eller (1996: 1128).
In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus uses an illustration relating to the ultimate destiny of individuals and explains that few persons enter by the narrow gate, and the wide and broad way of destruction is found by many. William Barclay points out, that Luke 13:24 is presenting a similar idea which may have come from the same original source, but reached the author of Luke from a different tradition. Barclay (1975: 97). In Luke, Jesus explains that many will strive to enter by the narrow gate, but shall not be able to. Barclay (1975: 97). This idea from Jesus would fit with a compatibilistic theology where God uses soft determinism to elect individuals to salvation. From this perspective, human beings with the use of free will alone cannot choose God. Within a sovereignty perspective, God will choose whom he wills to be present in his culminated Kingdom, and those he elects shall believe and follow him without being forced or coerced to do so. I reason that as God regenerates an individual by the Holy Spirit, he simultaneously determines that the person shall freely with the use of a limited, but significant free will, believe in Christ. Sentimentally, universalism is humanly more comforting, but it appears that Jesus disagreed with Hick on universalism. Laurence E. Porter describes a scenario in Luke 13:24-28 where some religious persons are rejected by God. Porter (1986: 1211). Jesus did not accept the theology that a sincere religious devotion alone would lead one to God’s presence in the culminated Kingdom of God. Let me point out that everlasting existence apart from God is absolutely and positively, not my hope for any individual person, but my theological findings are driven by research and not sentiment. I see no good reason to believe that human beings that have rejected the Biblical God throughout their lives with a corrupt nature and the resulting sinful thoughts and actions would ever in post-mortem existence come to Christ, unless determined to do so by God. Biblically, there appears to be no salvation for those outside of Christ upon death.
Hebrews 9:27, from the New American Standard Bible states:
As inasmuch as it is appointed for man to die once and after this comes judgment.
For deceased children and those who are mentally deficient, it can be deduced that since they do not arrive at a reasonably certain point of consciously rejecting God, and reasonable understanding of the punishment for this rebellion, they may be regenerated by God and included within the culminated Kingdom of God after death. I would view this as reasonable speculation. Biblically persons appear to be judged for sins, which result from a sinful nature, and not for the sinful nature itself. In Revelation 20, those persons who are thrown into the lake of fire are judged for their deeds, and therefore persons are judged for deeds and not nature. A non-regenerated child or mentally deficient person would still have a corrupt nature unacceptable for God’s presence, but I speculate that a certain mental capacity is required to be everlastingly punished for sinful deeds.
In contrast it could be stated that children and the mentally deficient outside of Christ, could be everlastingly separated from God and judged only according to what they know. I view this as a theological possibility that cannot be overlooked. But, the concept of everlasting separation in the New Testament appears to be one of God separating those from his presence that embraced their sinful nature and committed sinful deeds with a definite and not largely deficient understanding.
ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1975) Introduction to the First Three Gospels, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
ELLER, D.B. (1996) ‘Universalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 1128-1130. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.
HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.
KREEFT, PETER and RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.
NHL and Canada
Besides the first two...fantasy.
1800
Oddsmakers at BetUS.com posted the following odds on potential new NHL cities:
Coyotes to Canada? Which city most is likely?
Hamilton: 3/1
Winnipeg: 7/2
Victoria: 4/1
Quebec City: 6/1
Halifax: 8/1
Sherbrooke: 10/1
Regina: 10/1
Charlottetown: 25/1
online
I think other Southern Ontario should be in the top three.
Saudi Arabia: Blogger Released
ReplyDelete"On March 28, Hamoud Bin Saleh, a Saudi Christian arrested in January for writing about his conversion from Islam and criticizing the Saudi kingdom's crackdown on individual rights, was released from prison, according to Compass Direct News."
'Hamoud is reportedly forbidden to travel outside the country or appear in the media.'
ReplyDeleteHe should seriously consider finding a way to escape.
'In a recent post on his blog, Hamoud attributed his release to several human rights groups that campaigned on his behalf. "A nation which lives in this system cannot guarantee the safety of its individuals," he blogged, according to Compass Direct.'
Saudi Arabia, a good example of why the West should never desire a theocracy.
'In Saudi Arabia the penalty for converting from Islam, also called apostasy, is death. Still, in recent years, there have been no known cases of Saudis formally been convicted and sentenced to death.'
Cheers, Jeff.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteAs someone who loss seven children before being a Christian, I believe that such children go to be with the Lord. I don't believe in Limbo and I don't believe that those who have not the capacity to understand their condition go to Hell. I take Jesus' admonistion to his followers to let the children come to Him and that we must have the faith of children as reason to have this hope.
Reasonable, and I am in basic agreement, Larry.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Russ
Hick reasons that since God has perfect knowledge of the human heart he would eventually succeed in bringing all persons in devotion to him. Hick (1970: 381).
ReplyDeleteD.B. Eller writes that universalism affirms the idea that eventually all souls will be released from penalties of sin and restored to God. Eller (1996: 1128).
"And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell."
—Mark 9:44
The Lake of Fire would not be unquenchable if Hell were not eternal.
"They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might."
—2 Thessalonians 1:9
"Eternal" is not temporary.
A non-regenerated child or mentally deficient person would still have a corrupt nature unacceptable for God’s presence, but I speculate that a certain mental capacity is required to be everlastingly punished for sinful deeds.
I have heard Christians teach on an "age of understanding" before, but I have not found solid biblical evidence for it. Logically, it would seem that a child would have to be able to comprehend the gospel before they became accountable. On the other hand, they were born with a sin nature, and, from birth, they are selfish creatures. However, if they were elected for salvation, it could be that they will most certainly reach that age of understanding and come to accept Christ.
As far as mental retardation, some have said that they have noticed a special awareness of God in those who are mentally deficient. If this is true, maybe God compensated for their lack of mental ability, and gave them special spiritual awareness.
As far as unborn children (via abortion or miscarriage), they have not yet been born, so presumably, they have no sin nature (as well as no deeds), and would easily go to Heaven, I suspect. My sister-in-law, though she has no children, has had 6 miscarriages, and she believes all her "babies" are in Heaven.
It contrast it could be stated that children and the mentally deficient outside of Christ, could be everlastingly separated from God and judged only according to what they know.
Now I have seen biblical evidence that suggests that a person will be judged based on the degree of "light" they have received...though I'm too lazy at the moment to look up the verse(s).
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might."
ReplyDelete—2 Thessalonians 1:9
Agreed, as persons outside of Christ will suffer everlasting punishment...see also Revelation 20.
'Logically, it would seem that a child would have to be able to comprehend the gospel before they became accountable.'
All have a sinful nature, but persons appear to be judged for deeds and not nature, Revelation 20: 11-15.
'However, if they were elected for salvation, it could be that they will most certainly reach that age of understanding and come to accept Christ.'
Or as they are elected prior to conception they could therefore be saved regardless of when they die. A child without significant ability to grasp the gospel could still possibly be regenerated according to Calvin. I came across the statement in my MPhil/PhD research. This is tricky, however, but perhaps the unborn child could be given a special predisposition toward God through regeneration, even as he or she still have a sinful human nature.
From:
babies
When later Reformers such as John Calvin began teaching on the instances of regeneration within a mother’s womb the debate increased.16
16John Weldon Stagg, Calvin, Twisse, & Edwards on Universal Salvation of Infants (Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1902), 66-67.
From:
Inst
Calvin explains how all are under the wrath of God until regenerated. He first states that infants should be brought to Christ because being only Adam’s children, they are under God’s wrath. Using 1 Cor 15:22 and Eph 2:3, he shows the difference between being in Adam and being in Christ. Calvin next uses John the Baptist as an example of an infant who was sanctified from his mother’s womb to prove that God is capable of regenerating even the unborn. Jesus is his next example. Calvin writes, “… Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction.” Calvin goes on to insist “that none of the elect is called away from the present life without being previously sanctified and regenerated by the Spirit of God.” Within this context, he addresses the argument that it is impossible for infants to be regenerated without hearing the Word of God. Calvin insists that God has called many “and endued [them] with the true knowledge of himself, by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of preaching.” However, Calvin clarifies his meaning by explaining that enlightened knowledge is like a seed which is unlike full blown knowledge that comes with hearing the Word of God. He also clarifies what is meant by the working of regeneration in the infant who is baptized. He explains that “… children are baptized for future repentance and faith. Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit.” (17-20).
Institutes of the Christian Religion.'
I reason God could do this regeneration without infant baptism.
'As far as unborn children (via abortion or miscarriage), they have not yet been born, so presumably, they have no sin nature (as well as no deeds), and would easily go to Heaven, I suspect. My sister-in-law, though she has no children, has had 6 miscarriages, and she believes all her "babies" are in Heaven.'
I reason they have a sinful nature but will need to be regenerated and resurrected in Christ just as will all who inhabit the Kingdom of God as citizens.
'Now I have seen biblical evidence that suggests that a person will be judged based on the degree of "light" they have received...though I'm too lazy at the moment to look up the verse(s).'
Romans 1. They are worthy of death 1: 32.
Thanks very much, Jeff (Sir Jenkins of Ocala).
"Sir John Houghton defines consciousness as ‘a quality possessed by human beings’"Michael Winkelman of the American Anthropological Association writes that common understanding of a model of consciousness includes attention-awareness, phenomenal experiences, self-referencing, learning and the use of information, interpreting meanings, having goals, and systems of social reference. It is suggested that consciousness manifests itself through the physical properties of the brain""Biologist Alfred Gierer from Tubingen suggests that consciousness appears as ‘a system’s feature of our brain with neural processes strictly following the laws of physics’"Yes, apart from presupposing God and understanding our created nature as that of bearing the image of God, at best all we can do is describe consciousness. Just describing what something does isn't an answer for what something is. The "natural materialist" has no answers and no hope because he doesn't even know who he is as a human being.
ReplyDeleteThe last couple of videos reminds me of the pseudowisdom of Mike Murdoch who is always on Daystar or TBN spouting off a bunch of trite one-liners like they were some sort of profound spiritual "wisdom keys" (which happens to be the title of his show, if you don't already know). Actually, I'll take the wisdom of the guy in the commercial over Mike Murdoch's any day of the week! :-)
How can you go wrong with, "When you find something that you're not good at...don't do it."? Sounds "wise" to me!!
GGM
'Just describing what something does isn't an answer for what something is. The "natural materialist" has no answers and no hope because he doesn't even know who he is as a human being.'
ReplyDeleteI reason there is an immaterial aspect of consciousness, the human spirit, which is an aspect of consciousness working through the physical brain.
But, I do not write this within my current revisions and it does not presently meet my best interests, although I do support the idea of spirit within my thesis.
'Actually, I'll take the wisdom of the guy in the commercial over Mike Murdoch's any day of the week! :-)
How can you go wrong with, "When you find something that you're not good at...don't do it."? Sounds "wise" to me!!'
Yes, these are classic...the Spanish Chuck Norris.
Thanks, GGM.
Russ, I have had debates with universalists in the past, and it breaks my heart how many they lead astray. Your points have undeniable Biblical backing, and I'm in total agreement. There: no debate! ;)
ReplyDeleteWe used to have a bumber sticker on our car: "Eternity: Smoking or Non-Smoking?" My dad was offended, not because he does not accept Jesus as the Son of God, but because he thought it was a pot-shot at my mom's smoking habit. LOL!
Cheers, Greg, much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteUniversalism or some type of near universalism where only the 'worst' people are excluded from heaven or some type of everlasting life is of course one of the popular twenty-first century views.
Sadly, it is based on primarily speculative and sentimental religious approaches and not the Bible/divine revelation.
Russ:)
I came across this via the Dumb Ox blog:
No homosexual gene
APA revises 'gay gene' theory
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/14/2009 6:30:00 AM
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."
That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.
"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda."
Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. "Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they've lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization," he states.
With the new information from the APA, Barber wonders if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change.
"It's irrefutable from a medical standpoint that people can leave the homosexual lifestyle," he argues. "Homosexuality is defined by behavior. Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through -- frankly, most effectively -- a relationship with Jesus Christ."
LaBarbera agrees. "Change through Christ is possible -- and it's one of the most heartwarming aspects of the whole gay debate," he shares. "Many men and women have come out of homosexuality, mostly through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The fact that these professional organizations will not study that, will not acknowledge that, shows how 'in the tank' they are for the homosexual movement."
LaBarbera stresses that even though elites will not recognize the change, that does not mean the change does not exist. In fact, both Barber and LaBarbera believe that God changes people through Christ -- regardless of the sin.
Ive never had Dos Esquis. I do like a cold beer and pizza. The video clips you have, some of those are on TV here in the US, There pretty funny. rick b
ReplyDeleteStay thirsty my friend.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Rick.
Russ & Jeff,
ReplyDeleteIf we accept our own argument against abortion that life begins at conception, then we need recognize that an unborn child is a person, whether it is carried to term and born or it dies in a miscarriage. (In my case, of the seven we lost, three were born alive then died.)
If we believe every life is not an accident and that God has a purpose for each even before conception, and that God sets the seconds of our life, then we have to consider what are the implications of abortion and miscarriage. One of these is what happens to the soul of such a life.
We cannot ignore the foreknowledge of God, who would know what this life would be in later life. Therefore the final destination of babies, children, born and unborn is at the mercy of God. It is quite possible that some children who are never born and some who die early have served a purpose of God's and that such children do find salvation even though they cannot confess any sins or proclaim their faith as we can.
If any of my first seven children had been born they may have come into a life quite bereft of any acknowledgment of God. None the less, I believe my loss served the purpose of bringing me to believe in God and to salvation. Therefore, they served God's purpose. Especially Amy, the seventh (the number of completion), who's life after birth lasted but minutes, yet in her struggle within the womb to live testified to me about the existence and awesomeness of God as well as I have ever witnessed to another about the same. It was this which brought me to faith.
The birth of my three children after I became a Christian, when no doctor would take my wife as a patient because medical science declared her giving birth an impossibility provided a strong testimony to the miraculous Grace of God. These three children are of ages where they must make that profession on their own. However, I believe my lost children are not necessarily lost souls.
On Homosexuality:
The person who was my best friend during my growing up years, and still remains a friend, is a homosexual. He has spend much time trying to convince me his long-time partnership is no different than my marriage to my wife. The irony is his attempts to convince me his lifestyle is perfectly normal and no different than mine has instead convinced me of the total depravity of how he lived his life.
He does not have a high regard of Christians, by the way.
His constant refrain to anything is God made him that way. Since my wife suffers from Bipolar, I understand the influence of chemical and hormonal imbalances. It is certainly possible a person could suffer some imbalance that could affect their sexual compass; however, I also feel this is not the totality of causes. I feel there is also nurturing and behavior influences and choices having nothing to do with prenatal mutations, especially in the case of lesbians.
Even if a person is born with some imbalance that influences them to homosexuality, it should be recognized as a birth defect and subject to treatment to correct this defect just as if the person was born with a hearing imperfection.
I know this is a controversial, and generally unstated opinion, but why? Even if one did not accept the Bible and what God has said concerning marriage and sex, a simple look at the structure of the male and female anatomy would tell you there is something not natural about homosexuality.
Besides my friend, I have known several homosexuals in my life and hold no animosity against them. They are human beings just as am I, and no better or worse than I have been during my life. I would never say about them the same type of invective that has been hurled at me or my fellow Christians by them.
I don't know how many comments made by my friend on Facebook you can see, but you if you can you may notice that the mildest comment about Christianity can bring an attack.
'It is quite possible that some children who are never born and some who die early have served a purpose of God's and that such children do find salvation even though they cannot confess any sins or proclaim their faith as we can.'
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
'If any of my first seven children had been born they may have come into a life quite bereft of any acknowledgment of God. None the less, I believe my loss served the purpose of bringing me to believe in God and to salvation. Therefore, they served God's purpose.'
Larry, I am sorry for your loss.
Good point.
'It is certainly possible a person could suffer some imbalance that could affect their sexual compass;'
I tend to agree, it is possible and perhaps likely in some cases, even without a 'gay gene'.
'Even if a person is born with some imbalance that influences them to homosexuality, it should be recognized as a birth defect and subject to treatment to correct this defect just as if the person was born with a hearing imperfection.'
Yes, but sadly society wants to portray what is abnormal as often being normal.
'...a simple look at the structure of the male and female anatomy would tell you there is something not natural about homosexuality.'
Yes.
Thanks, Larry and please have a good weekend.
Nitewrit/Larry,
ReplyDeleteIn my case, of the seven we lost, three were born alive then died.
I'm sorry to hear that, Larry. I know that must have been, and surely still is, very hard, for you, and certainly for your wife.
Therefore the final destination of babies, children, born and unborn is at the mercy of God.
Yes, and that is an excellent point.
I believe my loss served the purpose of bringing me to believe in God and to salvation. Therefore, they served God's purpose.
I, too, believe that God sometimes brings about (or allows?) tragedies to occur in order that it will lead to the salvation of one or more persons.
yet in her struggle within the womb to live testified to me about the existence and awesomeness of God as well as I have ever witnessed to another about the same. It was this which brought me to faith.
Wow, that is moving, and shows the sovereignty of God.
The birth of my three children after I became a Christian, when no doctor would take my wife as a patient because medical science declared her giving birth an impossibility provided a strong testimony to the miraculous Grace of God.
Amen! Glory to God!
His constant refrain to anything is God made him that way. Since my wife suffers from Bipolar, I understand the influence of chemical and hormonal imbalances. It is certainly possible a person could suffer some imbalance that could affect their sexual compass; however, I also feel this is not the totality of causes. I feel there is also nurturing and behavior influences and choices having nothing to do with prenatal mutations, especially in the case of lesbians.
I understand that some tribes of Native Americans have a weakness for alcohol. Everyone has different weaknesses. I have never really been tempted by tobacco or alcohol; those are not my weaknesses. Yet others are addicted to them. Beastiality, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, etc., are all perversions of the way God created us. I have read that some convicted rapists admitted that they started out by looking at pornography. Of course, that does not mean that everyone who looks at pornography will become a rapist. And I cannot say with certainty that homosexuality begins with pornography and builds up to more severe perversions, but I suspect that it might. Around 1979 or so, I smoked marijuana for about 1 1/2 years. Because I was already smoking marijuana, I came very close to taking a Quaalude...I almost swallowed the pill. Thankfully, I never did. But if I had not been smoking marijuana already, I would never have even considered trying a Quaalude.
Even if a person is born with some imbalance that influences them to homosexuality, it should be recognized as a birth defect and subject to treatment to correct this defect just as if the person was born with a hearing imperfection.
Personally, I don't think it's a birth defect. Being bipolar, for instance, has nothing to do with morality or breaking God's law. I think, as I said, that everyone has different weaknesses toward different temptations. The weakness could be inherent, yes, but giving in to a temptation is never justified. We all have a weakness toward sin in general, which is called the sin nature or fallen nature; but that doesn't mean that God excuses our sins. Some are tempted to overeat, and others are not. Some are tempted toward gossip, and others are not. Were murderers born with a birth defect? No. If they were, then we should not punish them. Homosexuality is not a gender, as some would like you to believe. It's a moral choice, and a sin against the God Who created male and female, and Who created sex for intimacy between a man and his wife, as well as for pro-creation. Homosexuality does not lead to pro-creation, neither does it lead to intimacy between a husband and wife as established by God in Genesis.
a simple look at the structure of the male and female anatomy would tell you there is something not natural about homosexuality.
Exactly. But perversion knows no boundaries. Some people even have sex with animals. Did God make them that way? Hardly.
I have known several homosexuals in my life and hold no animosity against them. They are human beings just as am I, and no better or worse than I have been during my life.
Very good point. We are all sinners, and we all fall short of the glory of God. Homosexuality may be an abomination to God, but there are other sins that are an abomination to God as well; and, no matter how "small" the sin, it is still an offense to God. So, none of us are perfect, and none of us can look down our noses at anyone else. 'Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.'
you may notice that the mildest comment about Christianity can bring an attack.
I suspect that is going to only increase as the U.S. and the rest of the world become even more anti-Christian than it already is.
'Even if a person is born with some imbalance that influences them to homosexuality, it should be recognized as a birth defect and subject to treatment to correct this defect just as if the person was born with a hearing imperfection.'
ReplyDelete'Personally, I don't think it's a birth defect. Being bipolar, for instance, has nothing to do with morality or breaking God's law. I think, as I said, that everyone has different weaknesses toward different temptations. The weakness could be inherent, yes, but giving in to a temptation is never justified. We all have a weakness toward sin in general, which is called the sin nature or fallen nature; but that doesn't mean that God excuses our sins.'
We are all corrupt (Romans 1-3) and therefore within our natures we all have tendencies toward sin. The biology of some may make them more prone to homosexuality, but this would not be a 'gay gene' but an aspect of genetic human corruption that combined with environmental factors can lead to sinful choices.
We are in basic agreement, I reason, Sir Jeffrey.
Additional:
This is a letter I wrote to the Canadian billionaire in regard to one of the biggest news stories in Canada presently.
Why do I post this?
Well partly because the NHL's bad philosophy reminds me of the dogmatism of some religious movements. Similar type errors are made. They do not listen well and do not think objectively well enough. They are too concerned with potential dollars over philosophical and cultural issues.
It is not primarily a Canada versus USA issue.
I reason most American hockey fans would agree with my basic view.
This was in regard in particular to this audio presentation which can be found via this link.
Balsillie
His site is:
Make it seven
Hello, Mr. Balsillie,
I have joined your site.
I just listened to your discussion at the Toronto Star on the Fan 590 with Damien Cox.
I am an outsider, and ex-NHL fan (probably forever) fed up with the Americanization of the NHL at the expense of Canadian growth, even if just Southern Ontario.
I reason most of the teams should be in America, but primarily and more so than presently they should be in hockey markets.
It is difficult to very successfully grow a game in areas where the sport is nowhere near the most popular as even if it grows the more traditional sports are also growing and therefore hockey stays in the background.
The result?
Non-hockey market clubs tend not to be very successful unless they win a cup like Anaheim and Carolina, and are in a huge metropolitan markets like Greater Los Angeles or the San Francisco Bay area.
I am a philosophical theologian. Philosophically there is no such thing as a best sport or most exciting sport, contrary to what many in the League like to state.
There is also no best or most exciting colour.
Hockey may be the fastest sport of the 'big four', but it is not as fast as car racing or horse racing, and I reason the speed of hockey does not make it the most exciting sport.
Much of 'favourite sport' talk is opinion and much of it is culturally and early experienced based.
Simply placing the game in front of more people in the States will not make it a national sport. The NHL makes philosophical errors and overlooks the cultural ties to sport.
Many in the sunbelt are especially used to watching outdoor sports, and I reason it is generally more fun to watch a sport outdoors. My opinion.
Hockey is an indoor sport and this is a negative I reason overlooked by many in the media in regard to the sunbelt.
I used to read the Hockey News as a kid in the 1980s. In gossip columns there was talk about Canadian teams not drawing well in the US, the need for hockey to be a national sport in the US and the need to make it less Canadian. There was talk about the Jets moving to Phoenix back in the early 80s and negative talk about the Nordiques franchise too.
Yes, in Canada we shoot ourselves in the foot with our socialism and lack of economic growth in cities. Unlike America we have few up and coming potential NHL markets.
But, you are correct I deduce as an outsider the NHL does not want more Canadian teams and only wants to maintain the six we have.
With the mediocrity of our teams we will be 'lucky' to win a Stanley Cup every 20 years!
I think you face a very difficult uphill battle, which may be near impossible to overcome at this point, but perhaps at worst this is the start of something...a revolt of fairness!
I wish you success and have mentioned this in blog comments.
Thanks for at least exposing the League.
Russ Murray, PhD
hello Russ,
ReplyDeletebut I speculate that a certain mental capacity is required to be everlastingly punished for sinful deeds.
Some would refer to this as an age of accountability. In otherwords all are innocent until they reach the age of accountablitity. Whatever age that is i guess could be different for each individual.
I agree with Jeff about homosexuality. There is not a gay gene that certain individual's are born with. God made man perfect and in his image but then man sinned and went his own way. In my personal opinion and from what I glean from God's Word the homosexual lifestyle is nothing short of perverted fantasy and addiction and a yielding to the word of lying spirits instead of the word of God!
But as stated in God's Word we all fall short of the Glory of God and sin, the question to be considered is "Am I sorry for my sin against God as well as my own body?" or do i justify my sinful behavior so as to continue in its lustful indulgence.
Tamela :)
'God made man perfect and in his image but then man sinned and went his own way.'
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The fall led to a sinful human nature and sinful choices.
'In my personal opinion and from what I glean from God's Word the homosexual lifestyle is nothing short of perverted fantasy and addiction and a yielding to the word of lying spirits instead of the word of God!'
It is one of many results of a corrupted nature and environmental factors that lead to sinful choices and actions.
Happy Weekend.
Thanks very much, Tamela.
Russ:)
Hey! That Dos Equis guy is my uncle, ripping off my "Dos Chuquis" idea! He just left out the nerdy statements, like: "He can solve any Sudoku puzzle in seconds!" "He can reverse-engineer undocumented 500-line sed scripts! While making fried chicken!" "He has profound philosophical and technical insights... and yet knows when it is better to not share them!"
ReplyDelete"Dos Chuquis" the most interesting computer guy in the world...boop boop beep boop.
ReplyDeleteHe is a man of the world, but not of the world...
ReplyDeleteHe considers comics to be true art...
He uses a hockey stick as a negotiation tool in life...
He can kung fu kick without breaking a sweat...
He considers music to be stimulative enjoyment...
He is the most interesting man in the world,
"I don't always drink beer, but when I do, boy do I gotta pee!"
-Dos Equis Please-
Kind of true statements from a true friend...
ReplyDeleteStay thirsty my friend.;)
This last Sunday I was a big 'dummy'. Before I left the condo I put on my usual limited sun screen to avoid past little problems, but not for beach sun screen...I had no idea life would be a beach in Vancouver, and when I went to the beach in Vancouver in years past I was only mildly burned if at all. But by the time I got home it was clear my nose, ears, and part of neck were all burned. They are now covered in vitamin E and have been since Sunday. I put on aloe vera as well before bed.
ReplyDeleteI am healing and itchy!
But, I will never be like this lady.
Leather lady
I enjoyed the read! Thank you for sharing.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Leon.
ReplyDeleteIf that leather lady is for real, then thats just nasty. Rick b
ReplyDeleteAgreed Rick, thanks.
ReplyDeleteLeather Lady
ReplyDeletetoo much sun in Haiti
Your skin is dry
and you know why
Please use your sun screen
skin like yours I've never seen!
-Sunny Side Up-
Smart-%ss comment #30.
ReplyDeleteCheers.
Thanks for the workout Chuck...sorry I elbowed you in the nose.
ReplyDeletephew! brain overload!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Fikalo.
ReplyDeleteIt is a challenge.:)