Matt 24 watch, 61: The Gabriel ink-on-stone tablet

A few days ago, the news reports on the recently announced Gabriel Stone Tablet -- apparently, discovered in Jordan a decade ago [which, BTW, underscores the often overlooked fact that the historic land of Israel was on both sides of that well-known River . . .] -- were brought to my attention.

As is now sadly usual, the news reports have breathlessly announced yet another "undermining" of the authenticity of the New Testament.

This time, on novel grounds: based on interpretations of lines with lost or faded text regarding the thought of an obscure C1 BC Jewish sect, the NT's report that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, was allegedly simply copied from Jewish thought of the day:

. . . Mr. Knohl contends that the stone’s writings are about the death of a leader of the Jews who will be resurrected in three days . . . .

“This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. “Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.” . . . .

Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus.

The obvious problem?

The 500+ eyewitnesses and the record of such within 25 - 30 years, leading to a worldwide movement over the past two thousand years that manifests the supernatural, liberating, life-transforming, healing power of that resurrection:

1 Cor 15:1Now, brothers, I [Paul] want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance^[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,^[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 15:3 Or you at the first
2. 1 Corinthians 15:5 Greek Cephas

Here are my thoughts, in response to the ever-alert reader I:

____________

1] Isaiah 53 speaks of a suffering Christ, who rises from the dead, 700 BC. [The idea of a suffering servant messiah who dies for the sins of the people and rises, bringing salvation to those who believe his report, as well as healing and deliverance was there all along, for at least 700 years!]

2] Jesus, in speaking of three days to rise, used the analogy of Jonah in the belly of the beast of the sea for three days. [So, indeed, the idea of such a rising messiah in three days was part of Jewish culture, from the days of Jonah.]

3] Jesus clearly had to address the issue of the political messiah, who would overthrow Roman rule on analogy of the Maccabean revolt. Indeed, the confrontation in Gethsemane with Peter trying to behead one of the arresting party distinctly echoes1 Maccabes 1 - 2 -- in the circle of disciples, no less. The difference is Jesus' rebuke, which is telling in light of the fate of 6 of 7 Hasmonean brothers: those who take up the sword will perish by it. And, of course he ducked the crowds who would make him king by force, and he told Pilate et al that his kingdom was not one of this world, or his followers would fight.

4] In short, the climate of being a part of the messianic trend of Judaism, but also deliberately distinguishing himself from the politicised messiah is plainly there in the NT. THAT is the key difference! (Including, Jesus distinguishing himself from sects that may have seen the political messaiah slain then rise. That is in the end -- given the texts such as Isaiah 53, and the general climate of yearning for "Maccabes Uprising II" -- not particularly surprising.)

5] Thus, we can see the deep flaw in:

. . . Mr. Knohl contends that the stone’s writings are about the death of a leader of the Jews who will be resurrected in three days.

He says further that such a suffering messiah is very different from the traditional Jewish image of the messiah as a triumphal, powerful descendant of King David.

“This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. “Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.” . . . .

Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day.

But there was, he said, and “Gabriel’s Revelation” shows it.

“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”

--> First, that there should be a variant on the usual desired/expected/ candidate political messiah where he is slain [the usual fate of leaders of uprisings under the Romans!] but rises, even in three days is rooted in the OT expectations.

--> Thus, it is unsurprising in the end to see such a correlation as is now in view; but that is not grounds for inferring to cause in any sense that undermines the authenticity of the NT teachings. (There is a dubious higher critical principle that in effect disputes the autheticity of anything in the NT that reflects the hebraic context of C1 Palestine. Usually, it is read as ruling that a saying of Jesus is inauthentic; here, it seems to be used to infer that Jesus's teachings are simply derivative of that context.)

--> What is underscored, here, is the distinctive emphasis of Christ on spiritual transformation and a messiah whose work is primarily spiritual: dying as the lamb of God sacrificed for our sins [cf John the Baptist's "behold the Lamb . . ."], rising as our Lord and Saviour.

--> And, of course, precisely which of these would-be political messiahs rose from the dead in three days, with 500+eyewitrnesses and resurrection power in a church that has gone to the world of lost sinners -- one soul at a time -- with the gospel that saves, heals and delivers?

--> Thus, we see a strained twisting of evidence [in part somewhat scanty and based on reading missing or half-erased words] to find an anti-Christian interpretation. That says more about Mr Knohl and his ilk than it does about the NT and the gospel.

_____________

So, in the end -- and as Pastor Sam Green of Grace Missionary Church, Constant Spring Jamaica, so strongly reminded me five years ago -- we come back to the still telling force of the Apostle Peter's theological last will and testament:

2 Pet 1:12 . . . I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."^[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

So, then "whose report will we believe" -- why? END

1 Chron 12:32 report, 54: On Moodle, Alice, Java, Multimedia, Robots and cybercamuses

As long-term readers will know . . . slowly, painfully, step by step . . . TKI has been working its way towards developing a cybercampus based college intended to link to local micro-campus centres and vision and action teams, to help foster reformation, God-blessed, truly sustainable development of our region, and a projection to the wider world, based on demonstrated success.

The general idea has been to take the classic discipling the nations vision to the next level, and to organise a cost-effective college using web technologies and facilities, supporting community-based people, facilities and initiatives, providing regionally relevant education and training within a Biblical context.

This, eventually, would range from second-chance secondary education [Caribbean education systems, sadly, are demonstrably enormously wasteful of potential], through Associate and even Bachelor degree and higher levels as necessary. To start with, however, the focus would be on targetted workshops, seminars adn short skill/capacity-building courses that address key areas of urgently needed capacity building: e.g. discipleship of the mind 101 (worldviews, issues and actions), ICTs -- IT productivity, Agriculture transformation I -- small scale high impact backyard scale agriculture using drip irrigation and mulching, etc.

Good news: over the past two weeks, there has -- at long last -- been a bit of a breakthrough.

For, as sometimes happens, several more or less independent lines of thought and inquiry come together, and the whole becomes more than the sum of the parts. That tends to make the old creative juices going and so we get some brainstorms. That now seems to have happened, and we can now begin to see some outlines of a practical way forward.

The following notes on points are more or less a progress report, and are offered to help spark interest, discussion and more formal proposals and action:

1] Moodle and the cybercampus backbone

Moodle is an open source -- i.e. "free" --web based course management system that has potential to support a cyber-campus, with structured content, multimedia learning resources, forums, wikis, blogs and more. Indeed, it is the platform being used by the regional anglophone university, UWI, to host its open campus initiative.

The breakthrough here is that over the past fortnight, I have finally spotted how to activate the Apache "light" server based Web On a Stick version, using literally a USB memory stick [4 GB; EC$110 on a "bargain" price.] In my Vista system the 1.7 version of Moodle, with PHP 5, activates and the trick is to use the admin account and the password, password, to log in. (This means I now have my very own web server on a USB memory stick, hosting Moodle and a sample course.)

So, I have been able to develop a sample, USB-resident course web, and have confirmed that this is "reachable" for more or less ordinary, computer-literate teachers.

In addition, I have been exploring the world of open source alternative software with very interesting results. [You might want to start exploring by noting the impressive power of Sun's Open Office, and then continue by looking at Inkscape drawing package, Scribus Desktop publishing, Dia diagramming software, Thunderbird personal information management, GIMPshop photo-editing and Open Proj project management software as start-points for your own investigations. (Indeed, Ubuntu is is well worth a look as a popular way into the open-source Linux Operating System. )]

In short, a cyber-campus based on more or less open software systems is definitely practically doable.

2] Agriculture renewal

Over the past several years, I have become interested in a local initiative that used plastic sheet mulching and drip irrigation to produce vegetables and similar crops. (In some measure, that's because St Elizabeth Jamaica's guinea grass mulching based agriculture is part of my DNA.) Couple that to rain-collection systems, software control and renewable energy through say small windmills and Solar PV systems, and we see the outlines of a small-scale intensive production, sustainable agriculture backbone.

Multiply such by a potential mini-campus site hosted by a local church in a nearby EC island as a campsite, with access to several acres of land and a pond; with a small hotel a few chains down the road. This high potential, relatively undeveloped site is on the outskirts of the capital city of that EC island. (NB: The eldership of the host church is very open to working with such initiatives.)

In short, we have a potential mini-campus site for an agriculture-based "school" that can also explore renewable energy and related information and communication technologies [ICT's], etc.

3] ICT productivity, I -- Alice, Java and ICT's

Information technology dominates today's world.

But, there is a big barrier to moving from consuming IT to being productive with it: the need to become a programmer. Java has been a step forward, but it is generally speaking not user-friendly enough to be highly motivating.

Major downer.

So, you can realise why I became very excited when I discovered the Alice initiative online: a programming learning environment that uses the creation of videogame-like worlds with active characters to break into the world of object-based programming.

In effect, you select a three-dimensional world, pick and put in characters and props, then program the characters to act (and interact) based on preset sets of behaviours; all in a Java-based environment.

Soon, version 3 will incorporate the characters from the Sims gaming system, through collaboration with Electronic Arts -- a major leap in potential. (And, as my 9 year old demonstrates, it is an almost irresistible invitation to begin to learn to program.)

There are of course online tutorials and courses, even textbooks that bridge to Java. So, we have a gateway into developing a generation of IT-productive people.

But, that is only part of why I think this is a key opportunity . . .


4] ICT's productivity, 2 -- multimedia, robotics, interfacing

First, the multimedia world is itself a useful one for creating entertainment and learning resources.

Alice opens the door to training in such multimedia, interactive programming.

More subtly, though, one uses Alice to create characters in a three-dimensional environment who act mechanically: move, spin, jump, talk etc.

So, the obvious challenge is to extend Alice, and link the software-based model world to the real one, through creating PC-resident input-output interfaces and using sensors, effectors and suitable control and modelling of dynamics to act into the real world, mirroring it in the on-screen "world."

In short, we also have a potential gateway into robotics (and the wider world of mechatronics), instrumentation and control, as well as high tech manufacturing.

5] Alternative energy technologies

Training in alternative energy technologies is a natural fit with the above.

For instance, we could target solar, wind, micro-hydro and other renewable and alternative energy technologies as components of and extensions to the above.

6] Discipleship, issues, renewal, development and Reformation studies

In an emerging global era in which the de-Christianising tidal wave from the North and the Islamist one from the East are rising challenges to go with our own local ones, the churches of the Caribbean region need to build the capacity to tackle issues, address church and societal renwal and reformation, and make a significant contribution to the sustainable development of our home region and the wider third world.

That itself motivates a whole stream of studies.

In short, there is a lot of work to do, and we have a clear opportunity to do it.

So, yet again: why not now? why not here? why not us? END

UPDATE: a few cleanups

Matt 24 Watch, 60: Happy Birthday America -- reflections on the value and validity of the US DOI

This weekend marks the 232nd anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence, in 1776; an event which is in many ways even more significant than the 60th anniversary of independence of Modern Israel as we discussed some weeks ago.

That is especially so in light of the ongoing war for the culture, and for the minds and souls of men that lurks within it.

For, on one hand, we see an agenda to reduce our understanding of Western Culture and its major contributions to human progress to a one-sided litany of horrors, shame and crimes.

On the other, we see the twisting of the concepts of liberty and rights to promote libertinism, licence and amorality in the name of liberty, and the destructive perversion, subversion and suppression of the right in the name of "tolerance," "diversity" and "rights." (Indeed, we now see ever more clearly, that the gospel is being censored and the biblically based Christian Faith risks being outright censored or even criminalised in such a climate, under labels such as "bigotry," "discrimination" and "hate speech.")

Such demands a cogent response.

An excellent place to begin -- on this its 232nd anniversary -- is with an excerpt of the 1776 US Declaration of Independence:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .

[ . . . . ]

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

In short, in the view of the US Founders -- BTW, not just Jefferson (who was writing as a member of a drafting committee of the Continental Congress)! -- our rights are an inalienable endowment from God, our Creator; who has made us all equally in his image.

Thus, on pain of the absurdity that comes from foolishly denying self-evident truth, we must first reckon ourselves to be equals under God.

So also, since we reflect God's image, to abuse or oppress another human being is an affront not only to that person, but to God, who made him or her in his image. Therefore, we may properly make binding moral claims that our lives, liberties and pursuit of our individual life-callings under God (the basis for true happiness) should be respected.

This, in turn, draws deeply on the force of Locke's citation from "the judicious [Anglican theologian Richard] Hooker" in his discussion of the implications of the Golden Rule for the moral order of civil society:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant. [2nd Essay on Civil Government, ch 2 section 5; citing Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, 1594 -.]

In that context, Governments are instituted among men, with a main duty to protect our rights.

Immediately, that means that if officers of such a government undermine or ignore this duty, the people, acting together under their representatives, and/or through other of their civil authorities, may first petition for redress, then if that is ignored, call and act for reformation under God. (Thus, we can easily see that the US DOI is in part derived from the Discipling Mandate of Matt 28:18 - 20, which calls for the church to teach the nations to obey the Christ of God -- i.e., among other things, to prophetically call for reformation through the direct implications of the Golden Rule of Matt 7:12 etc) .

However, sometimes, the just call of the people for corrective reformation is resisted, through "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [that] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism . . . "

In such a case, the people have a reserve right of revolution, to remove those who have abused the mandate of just civil government under God, and to restructure Government to promote justice and liberty under God. (Thankfully, in our day -- and in no small measure due to the impact of the American Revolution -- we have a regular, peaceful institutionalised potential revolution every four or five years: The General Election.)

So, flawed though the American Revolution inevitably was -- it is after all a work of finite, fallible, fallen, too often ill-willed people (just like us . . . ! Cf Matt 7:1 - 5 on first removing the planks in our own eyes so that we can help our brothers with sawdust in theirs) -- it was a tremendous achievement, and remains pregnant with vital lessons for us today.

Well worth the saying:

"Happy Birthday, America!"

However, there is a very different view of progress in Western Civilisation, especially in the Western Hemisphere.

Pam Hoffecker, A Pennsylvania mother and author, in commenting on the "educational" video The Columbus Controversy shown to her son in a high school history class, gives us a telling insight:

"When I looked at the video about Columbus, I was very upset. It began with a teacher grabbing a purse from a student's desk, saying "This is my purse. I didn't steal Samantha's purse. I discovered this purse." Columbus was presented as an anti-hero who sought gold and slaves, brought genocide to the indigenous, and should be ridiculed. It never mentioned that the supposedly peaceloving Carib Indians owned slaves and would fatten, castrate and eat male babies in cannibalistic rituals. True, the European immigrants did exploit Indians, but there are two sides to the story. . . ." [NB: From my recent reading of Samuel Eliot Morison on the European voyages of discovery from 1492 on, it is plain from multiple contemporary records that there was indeed widespread cannibalism, slavery, war and oppression in Amerindian cultures across Central America, the Caribbean and South America.]

But, immediately -- even obviously -- we should know that the act of discovery is morally and logically distinct from wrongdoing that may have been done by sinful, fallen discoverers, their companions, and those who followed them. So, "discovery" should not be in effect equated to stealing or a justification for it. That sort of distorting, unfair rhetoric has no proper place in the classroom.

Moreover, the act of discovery -- in the broadest sense [geographical, scientific research, inventive, social, political, commercial, etc ] -- is a high-risk, technically very difficult, and important achievement. That should be recognised, not least as the hope of future discoveries due to the enterprise of free men seeking to fulfill their calling under God is a vital step to opening up positive possibilities for our own future in the face of the manifold, daunting challenges of our day. (Indeed, that basic lesson is a direct point of comparison between our own time and the hemmed-in, hard-pressed Europe of Columbus' day. Yes, we should learn from the flaws and sins of the discoverers of the past, but we must also learn from their achievements! And, for that matter, the then innovative patents mechanism put into the US Constitution has been a major engine of free enterprise-driven technical and economic progress.)

Similarly, the in large measure biblically-rooted breakthrough in government and liberty that the Reformers, their predecessors and their successors had pioneered for centuries found culmination in the tremendous achievement of the US Declaration of Independence, Constitution, creation of a free, self-governing republic dedicated to liberty and justice for all -- however imperfect it has been at any given time.

So, a balanced history education programme should teach us to appreciate the positive achievement of discovery and the doors to massive progress it opened up, while also recognising the sobering impact of the wrongs on both sides of the situation.

This is precisely what we do not find here, and on many other topics relating to the good that Western Civilisation -- formerly known as Christendom -- and its underlying biblically rooted Judaeo-Christian tradition have done.

Q: Why is that so?

A: Because, for many decades now, there has been an active politically messianistic agenda driven by evolutionary materialist secularists, post-modernist neo-pagans, homosexualists and many others, to gain a critical mass of support to reject the Judaeo-Christian heritage of our civilisation, and to replace it with one species or another of a radical secularist-pagan utopia. So, they have set out to [a] one-sidely rewrite our history to emphasise the failings of the West, to [b] uncritically boost the achievements of any other culture or religion [thus leading to the perceived moral and cultural inferiority of the West], and to [c] generally destroy the remaining influence of the biblically anchored Judaeo-Christian tradition.

But, as we have just seen, it is precisely that tradition that is the tap-root of the liberty and democracy that we enjoy.

Indeed, it should be plain that if: we are all created equally in God's image, which gives us inalienable rights, and that Governments are instituted under God to do good, promoting justice and restraining evil-doers, then: Government is accountable under God for justice, and has no just power to "create" new rights out of whole cloth that run counter to the order of Creation. Nor, may it "erase" those creation-order based rights that are endowed by our Creator. In short, Government under God, properly, is strictly limited and accountable under God and before the people, who are also under God. [Cf Ac 17:16 - 34, also the 2002 JTS/CGST public lecture on ethics and development.]

That is precisely why those who have agendas to manufacture new "rights" that run counter to the obvious Creation-based order of Nature -- so-called same-sex marriage is an obvious case in point [Cf Matt 19:1 - 6] -- and/or to suppress true rights, seek to undermine, discredit and even suppress the Tradition that materially contributed to the rise of modern liberty.

So, much is at stake in the ongoing battle for the soul of our civilisation.

Will we rise to the challenge, or will we be like those who stood on the sidelines -- or, worse . . . -- 232 years ago?

Again, let us reflect: why not now? why not here? why not us? END

_________

UPDATE, Jul 7: Additional links, minor edits. Additional comments on discovery and its extension to the patents mechanism.

Matt 24 Watch, 59: On responsibility, our experience as thinking and choosing agents, and atheism

Sometimes, an online forum exchange can be very revealing on the underlying gaps in evolutionary materialist thought.

From reader I in the US, we can find such a revealing exchange.

The context is a recent news item, in which a woman from the Czech Republic caught up in a cultic group was accused of horribly torturing her young sons. (The instance is so disgusting that I will not give an excerpt, but will warn that the link has very disturbing reading.)

In the forum, the following exchange occurred:

B wrote:

I: So, her behavior was not caused, but rather she chose her acts?

B: Yes.

I: Which means that (pace the "science[^]" of Richard Dawkins) she's not, after all, a "meat puppet" dancing on the strings of "antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment."

B: She is a culpable meat puppet, dancing on those strings. Physiology, heredity, and environment affect us all, and yet many of us choose and or modify the effects on ourselves.

I then commented, very correctly:

You're trying to have it both ways; but that's not how reality works, you know.

There is a vast difference between saying that:

1) "physiology, heredity and environment" (i.e. 'accidents' as such was historically called) may have some greater or lesser degree of influence upon us as we choose this or that;

versus saying that:

2) "physiology, heredity and environment" mechanistically determine our behaviors.

The two statements are polar opposites; they cannot both be true.

The puppet cannot pull its own strings.

B's reply to this summary is utterly, sadly, revealing:

B: Nothing you say can change what I think; that's already been decided.

I then responded:

In which case "think" is entirely the wrong word to use.

You might want to think about this, Anthony Flew's Choice and Rationality[^] (.PDF, 11 pages) in the archives of 'Reason Papers' at Mises.org. This, by the way, was written when he was still an 'atheist.'

The background for the exchange is the evolutionary materialist view on how mind allegedly emerges from meat through chance and mechanical necessity acting on our claimed remote, ape-like ancestors. In Dawkins' words: "We are jumped-up apes, and our brains were only designed to understand the mundane details of how to survive in the stone-age African savannah."

Going to Dawkins' article as I linked above:

Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software . . . .

Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity . . . .

But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment . . . .

Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions?

Perhaps, Professor Dawkins, because it is utterly and plainly absurd and unworkable, given our most direct experience of the world, i.e. of ourselves as conscious, deciding, thinking, responsible agents. So, very properly, we reject any theory that implies that such is delusional.

For, without the power of real thought and choice -- not driven by forces beyond reason and volition -- knowledge, thought and communication become impossible.

So, we may see how Professor Antony Flew -- even in his atheist days -- neatly dissects such [want of] thinking, in I's linked article. The article is somewhat complex, but its essence is that once we seek to explain away choice as the product of chance and/or mechanical necessity, we automatically undercut the basis for real knowledge and communication, i.e absent responsible choice, we cannot be agents:

. . . choice-choice between at least two real alternatives either of which the agent possibly could take-must be a presupposition of any actual knowledge. For no creature incapable of making choices between alternative possibilities of belief could properly be said "to know something." Second, choices, in this understanding, cannot be causally necessitated. For to say that there was necessitation in one particular sense would be to deny that there were any real alternatives to that particular commitment. Third, we all acquire the crucial and complementary notions both of practical necessitation and of being able to do other than we do in what is, surely, the only way in which such fundamental notions could be acquired. We acquire them from our everyday and utterly familiar experience both of making choices in action, and of bringing some things about while finding it utterly impossible to effect others.

In short, we begin our thought life from our self-experience and growing awareness of real (albeit limited) choice, thus agency. Otherwise, we are simply puppets being played by chance and necessity, with only the delusion of real thought, and real choice.

So, if -- for instance -- we have a claimed scientific account for the origin of the mind, which undermines the credibility of the mind, then it saws off the branch on which we HAVE to sit to function as thinking, choosing, communicating beings. And, the evolutionary materialist account of the origin of mind is precisely such a case:

. . . materialism . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.

But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.)

Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited!

Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze?

In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic, and only survives because people often fail (or, sometimes, refuse) to think through just what their beliefs really mean.

As a further consequence, materialism can have no basis, other than arbitrary or whimsical choice and balances of power in the community, for determining what is to be accepted as True or False, Good or Evil. So, Morality, Truth, Meaning, and, at length, Man, are dead . . . .

In short, ideas sprout roots, shoot up into all aspects of life, and have consequences in the real world.

The Apostle Paul is therefore very relevant indeed:

RO 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles [One adds: in Paul's day, in Pagan Temples; today in textbooks, in Museums and on TV . . .] . . . .

RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity . . .

So, let us think again, very carefully indeed about the implications of evolutionary materialism in the guise of "Science." And, how those implications destabilise the foundations of our thought life and morality, including sexual morality. Indeed, it is highly interesting that precisely as such thinking reaches ascendancy, the precise perversions Paul identifies in Rom 1:26 - 28 as the consequences of turning our backs on God and making up images and stories that reinforce our rebellion, attain unprecedented proportions.

Mere coincidence?

Somehow, I think not. END

Matt 24 Watch 58: Some follow-up information on biology, choice, moral frame of reference and sexuality

In recent weeks, in this blog we have had the sad duty to address an evident homosexualist campaign targetting Jamaica and the wider Caribbean, to push for decriminalisation of sodomy [which on the evidence of what is now happening in North America and elsewhere, rapidly leads to onward agenda-items such as the further undermining of the value and social benefits of marriage through creating homosexualist "redefinitions" under colour of law, and the censorship of morally based questions directed at homosexual behaviour and advocacy].

In so doing, we have tried -- imperfectly though such a difficult exercise inevitably is -- to walk in the delicate balance that firmly addresses sin and advocacy for what is objectively in error, whilst gently respecting the person. However imperfect our actual behaviour, the underlying intent is: to respect and love the person, but refusing to condone sin and self- or socially- destructive behaviour and advocacy - indeed, to call to repentance, renewal and transformation through the gospel and the power of God.

Now, too, last time, we looked at some key evidence on the "our genes made us do it" model of the cause of same-sex orientation and behaviour.

Dr Robert Spitzer in particular provides significant evidence that through counselling and morally directed effort, often in a context of firm but loving spiritual disciplines, a two- to five- year effort has a significant track-record of helping many caught up in homosexual behaviour and feelings to overcome their unwanted affections and behaviour.

Our task today is to look at some additional evidence on the impact of cultural context on the prevalence of homosexuality, especially in the context of closely-related people-groups.

This becomes significant, as a key issue now on our agenda is the likely effect of the ongoing attempted homosexualisation of our culture and wider civilisation under what has been called the Western Model of homosexual conduct. [There is a classic Greek-Roman model in which pederasty is part of the initiation into manhood at the hands of a mentor; indeed with Jupiter and Ganymede as divine exemplar. Third, there is a Melanesian model in which it is believed that boys can only become men through taking semen into their bodies; so that there is a compulsory homosexual period (in passive and active phases), leading to marriage and exclusive heterosexual conduct.]

In this task, an excerpt from Chapter 6 of My Genes Made Me Do It by Dr Neil and Briar Whitehead of New Zealand will prove helpful:

. . . . If homosexuality were significantly influenced by genes, it would appear in every culture, but in twenty-nine of seventy-nine cultures surveyed by Ford and Beach in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent. It was very rare in the Siriono, even though there were no prohibitions on homosexual relationships in that culture. The researcher observed only one man displaying slight homosexual traits but apparently not sexually involved with another man. Homosexuality appears to be rare among Orthodox Jews [Orthodox Judaism forbids homosexuality], so much so that learned rabbis, the interpreters of Jewish law, usually allowed men to sleep in the same bed, because likelihood of sexual contact was considered negligible. Kinsey also found very low homosexual incidence among Orthodox Jews.

Some anthropologists have questioned Ford and Beach’s findings, believing that irregular sexual intimacy is not something foreign researchers can easily get information about. One sexual anthropologist, Whitam, thought homosexuality must be genetically enforced because he found it practiced in some isolated groups in South America and East Asia who knew nothing of the practice elsewhere.

But evidence from other remote tribes in New Guinea-all genetically related-suggests differently. This evidence comes from missionaries who commonly spend 25 years of their lives living in one culture, far more than almost any anthropologist. The anthropologist will argue that the sexual practices will never be told to the missionaries and they will get a biased perspective; on the other hand it could be argued that they will be unusually sensitive to practices which transgress Christian norms. Overall they can be considered as reliable witnesses. For example, in contrast to groups like the Sambia in the New Guinea highlands, where homosexuality was compulsory, only about 2-3 percent of Western Dani (also in the New Guinea highlands) practiced it. However, in another group of Dani who were genetically related, homosexuality was totally unknown. Missionaries report that when they were translating the Bible into Dani for this group, their tribal assistants, who knew their own culture intimately, were nonplused by references to homosexuality in Romans 1; they did not understand the concept. Another missionary, with the same group for 25 years, overheard many jests and sexually ribald exchanges among the men, but never a single mention of homosexuality in all that time. When Dani went to help with missionary work among the Sambia, they were astounded at some of the homosexual practices they saw for the first time. Although it is always difficult for a foreigner to be completely sure whether a rare and stigmatized behavior exists, it is certainly true that if three such different experiences of homosexuality can occur in groups of people so closely related genetically, genetically enforced homosexuality is an impossibility. [HT: Conservaspedia article, "Homosexuality." ]

In short, the decisive correlations are plainly cultural, not genetic.

Homosexuality is obviously possible in all cultures, but it is much more prevalent in those cultures that in one form or another condone or encourage it; even among genetically very close cultures such as related people groups in New Guinea. It shows up in culturally -- and even institutionally [so-called situational homo-/bi- sexual conduct] -- distinctive patterns, and in only some cases is the Western, genetic/ inborn nature rationale/ view predominant.

Thus, it would be wise to look a bit more closely and critically at the predominant view among elites and advocates in our own cultures; especially given that we see clear evidence through Spitzer etc. that people can, with significant effort, change their sexual behaviour and associated feelings.

This raises the issue of the ex- ex-gay, the former ex-gay who relapses into his former ways. [In a Christian context, the broader phenomenon of the backslider is very familiar; indeed it is recognised and strongly deplored in the New Testament.]

Such a phenomenon, however, is not at all surprising, once we see the significance and difficulty of choice involved in leaving the homosexual lifestyle. Thus, it is wise -- even if one ultimately disagrees with substance or tone -- to listen to some sobering remarks by Peter LaBarbera, in response to an attempted rebuttal of the story of "John," a sophomore [~ 15 -16 y.o.] US high school student who was moving towards homosexuality but then pulled back and became a born again Christian:

. . . We live in a world in which “the experts,” often with impressive sounding credentials, dismiss healthy change yet put their stamp of approval on homosexual and gender-confused identities . . . Science has been politicized and is being used to guide young people into harmful and unnatural behaviors.

To most Americans, religious or not, leaving homosexuality or gender confusion behind is a good thing. To homosexual and gender-bending activists, any ex-”gay” testimony threatens their central propaganda myth that some people are intrinsically (born) “gay,” bisexual or “transgender.” Some homosexual activists . . . have dedicated themselves to discrediting ex-”gay” change by hyping the cases of people who have returned back to homosexual behavior. (Yes, change is difficult, but why focus exclusively on failed attempts? Imagine if someone tried to “prove” that overcoming drug addiction was impossible by popularizing only those cases of addicts who tried to go clean but fell back into their drug-abusing lifestyle.) [HT, Conservapedia, article "Ex-homosexuals." ]

So, too, let us consider the testimony and remarks of Black American Pastor (and former homosexual), Darryl L Foster in a Charisma Magazine article:

. . . At the core of arguments about homosexuality and various moral issues of our times is whether or not the Bible is a credible authority to govern our lives in light of new "scientific revelations" about humanity. In question is the veracity of the Scripture and its application to human living . . . . In a world in which the winds of societal change blow erratically, our security lies in knowing that the Word of God is forever settled in heaven. Knowing that God's Word is an unchanging source of truth, we should courageously contend for the faith.

Answers to modern attempts to affirm, tolerate and portray homosexuality as a valid expression of the human sexual picture can be found in the Word of God . . . .

In our society there is a prevailing assumption that individuals are "born gay" or that homosexuality is a genetic trait. I believe that my life and the lives of thousands of other former homosexuals and lesbians are in direct contradiction to such an assumption.

Besides, this argument is irrelevant if we take into account the Scripture's clear teaching on transformation and change (see Rom. 12:1-3; 2 Cor. 5:17; Matt. 16:24). Transformation and change, along with freedom from the penalty of sin, are the key fruits of a life submitted to Jesus Christ.

If we cannot expect change from the oppressive Adamic nature that enslaves us, then what need do we have of Jesus? His advent, coming, death, burial and resurrection all guarantee that the new birth is a new start. If it is indeed a new start, how can one continue to practice without remorse something so repugnant to the holiness of God?

Pastor Foster then goes on to note:

We must also take into account where these theories of being "born gay" originated. They did not come from the Bible. They are not part of the historical concerns of the early church fathers. They have not been revealed by any credible prophet of God.

The truth is that in 1991 homosexual activists touting their flawed "studies" began spoon-feeding the notion to the media, who without any critical analysis bought it and began preaching it as fact.

We can see the devastating effects of such cultural lies on the church. Now, less than 15 years later, many prominent churches and church leaders are calling for "full inclusion" of unrepentant homosexuals based on this false premise . . . .

Thus, in Foster's Biblically-anchored view, the issue in the end is fidelity to the Word and our confident standing on the gracious, life-transforming, loving, purifying power of God. That shifts our focus of attention:

In any case, the focus should be the forgiveness and healing Jesus freely offers to every homosexual sinner who will accept it. It is an offer no one can afford to pass up.

The church must shift the dynamics of the discussion to what matters most--Jesus saves! Prolonged debates about genetics will save no one, but the powerful, life-transforming, good news of the gospel will accomplish what God pleases . . . . Prolonged debates about genetics will save no one, but the powerful, life-transforming, good news of the gospel will accomplish what God pleases . . . .

Foster then lays out the foundational biblical context for sexuality [cf the more detailed discussion in ch 2:18 - 25, and Jesus' reference to these texts In Matt 19:3 - 6], and remarks on his own life story:

God created humanity male and female and encouraged them to enter into a sexual relationship. God pronounced that good. There is not even a hint that two males or two females were created and encouraged to have sexual relations together (see Gen. 1:26-28).

Genesis 1:26-28 is the official historical record on the original intent for human sexuality. In other words, God created a "gold standard" for human sexual relationships. Whether you or I reach it, that standard will never change.

People who struggle against same-sex attractions, desires and behavior are not living by this standard. But they can be delivered and healed to live productive and fruitful lives.

I intentionally use the phrase "struggle against" as opposed to "struggle with" because the connotations are important. "Against" says I do not want this as a part of my life. "With" says I am resigned to having it dominate and sidetrack me.

Former homosexuals joyfully point to one definitive Scripture that mentions them and the redemptive process they are embracing: "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites ... will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

When I met and married my wife, Dee, almost 12 years ago, she and I both were clueless about what my post-homosexual life would be like. As painful as my past sin was to me, my wife was not the cause of my change; rather, she was the fruit of my change.

She was the gift of God to a lonely man yearning to please his Deliverer. Now, with our four children, we are living testaments to the wonderful benefits of living life submitted to Christ.

Our responsibility as Christians is to pour love out without measure on those who struggle to overcome homosexuality. Compassion was the hallmark of the Chief Shepherd, and as His disciples, we should be characterized by it too as we encourage them to embrace the freedom Christ offers.

A sobering challenge, from one who has had to walk a very painful path. But one not without hope.

So, again: Why not now? Why not here? Why not us? END

UPDATE, June 17: Clarification that I am citing Foster [and accepting his credibility to speak, in light of the testimony of the scriptures], and provision of links to key biblical texts.

Matt 24 Watch, 57: Is biology destiny, or is that now widespread claim a delusion, one destructive to freedom and responsibility?

Is mere accident of biology moral destiny, or do we make real, though sometimes difficult, significantly free, moral choices?

This is the underlying issue raised by a major theme of much contemporary homosexualist advocacy, namely the "scientific" claim that there is a gay gene or the equivalent that more or less determines one's sexual attractions and resulting behaviour.

Such deeper issues are particularly connected to an underlying theme in Mr Sackur's challenge to Mr Golding of Jamaica, wherein homosexuality is seen as a genetically rooted, unchangeable -- thus morally neutral -- integral component of personal identity. On such an assumption, to challenge homosexual behaviour and advocacy is to attack persons based on who they inevitably are, thus to manifest bigotry.

In short, the voltage on the discussion on such matters in our civilisation has been turned way up; indeed to potentially lethal levels. That makes it very hard to speak in civil tones, and even harder to be perceived as so speaking -- very dangerous in a situation where there are now increasing numbers of cases where civil rights law is being used to try to shut down questioning of or concerns about the roots, morality of choices involved in and consequences of homosexual behaviour and agendas, such as so-called same-sex marriage. [Indeed, I note a recent headline which speaks against "anti- Gay Marriage" advocacy; which simply turns upside down the plain facts of the history of the nature of marriage; through the tactics of turnabout accusation -- those who seek to preserve the classic and well-tested status quo on marriage are presented as if they are the radicals trying to overturn the long-standing consensus of the civilisation. A sadly classic propagandistic technique that too often finds its way into today's news and views coverage.]

So, we first must pause and plead for a turning down of the voltage, as there is another side to the story!

In so doing, we must also continue to try to walk a delicate balance: addressing issues without condoning sin, while respecting the basic dignity of the person, the struggling sinner. [Which last is what we all are!]

Several observations will help:

1] Contrary to common claims, there is significant and credible evidence that homosexuals who so choose and persist in change efforts can significantly change not only their sexual behaviour but also their pattern of attractions; on a sustained basis. (In short, our common experience of mind, that we can make choices, though some of them are hard to make and make work out [especially where earlier choices have landed us in life-dominating patterns of behaviour, thought and feeling] is real.)

2] For instance, Dr Robert Spitzer of the American Psychiatric Association [APA] -- one of principals in the 1970's declassification of homosexuality as a listed mental disorder -- has gone on record:

"Like most psychiatrists," said Dr. Spitzer, "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue - some people can and do change." In his new study announced May 9, 2001 at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer released the evidence for his conclusions . . . . There is a professional consensus that homosexual behavior can be resisted, renounced or relabeled. However, homosexual orientation can never be changed . . . .

With the help of Dr. Richard C. Friedman, I developed a structured telephone interview . . . . About 90% of [our 200] subjects reported using more than one kind of change effort . . . The mental health professional was most commonly a psychologist (23%),or pastoral counselor (12%). Rarely a psychiatrist (3%). "Other" included repeated meeting with a heterosexual role model, often refer-red to as "mentoring," self help books or what some subjects called "spiritual work" - meaning changing one's relationship with God . . . . The vast majority said religion is "extremely" or "very" important in their lives . . . .

After two years into the change effort, they begin to feel different sexually. The vast majority of subjects reported this change as being gradual, and often starting with diminution of homosexual feelings and gradual emerging or intensification of heterosexual feelings. Three years later, after about five years of the change effort, it ends for 78% of the subjects. The remaining 12% report that the change effort continues up to the present time, usually referring to continuing to at-tend an ExGay support group or having a life-long struggle with the underlying issues that they believe caused their homosexuality . . . .

The gradual nature of the change, and the frequent pattern of less homosexual feelings followed by more heterosexual feelings , indicate it is not a simple made up story. The gender differences - e.g., the greater ease with which the women subjects were able to change, and the women's reports of often being more heterosexual to begin with - are consistent with the literature. It would be difficult to explain why, if no one really changed, the women subjects would report more change than the men.

3] In addressing the underlying mechanisms and results, Dr Spitzer notes:

In answer to the question, "How did you translate what you learned in the change effort to changing your feelings?" subjects reported the following change strategies that are generally recognized in the literature as components of effective psychotherapy efforts: Narratives linking childhood or family experiences to sexual fee-lings. Building on an intense emotional relationship to effect change in sexual feelings, e.g., many men reported that they only developed heterosexual arousal after they became intensely emotionally involved with a wom[a]n. Group or individual support, as in Exgay support groups. Thought stopping, e.g., "when I get such thoughts, I don't go down that route." Avoiding situations that triggered homosexual feelings. These are techniques that are commonly considered effective in psychotherapy, lending plausibility to their claims. We can imagine the mechanisms by which the-se techniques might work.

We conclude that, contrary to conventional wisdom, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and achieve good heterosexual functioning. Subjects that made less substantial changes still believed that such changes were extremely beneficial.

Complete change - which is generally considered an unrealistic goal in psychotherapy - is uncommon, particularly in male subjects.

4] In short, the results of such studies on overcoming unwanted sexual attractions line up surprisingly well with the longstanding, classical biblical teachings on spiritual struggle and the overcoming of life-dominating sin and sins, e.g. in Rom 7 - 8:

RO 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me . . . .

RO 8:2 . . . through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

RO 8:5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

RO 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ . . . . RO 8:12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

5] In short, a multi-year, spiritual disciplines- and decisions- based effort -- especially one surrounded by a circle of love and understanding -- has reasonable chances of helping people who find themselves to be trapped in unwanted same-sex attractions. And, the key understanding that such attractions and behaviour are unnatural, self-destructive and/or wrongful before God would be a key motivator for such a sustained effort and for the hope that it will ultimately succeed by God's grace. (In short, the evidence points out that this case fits a very familiar pattern of personal and spiritual growth. Doubtless, it is also the case that such efforts, ideally, should be started in the early stages of finding oneself facing such patterns, as it is much easier to overcome habits and attitudes while they are a-forming, than it is to break and reform long established life-patterns.)

6] When it comes to the gay gene claims, we should first note that, even if there is a genetic predisposition involved in part -- as there is in for instance alcoholism -- predisposition is not destiny. For by God's grace, we have the power of choice. (Contrast how one who is married is expected to remain loyal to his or her spouse, even in the face of temptations to stray. Indeed, we see here the principle that true love is a commitment and indeed eventually a habit much moreso than it is a feeling.)

7] Also, there are significant scientific challenges to the claims that have been advanced. So much so that as Dr Dean Byrd of NARTH cited from a recent APA bulletin:

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...

8] Indeed, Byrd goes on to note that Dr. Scott Hershberger, in reviewing Spitzer's findings, declares:

The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual behavior, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Spitzer's study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one.

The bottomline is plain.

Namely, at length, the much-maligned Apostle Paul -- painful though the following scalpel-like words are --stands vindicated (and not just in regard to homosexuality!):

1CO 6:9 . . . Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1CO 6:12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also . . . .

1CO 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

In short, there is hope, hope by way of tough decisions about our relationship with God and through the spiritual-moral surgery of making tough decisions on our direction in life, and post-surgical work of sustained, tough, disciplined love that follows after the good, the right and the truth. Hope for classical fornicators as well as homosexuals. Hope for former slave traders [I think here of John Newton, author of Amazing Grace, in light of 1 Tim 1:8 - 11], drunkards and swindlers.

Indeed, hope for just plain ordinary sinners -- sinners just like you and me.

So, let us at least listen to the experience-based advice of one who has come out of the world of ultimately unwanted same sex attraction and found release in God:

1. Establish and accept for yourself that God’s Word is true AS-IS.

2. Seek the truth within the scriptures about homosexuality

3. Do not resist God’s call on your life

4. Know with certainty that you are loved by God exactly where you are and that your experiences are of great value for kingdom work

5. Say Yes. That’s really all it takes to accept the truth which is accepting Jesus Christ.

6. Make your salvation real . . . We must believe with our hearts AND confess with our mouths.

7. Experience paradise NOW! Consult God first, then go ahead and live your life! . . . Enjoy your life to a new degree, without the burden of sin AND with the confidence of ALL of God’s promises on your side!

8. Walk Carefully or ‘circumspectly’ as the scriptures describe. This is about being careful to keep your spirit clean and fresh.

9. Have fellowship with believers. We know that the church has largely failed gays and lesbians by not being a welcoming place for those who have sought spiritual change. The invitation to ‘come as you are’ seems to be extended to everyone but us. However God has people everywhere who are open, real and willing to walk out with you. Ask the Lord to lead you to a loving, caring, bible-believing fellowship where you can be nurtured, be blessed, grow AND be a blessing. [Hebrews 10:25]

Thanks be to the amazing grace of God!

So, now: why not now? Why not here? why not us? END

Matt 24 Watch, 56: The Bruce Golding BBC Hardtalk interview segment on homosexuals in Jamaica's Cabinet

A few weeks ago, BBC Hardtalk's Stephen Sackur held an interview with Prime Minister Bruce Golding of Jamaica.

The interview was fairly wide-ranging, but there was the now not unusual 'gotcha ambush' in it.

This time, it was on Mr Golding's 2006 promise that there would be no homosexuals in his cabinet. The trigger for this was a recent incident of mob violence against four suspected homosexuals in a house in Manchester, which -- as the Gleaner transcript reports -- Mr Sackur claimed was "not unusual."

[NB: Blatantly false -- such a case IS unusual in Jamaica. Vigilante-style mob violence against criminals caught in the act, sadly -- and as I noted on in a previous remark on this general topic (in response to the Star's report on a coordinated homosexualist push to attack "homophobia" in Jamaica) -- is what is and has long been unfortunately all too common.]

There were associated comments on Jamaica having the worst case of "homophobia" as observed by an advocate of Human Rights Watch [a homosexualist lobby group] and an article in the [pro-homosexualist] New York Times. (It is worth noting that BBC itself is strongly influenced by the same agendas, and that the edited clips aired on BBC news radio -- unsurprisingly -- made Mr Golding come across much worse than he does in the linked video clip.)

The following part of the exchange (from the Gleaner transcript) is especially revealing:

SS: . . . you have just told me that Jamaica is on track to give equality before the law to homosexuals - but you yourself have said that "homosexuals will find no solace in a cabinet formed by me?" That has nothing to do with equality before the law? [NB: A code word for so-called same sex marriage and associated agendas.] Do you not have a duty to consider people on their merits - for cabinet positions indeed in any part of government?

BG: No. I consider people in terms of their ability and the extent to which they are going to be able to exercise their function, their independence.

SS: You also clearly and patently consider them in terms of their sexuality.

BG: No. That's a decision that I make. That's a decision that every prime minister makes. A prime minister must decide what he feels would represent to the Jamaican people a cabinet of ministers who will be able to discharge their function without fear, without favour, without intimidation. I make that choice.

SS: What kind of signal does that send about Jamaica to the outside world? Indeed, to potential investors, to countries that look at Jamaica.

BG: One signal that it sends is that Jamaica is not going to allow values to be imposed on it from outside. We are going to have to determine that ourselves and we are going to have to determine to what extent those values will ad[a]pt over time - to change in perception and to change in understanding as to how people live. But it can't be on the basis that lobby groups far and away from Jamaica will define for Jamaica how it must establish its own standards and its own morals . . . .

[Emphases and parenthetical notes added.]

In short, the heart of the exchange hinges on the plainly intended imposition of the homosexualist insistence on legal, national policy-level approval of open homosexuality, versus Mr Golding's point that it is reasonable for Jamaica to move to a situation where people's private sexual behaviour is tolerated and respected as private; but not for Jamaican law and public policy -- including Cabinet appointments -- to be pushed into accepting what is (and is likely to remain) repugnant to the community consensus as a democratic, predominantly Judaeo-Christian country.

(Of course, even in the same breath, we must note that Jamaica's horrendous crime situation and out-of wedlock birth rates are standing rebukes to the nation, and a reason to call for national repentance and reformation.)

That distinction Mr Golding made is critical, in light of the foundational nature of family and associated morality for civilisation.

As a Byzantine Catholic Church site, building on a 2003 statement by Pope John Paul II, aptly notes:

The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all of the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just a relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit that certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human life.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen. 1,27) Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in His work of creation. Thus, He blessed the man and the woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1,28) Moreover, the union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to marriage and family. Matrimony is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law because they close the sexual act to the gift or life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as serious depravity. (See footnote 1 below) This same moral judgment is found in many of the writings of the Early Church Fathers and is unanimously accepted by Holy Tradition. Nevertheless, we must accept homosexuals with respect and compassion. We must forgive the sinner but can never condone the sin. [5] [Emphases added.]

Here, we see a balanced, creation-anchored framework for humanity, for the complementarity of maleness and femaleness, thence, for family, sexuality and the raising of generations to come under God. Also, for sound but compassionate response to those enmeshed in what is disordered and even sinful. Immediately, we see that we of the Caribbean must repent and seek reformation for our own blatant disregard for God's Creation-anchored sacred order for the family, and of sexuality in family. Then, we may compassionately reach out to help those among us caught up in the entangling mesh of disordered expressions of sexuality that violate the complementarity of man and woman. For, surely, there is no excuse for mob violence!

At the same time, there is no sound foundation for moving from acceptance of person to policy-level approval of personally and socially destructive sin.

So, instead of yielding to the pressure groups who want to put open approval of homosexuality in our laws, cabinets and schools, let us instead heed the wise counsel of that recently deceased pope:

1) Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer to unions of persons of the same sex the legal guarantees analogous to those granted to marriage.

2) Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are unable to contribute to the procreation and survival of the human race.

3) Allowing children to be adopted by persons of the same sex places such children in an unnatural and depraved environment deprived of the experience of real motherhood and fatherhood.

4) Society owes its continued survival to the family founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors of heterosexuality such as procreation and raising of children. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfill the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that such unions are inimical to the development of society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

5) Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Let us reflect, let us repent, let us seek reformation under God.

Then, let us set out to love and help the enmeshed sinner, even while we refuse to condone the sin. END

UPDATE, June 4: Minor cleanup.