In the title, I am using the word science not to denote the discipline of science but rather in a more basic and broader sense of a symbol that stands for human knowledge in general. However, the discipline of science for many has become the embodiment of human knowledge and has been enshrined as a temple of knowledge with the scientist being the priestly class that serves in the temple.
Some may be asking themselves what is this guy’s beef with science? I have no problem with science per-say, but I do have a problem with those that replace faith in God with faith in science. Of course, this is not a new problem. It is the old problem of idolatry dressed up in modern clothes of technology and science. Now, idolatry is a problem, which science cannot address; It is an issue that is outside of the realm of science.
Science and technology have done some wonderful and amazing things; however, we need to remember that the wonders of our science and technology have come at a high cost to our environment and may be a very threat to our humanity. The truth is that much of our science and technology was created for war and the purpose of killing. We need to keep in mind that science has it limits. One of the problems of modern man is he believes that he can somehow get above the human condition by his knowledge (science) of the natural world. In this belief, he fails to see that by solving the problems he has often actual creates equal or greater problems.
We need to have a realistic view of science. Science like all things human is both good or bad depending on the men who are using it. It can be used for good or bad. In this, it like all human knowledge and power.
For many sciences is simply people doing experiments using what is called the scientific method. But is that all science is or has it for some evaluated into something much larger and different in the thinking of some?
One indicator of its evaluation is that when you turn to the media, it seems all you hear is science has proven this and science says this or that. This is a clue that science may be more than meets the eye. Has it morphed into something it was never intended to be? It seems that the concept of science has taken on a life of its own quit apart from individuals and groups simply doing scientific experiments in their laboratory. The question is what is the nature of that new life?
When we use the word science we use the word metaphorically to speak of a body of knowledge or in contrast, we use the word in a concrete way as people doing experiments. Here is the issue. When we humans think, we think in pictures, so when we think of the word science, what picture comes to mind? Is it a group of people laboring in a laboratory or is it a metaphysical entity that has no real existence or is it an institution similar to a church or government? What are people thinking or picturing in their minds when they use the expression “science says?”
You can find individual and groups that are doing science, but when you hear people using the word in a sentence like ‘science says’ they are using it in a different way and they usually cannot point to any reality behind their statement. They are appealing to science as a source of authority and that authority has no concrete presence. However, this scientific authority seems to be expanding to take in every area of life. When people use the word science this way they seem to be thinking of it as a metaphysical group consciousness, which has the authority to speak on every issue. To me, this is getting very close to religion and I think it has the potential of being more dangerous than any religion when mixed with ideology and politics.
It seems that there are at least two groups of people that view science differently. One group we could call the realists. They are people that view science from a realistic point of view. They understand that scientists are human beings and therefore, are limited in their understanding. Some things cannot be known. They do not glorify human knowledge and they admit its limits. This group still has enough humility to understand that the universe is filled with mysteries. They also understand that there is no metaphysical being or body of knowledge, which they can point to and say, “science says”.
Then we have the fundamentalist, who has unwavering faith in human knowledge and its ability to usher in some utopian scientific world. These folks are true believers in the concept of progress. This groups claims are grandiosity and from the time of the enlightenment have been promising heaven on earth, and mankind’s deliverance from nature. To these people, science is the new Messiah, who is bringing a new salvation and for many it has taken on the characteristics of a religion. Recently, I read one of its prophets proclaiming, “if you understand how the universe operates. You can control it in a way. Now, this statement did not surprise me coming from that individual. However, what was surprising was that not one person in the audience questioned his statement or even asked for clarification? The prophet has spoken, let no one challenge his divine word; less fire comes down from heaven and destroys him who dares question the prophet.
One thing I do know for certain is that a Christian cannot be a part of the latter group. Christians trust in Jesus Christ for salvation and believe that there is only one true heaven and it is not on this earth. I challenge you who claim to be Christians to watch out how you view science. Science is not God; however, it can be an idol. “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:2).
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also big bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. Rom 2:13-14
The natural law[1] of God is found everywhere you encounter man and is self-evident to any man who is in his right mind. It has been called a number of different things throughout the world and history. It has been call the Tao (the way) in the Orient, the Logos by the Greeks, wisdom by the Hebrews, self-evident truth by the founding fathers, and the first principles of philosophy or the cosmic order by the Europeans. It has been codified in every culture under heaven and is the bases of all values and morality. Of course, this impulse is stronger in some than others.[2] Some have hardened themselves to it to the point that the voice or impulse is very weak. However, this is abnormal and recognized as such. We call those who have a deficit of these impulses fools, idiots, and morons. Those who have no understanding of it we call psychopaths and label them as being mentally ill. The reason is that we recognize that this condition is totally abnormal. We tacitly recognize what is normal, which is a self-evident truth made known among all men by the cosmic order. For the sake of brevity, in this article we will call this phenomenon the Tao.
We find natural law or the Tao in every culture. The variation of Tao in different cultures comes from the culture filters, which mediate the values and principles of the cosmic order. Therefore, in each culture the Tao is colored by the mediators of the culture in which it is observed. These mediators work like sunglass, which protects the eyes of one looking at the sun, but at the same time can distort it. Jesus spoke of this when someone asked Him why God allowed a man to divorce his wife. He said it was because of the hardness of this man’s heart. In this He was telling the people that they could not bear looking directly at the sun. In other words, some cultures and men are simply not ready for all the implications of the natural law of God or Tao. So God speaks to them through mediators who filter the Tao.
If an unbeliever is a moral person, he himself is the evidence of natural law (principles) or self-evident truth (common sense),[3] for he does by nature what is in the law of God, even though his philosophy ultimately denies the cosmic order of the supreme truth and good. Even in his denial his reasoning cannot escape or silence the moral impulse to do the good and seek the truth. This impulse is so strong in some that it can actually drive one to madness. In conforming to this impulse, the unbeliever shares in the grace of God that comes through the wisdom of God which is known tacitly by all men.
Like the religious person, the atheist may interpret the impulse for the good to be a sign of his own goodness and therefore, falls under the illusion of self-rightness as do some religious people. This illusion of rightness, which is a perversion of the moral impulse, will further his alienation from God as it does the religious person and will reflect the very spirit that atheists hate in religious people, i.e., self-rightness. Self-rightness is nothing more than spiritual pride and is one of the most subtle hindrances to the moral impulse. It distorts one’s view of natural law in the religious individual and unbelievers.
What about the amoral atheists? The unprincipled unbelievers are no different than the amoral believers. They will both pay the price of breaking or ignoring the cosmic order. God’s moral law is much like His natural law. If one breaks the law of gravity enough times, it will catch up to him, and he will suffer some negative consequences. The same is true if one breaks the moral law or natural law. He will suffer loss, e.g., health, relationships, respect and such. In essence; one does not break the law. It breaks him, and he will suffer loss.
Because conformity to the Tao (the truth) is a prerequisite for a person being happy, anyone can experience happiness who does the truth and lives by the principles (wisdom) of God. If the unbeliever’s life is in more conformity to Tao than a believer’s, he will most likely be happier than a believer. I personally know an atheist who found one of the secrets of happiness in the Bible and started to practice it and found that it made him happier. At the same time, I know some religious people who have just enough religion to make them miserable.
[1] Self-evident truth or natural law can be weakened or even denied by people accepting an ideology or philosophy that is contrary to reality. Common people often refer to those in academia as having no common sense. In saying this, they may be more correct than they think.
[2] Self-evident truth is experienced corporately and is akin to a social consciousness. It is close to Freud’s group consciousness.
[3] The words and concepts of law and self-evident truth have been so neglected in Western culture that their meaning has been lost or distorted. One the best books on this concept is C.S. Lewis’s book, The Abolition of Man.
“It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for and admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything” C.K. Chesterton, “Thomas Aquinas : The Dumb Ox.
Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something and nobody can get an inch closer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. However, this is exactly what many atheists attempt to do. They think they have explained existence by explaining evolution[1]. However, they have a number of large problems. (1) They must first prove that Darwinian evolution is a science. If they believe that science is made up of knowledge, which comes from following what is known as the scientific method, the study of deep time evolution might be something other than science.[2] (2) Let’s assume they prove that evolution is a science. Then they must prove one theory of evolution[3]. That is, they must prove that evolution is not directed from outside of nature, which is impossible. (3) Then after proving 1 and 2, they must show how evolution of any kind proves that there is no God. What if the deity just created everything and just threw dice and left the creation to work out its own evolution? If this were the case, there would be no trace of design in the universe or evident for God. This would be the God of the deist, but surely would not rule out the existence of a God.
In actuality, after all of this work, all unbelievers would have done is prove that they have the ability to come with a story of how something changed into something else. They still have not proven that God does not exist or how something came from nothing. In fact, all they would have proven is that they have shown how someone could imagine how something could turn into something else. Of course, the same imagination could come up with what would seem a reasonable explanation of how a horse could become a unicorn or how pink flamingos could become pink elephants, given the magical ingredient of enough time and the human imagination.
Though their explanation does not prove evolution or that God does not existence, they have demonstrated the power of the human mind and imagination, and the gullibility of the masses. Humans have the ability to create whole systems of thought, which to some degree actually shape reality for them who believe them. These systems of thought are called myths by some. In a vulgar sense, myths are thought of as stories that are not true. However, in a broader sense, they are stories on which cultures are built and reflect the values of people. Culture is first; then comes the myths that support it. I believe a case could be made for Darwinian evolution to be a myth or a story, which came out of a pantheistic and a materialist culture that began to emerge around the Renaissance and continued to gain strength up to time of the Enlightenment. The myth was strengthened by a capitalistic system, which preached the survival of the fittest and a new atheism that was strengthened by the decline of Christian morality and a decorative corrupt church. The proof of this can be seen by the overwhelming quick acceptance of Darwinism without one shred of scientific evidence. It seems, to be somewhat obvious that the culture of the 19th century prepared people for the new evolution myth of creation.
However, remember that the explanation is not the data or the evidence. Spinning an explanation may prove that one is intelligent and that one may have kissed the Blarney Stone, but it proves nothing else without hard cool facts. This is true of believers and unbelievers, both are experts at stretching the facts.
The creation tale and explanation of Darwinian evolution can never be proven by science, using the scientific method. Moreover, after all that work of trying to prove it, one is still not any closer to explaining how something came from nothing and all one has for his effort is a hypothetical explanation how something changes into something else. On top of that, one has to deal with respected scientists like Henry Gee, who would say that much of one’s explanation of deep time evolution comes more from the imagination of men than true science.[4]
Let me close by saying that my beef is not with science or even evolution[5], though I must admit that I personally do not believe it to be a science as physics is a science.[6] My problem is with many atheists, who use science and especially the theories of evolution to attempt to prove that there is no God. Evolution is a “how” question and really has little to do with the question, “Is there a God?” I will grant that if evolution is true, it may tell us something about God, but what it would tell us is that He is great beyond our imagination, and I do not see how this would help the atheistic cause. If Darwin’s theory of evolution is true, the atheist still finds himself in deep water. For it would take more faith (something they hate) to believe that this complex system of nature came about by sheer luck than to believe it was directed by God.
[1] By evolution in this article I mean the system, which teaches that all life came from one common ancestor in deep time and can be explained by natural selection and mutations, apart from any direction from outside of nature by a deity.
[2] Some philosophers of science have argued that evolutionary explanations of past events are not scientific because we cannot test them in the way laboratory scientists test their hypotheses. This challenge raises genuine questions about the scientific method. Evolutionists respond that to apply the methodology of physics to any historical science is to miss the point that an empirical study of such questions must adopt different standards. The situation is complicated by the fact that some biologists support the attack on evolutionism, not because they endorse creationism, but because they feel that evolutionary relationship cannot be studied scientifically. Peter K. Bowler Evolution-The History of an Idea Page 369
[3] There has are a number of different theories of evolution. The debate on evolution and its mechanism has raged in the scientific community since Charles Darwin.
[4] Henry Gee Deep Time Cladistics, the Revolution in Evolution.
[5] I have been asked if I believe in evolution. My answer is I believe in change that can be proven by the scientific method, which is barnyard evolution, which can be observed by all men and evolution, which is demonstrated in a laboratory. I do not believe in deep time evolution for it unknowable and is based on speculation, an often a over active imagination.
[6] The study of Darwinian evolution could fall under the discipline of history. However, even here there is a huge problem, for much of data is prehistoric. That means before history was recorded, which means it would have to be based on reading into the facts your imaginational opinion biased on your preconditioning, If you had any facts, the meaning of the facts would have to come from some other source than one’s imagination even to be called history much less science. Evolution might make a fine story, but it would not qualify as history any more than the movie “The Planet of Apes.” The study of barnyard evolution which can be observed, gets much closer to science than Darwinism or prehistoric evolution, because the scientific method can be applied to what is going on in the barnyard or the laboratory. However, laboratory study in evolution includes a consciousness and intelligence manipulating nature, which many raise a question of their true reflection of the natural process. This kind of science proves nothing of what happens in nature under its own accord. What it proves is the intelligence can manipulate nature to small degrees. If intelligence can manipulate nature to small a degree, what could super-intelligence, i.e., God, do?
“In God you come up against something which is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself. Unless you know God as that—and, therefore, know yourself as nothing in comparison—you do not know God at all. As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
What Lewis is taking about is probably one of highest forms of experiencing God, but is something seldom experienced in our age. Why is that? It’s because we moderns look down on everything, even God, and have forgotten the meaning of pride and humility. We have set ourselves up as judges of the world and of God Himself. I often hear people say “I cannot believe in the God you believe in because He is too hard or that He is too easy.” In this they are simply saying that any God which they believe in must conform to their standards and taste. Now think about that for a minute. What are these people really saying? Are they not setting themselves up as the judge of God? Moreover, if you were to stumble upon an all knowing and powerful God, how likely would it be that all of your values, judgments, and appetites would line up with His? Before you answer, take awhile to think about it, for your answer will tell you where you stand with Lewis’s God.
Now that you have thought about your answer, let’s analyze it in view of Lewis’s remarks. If you said that your values, judgments, and your will line up with the God you believe in, it simply means that you have not experienced what Lewis refers to as “coming up against something which is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself.” Moreover, it would mean that you are prideful and that you have not experienced the true God or at the least Lewis’s God, or if you have, you have forgotten the experiences. However, either way it is a strong indication that you do not know the true God.
A further test of your standing before God could be calculated by asking a question of yourself which God might ask you someday. What would your answer be if you knocked on heaven’s door and a voice said, “Why should I let you into my heaven?” Would your answer be something along the line of, “Well, I am a good person. I kept your commandments. I did the best I could. I was fair and honest. I never hurt anyone. I went to church every week.” Unfortunately, there are some real problems with these answers if it is Lewis’s God that you are talking to. One is that they are all self-judgments based on comparing oneself with others, which has little to do with the question. Do you think God is concerned about how you compare with others? His reply might be, “So you think you’re better than others?” Furthermore, for most human beings these statements would, in themselves, be a lie. Yes, you might be a good person, but by whose standards—yours or your neighbor’s?
What is the right answer? It is an answer that only those who have experienced what Lewis is talking about can know. Here it is. You will lead me into heaven because that is the kind of God You are, and I know this because I came up against You in the person of Your Son and from that day on I knew You and my true self. I knew that I could never measure up to Your standards, and if I were to be saved it would only be through Your grace and love. Lyle
In my discussions with many of my religious friends and some of my not so religious friends the second coming of Christ often comes up. The majority of them ask about the signs of the coming of Christ. The more Biblically literate ones may even make reference to Matthew 24, which is the favorite section of Scripture that some use as a reference to the second coming of Christ. However, a careful reading of Matthew 24 will reveal that Jesus in the first 34 verses is not talking about the destruction of the world but rather the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem, which took place in A.D. 70. This would constitute the end of the Jewish age or for the Jewish people the end of their world. There is no reason to argue about this for the Lord himself put a timetable on the fulfillment of this prophecy. He said in verse 34 “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” If you want to be contentious about this, you have my permission to argue with Jesus or you can just cross out verse 34 out of your Bible. (I would be more than happy to discuss this deeper if anyone would like more information.)
Matthew 24 is an example of what is called apocalyptic literature. This kind of language was used during times of persecution to reveal certain truths to insiders while confusing the outsiders. So by its very nature this language is very hard to interpret for it was intended to confuse people. It is filled with symbolism and all kinds of figures of speech. We find it used both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Two of its chief characteristics are that it is very symbolic and is usually used to denote a destruction that is going to come upon the outsiders. The destruction is usually in the form of God turning his face away from a person or nation, turning them over to themselves and finally destroying them. To those being destroyed it all looks like natural causes, for they fail to see God behind the scenes.
In fact, in the last sentence, I use an apocalyptic expression, “God turning his face away from a people”. We know that God does not have a literal face as, we humans, so we know that the expression must be symbolic and needs to be interrupted to have the right understanding.
With this background information, we can begin to have a rational discussion about the signs that may lead up to the coming of Christ. I say may because the same apocalyptic language is used in regards to the destruction of nations as is used in the destruction of the world. So even after we interpret the symbols correctly, the question needs to be asked, are they referring to a local destruction as in the case of the nation, or are we talking about the end of the world?
One thing we do know is that when God turns his face away from the people, their destruction is not far off. So what are the signs that God have turned his face against a people?
The first one is that God turns them over to themselves. The apostle Paul speaks about this in the Book of Romans 1:18-32.
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, …. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
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. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” Sound familiar?
From the above we see that one of the signs that God has turned his face away from a nation is he turn them over to their addictions and they become the playthings of their own appetite and lower nature.
The second sign of an approaching destruction can be seen in the book of Revelation (Rev 6:5-6).
” When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “Come!” I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. 6 Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wages, and three quarts of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!”
At this point you may be saying what does that mean? The writer is just echoing a theme that goes throughout the entire Bible and is found in much of the apocalyptic literature that God will punish the outsider by destroying their economy. Sound familiar?
The thirty is found in Revelation (Rev 6:12-14).
“I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.” At first this sounds like a bunch of madness. However, when the symbols are understood it makes all the sense in the world. In the ancient world people believed that every earthly leader was represented symbolically by one of the heavenly bodies. Once you understand this, the interpretation becomes extremely simple. The writer is simply saying that when God turns his face against the people he will remove all the true leadership in that nation and the nation will be destroyed by confusion and chaos that comes from the lack of leadership. Sound familiar?
The forth is that God put a spirit of stupidity on those he has turned his face against. It says in Rom 11:8 “as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day.” Now I do not know how literal we can take this but it does seem from history that every great society in its years of declension had a retreat from reason and a decline in its ability to educate its masses. Could this be a sign that God has turned us over to ourselves and turned his face against us? Of course, if it is a sign, we probably will be to stupid to see it for he has closed our eyes so we cannot see. Sound familiar?
I personally gather from the above that we are in the end times. I don’t know if it is the end times for the world, for I do not know enough about what’s going on in the entire world to speak with any certainty. Only God knows that. However, it does seem that we are living in the end times of our nation and Western civilization, which is our world as we have know it. If we do not change our ways, God’s destruction will surely come. In fact, it looks like it has already started.
What can we do? We can begin by examining ourselves and then begin to speak out against the evil in this nation. The problem is not that there are so many evil men, but rather there are so many good men which do not speak out. LD
“When an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” – Amicus Solo
I named this article The Myths of the Gay Movement because the word myth means an unfounded or false notion. I personally believe that many in the gay movement, and their supporters have fostered myths to win compassion from the masses in order to further their agenda. I am for compassion, but not for spreading myths that are not true.
This article is not an attack on homosexuals nor is it an attempt to prove that homosexuality is right or wrong. It is an attempt to look at some of the arguments used by gays to justify their movement in order to see if they are grounded, in facts or myths.
I have the upmost compassion for people that have a same sex orientation. However, the question is how to express that compassion in an appropriate way. How one responds to the gay movement will somewhat depend on a lot of different factors. A persons responds will depend somewhat on ones worldview; emotional make up, level of reasonability, and one’s environment. An example of the latter is when most people that have family members who are gay, will often change their opinion on the subject. It’s not because the facts have changed, but rather their emotions have taken over their reasoning, which is quite common for human beings. You could go so far as to say that once emotions are brought in, the well becomes poisoned. This is one reason why it is smart to have an objective standard outside of one’s self that is grounded in reason or truth.
The most common way of dealing with this subject has been mindlessness. On one side you have mindless acceptance, and on the other, mindless condemnation. In fact, very few people have taken the time to really study the issue. If you are one of them, I would encourage you to take the time to learn more about it before coming to a conclusion.
Myth number one
The gay movement and the gay-marriage movement are similar to the civil rights movement of the blacks. This myth has been around for sometime but has grown in the last few years as the gay-marriage movement has grown. The purpose of make it a civil rights issue is twofold.
First, making gay marriage a civil rights issue took it out of the moral arena and made it a civil rights issue. If you cannot win the battle on one field simply change the playing field, which is a old debating trick. In essence, this move silenced and skirted the ethical questions in the mind of many without any debate whatsoever. Note this is not a use of facts, but of deception and manipulation.
Secondly, the move from a moral issue to a civil rights issue also made gay marriage a political football, which could be used by one party as another wedge issue to win and keep voters. This made the party bosses and some gays happy for it not only silenced any moral objection but seduced a large number of blacks and people prone to support the underdog to their side of the issue without any moral argument or much thought. Without making it a civil rights issue, very few blacks and many liberals would not have endorsed the gay rights movement and same-sex marriage. Of course, it has grievously divided the nation, which is the goal of the political class.
Making same-sex marriages a civil rights issue also made it out to be a legal issue more than a social or moral issue. This has opened the door for the courts and government to use state power to intervene and force the issue. In addition, this maneuver removed it from the authority of the church and common sense, giving it over to the legal profession and the states to decide – both of which have an odious record when it comes to morality and common sense.
Is it a civil rights issue? I guess the answer would depend on who you are and how you look at it. If you want to make every issue a person or a group has with our culture a civil rights issue – your answer is yes. If want to make every issue a civil rights issue, so you can make money like the ACLU and the civil rights attorneys – the answer is yes. It is also a civil rights issue for the party people that want to divide people to win power. For example, the communist party in the United States supports gay rights, in Russia it is against gay rights. What is that all about? It is all about power. My enemy is my friend when he is the enemy of my enemies. Of course, after the communists get power they have the propensity to shoot their allies. This should be something the gays should be pondering.
This raises the question; does our culture (majority) have any rights to hold any beliefs or behavior as normal or sacred without violating someone’s civil rights? Must the majority surrender its religion and morality to accommodate every individual and group’s beliefs or lifestyle? If this is the case, mixed with the politicization of these issues, our culture is doomed.
The next shoe to fall on the civil rights table will be polygamy. It will take some time for it to happen, for as it now stands, there are not enough practitioners to make it an attractive issue for the political scum to make it an issue. It also lacks the numbers involved in it to make it an acceptable behavior by the nose counters who form their moral opinion by counting noses. However, it is something that will happen at sometime in the future if we were to continue on the road we are traveling. In fact, I noticed that there is a TV program (Sister Wives) on one channel that is making an attempt to normalize polygamy and make it look attractive.
To be a true civil rights issue, I would think a group must prove that they are being discriminated against in some fashion, like being forced to sit in the back of the bus or being forced by law to use separate restrooms and drinking fountains. When everything is said and done it means to be oppressed socially and financially. When I look at the gay marriage issue, it has nothing to do with civil rights, and I fail to see how the gay community is being oppressed socially and financially by marriage being between a man and a woman. The law applies to all men and to all women equally. Should we redefine the definition of race and should we redefine the idea of gender, male and female?
Moreover, the latest statistics seem to be indicating that gays have a higher level of education than the average American and have a higher income than the medium American. Where is the oppression and discrimination? I personally believe that overweight people are discriminated against far more often than gays. Why not give them special rights? We could give them a unique name like Jollys. We all know heavy people are jolly right? Then they could march on Washington demanding larger doorways, bigger seats on airplanes and bigger toilet seats. If a person is overweight in the US military, he is kicked out and given a general discharge even if his condition is genetic, even if he can pass the entire fitness test. Now that’s a clear case of discrimination.
Myth two
The presence of homosexuality in some animal species is proof that it is natural or not contrary to nature. I have run into this argument in a number of fields even in theology. It is an argument based on exceptions. Those that use this argument seem to believe if you can find an exception to a rule or a law; the exception does away with the rule. However, no matter what field you are talking about, this view is just not true. Exceptions do not do away with the rule they establish the rule. In fact, the very idea of law infers and carries with it the idea that it can be broken and when broken it cares a penalty to those that break it. If an animal species completely ignores or breaks a law of nature, they would cease to exist or suffer great harm. When you break a natural law, nature is not very forgiving.
In the animal world, it is quite obvious that sexual acts toward the same sex do not constitute a sexual orientation toward the same sex. It would more likely constitute an animalistic reflex for the purpose of reproduction. When a dog hunches your leg, our respond is to think, “Look at the stupid dog. It does not know what sex or species it is.” The truth is, it does not. It does not know that it is a dog or what sex it is – male or female. It reproduces by instinct alone. The paradox of being human is that we do know. We are not only animals; we are gods, and we know what species we are, and we know whether we are male and female. We also know when we are acting like animals and not humans. You may not like this, and you may wish it to be different, but that is reality.
In comparing human sexuality with that of animals is a gross mistake. Humans unlike animals transcend their sexually. (At least some humans) Sex is something humans can examine, talk about, and make moral judgments about unlike animals. For example, most humans believe that humans having sex with an animal is wrong. In believing that we have made an ethical judgment on human sexuality, most human beings place some self-limits on their sexual expression and can control their sexuality to some degree. On the other hand, animals have no control over their sexuality, nor any desire to control it, though the idea of self-control seems to be also out of the question for some men. I gather from this that comparing human sexuality with that of animals is not wise, nor does it support homosexual behavior in any way. May I also point out, nor does it condemn it.
Myths number three
Homosexuality is genetic and homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation. The simple truth is that there is no hard scientific evident to support this myth. There has been very few studies done and the ones that have been are flawed by the biases of those conducting them. This myth reflects an advanced liberal bias more than any scientific fact.
For some, genetics has become the new determinism. In religion, it was Calvinism, an unseen God who predestined everything. In psychiatry, it was early conditioning. In genetics, for some, it is an unseen gene that predetermines everything. Why not keep it simple and say the Devil made me do it. I was taught by an old wise professor, that any teaching or belief that questions or denied free will was false and should be rejected. I have found it to be good advice.
The truth may be that all the above have something to do with our destiny, but they do not make us do anything. The truth about being human is that we are free to choose. Do not let anyone tell you differently. This should give hope to all those that have a desire to change in any area of life. People can and do change.
This section on genetics falls under the category of unfounded at the moment. Science may at sometime in the future establish and give an answer to how much genes play in one’s sexual preference but as of yet there is nothing but a few hypotheses (guesses).
Do not take my word for it but do your own research. You can find some information on the net; however, much of it is biased and written by unqualified people. There are some good books that will help your study; they are: :The Blank Slate” with sub-title The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, “Are We Hardwired” by William R. Clark and Michael Grunstein, “Exploding The Gene Myth”, by Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, “The Genetic Inferno” with sub title, Inside the Seven Deadly Sins by John Medina.
If you had a choice of living with a man who believed he was god or a man who believed he is a monkey, which one would you choose? My best bet would be, that you would choose the one that believed he is a god. He surely would have better table manners and a higher sense of morality than a monkey. Of course, you can house train a monkey if you had the time and patients, but I do not know if you can house train a man who believes he is a monkey.
It seems that it could be quite boring to live with a monkey or a man who believed he is one. Though monkeys can be cute and sometimes very intelligent, they don’t talk very much. Some monkeys probably even believe they are human, like some men who believe they are well-developed monkeys. Now a monkey that is intelligent enough to think he is human may be easier to live with than a man who believed he is a monkey.
Of course, monkeys do not know that they are monkeys. In fact, a monkey may be easier to live with than a man who believes he is a monkey. Unlike men, monkeys do not talk back. This would allow a human that believed he is a god to continue to believe he is a god. A talking monkey might even convince you that you are a monkey and not a god. In fact, a lot of men who believe they are monkeys spend an inordinate amount of time trying to teach other men; they are monkeys. If a monkey had a super intelligence, you may be able to speak to him of simple science and even teach him some technology. However, do not expect him to talk to you about metaphysical things. They are, you know, a one-dimensional creature, somewhat like men who believe they are monkeys.
On the other hand, it might be scary to live with someone who believed he is a god. He might want you to live and talk like him. He might even demand that you stop living like a monkey and stop walking on all fours. Of course, if you lived with the man, who though he is a monkey, you would be the god, at least to him. You could lower the bar so you and the monkey man could feel comfortable with any standard, even that of a monkey (something many in our culture have done).
I have often wondered what it would be like to live with a god. It surly would take courage. The older I get, the more I marvel at the courage and the faith of the apostles of Jesus. You may not believe that Jesus was God, but I believe the honest person would have to concede, if a god ever came to earth, he would live and speak like Jesus. How would you handle the invitation of Jesus, “come follow me”? Would you have responded with the courage of faith or cowardly indifference? I guess it all depends on whether you believe you are a monkey or a god.
Lyle Duell 