Tuesday, 15 August 2017

Evangelical homosexuality

Tim Bayly asks whether it is consistent for evangelicals to spend 50 years removing, or minimising into functional nothingness, complementary roles from the marriage relationship, and then preach that there should be sexual complementarity in the marriage bed? https://warhornmedia.com/2017/08/14/cake-baking-homosexual-marriage/ . He asks, is preaching against other peoples' homosexual rebellion just a cover for our own? And the grand symbol and symbolic occasions where we see this acted out is here: at marriages of evangelical Christians, do the vows reflect the distinctive role relationship that God has revealed in Scripture, with man providing Christ-modelled leadership, and woman providing godly submission? Or do they reflect functional and doctrinal homosexuality, that either person could say either set of promises...because they're actually the same?

A new trend in the Western media


For some reason, media in the West appear to increasingly consider it taboo to mention if someone kills himself.

Any ideas why? I've only recently begun to notice this, and not read any comment on it before. You have to guess it from the phoneline of mental health charities that might - or might not - be tacked on the bottom of the article. And then Google until you find out either way. I found a few more like the above two articles, before finding the implication in the phrase "he gave his life away" in the death announcement, reported at
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/95814549/olympic-cycling-champ-stephen-wooldridge-dies-aged-39. To not refer to the death announcement takes deliberate, self-conscious action, so it can't just be that reporters missed it out without thinking about it.

The Independent is less coy:

This must be telling us something about something. But as I say, I've only recently begun to notice this trend, and not yet puzzled it out.

Friday, 28 July 2017

Fifty years of word games


The children of Israel did not wipe out the Canaanites

A number of news outlets are today breathlessly reporting headlines like:

Then they proceed to note that in the Bible, God commanded the Israelities to execute his judgment on the inhabitants of Canaan for their wickedness, and destroy them.

For the sake of this blog post, let us assume for the sake of argument that there are people alive today with DNA indicating that they are descendents of Caananites of that time. Let us assume also that under the terms the command, there could not be a single person left who has this DNA (e.g. someone's twin who lived outside of the land, instead of in it, or a single person who escaped the massacre), etc. Does their existence disprove the Bible?

On the contrary, it proves the poor standards of Biblical literacy and editing in the contemporary press. The Bible not only records that God gave this command.... it also records that the Israelites only partially kept it, leaving many from various different Canaanite tribes alive, still living in the land.

Judges chapter 1, especially from verses 19-35, is the main record of that, with quite some detail. 2 Chronicles 8:7 is another example. Many places also record the continue existence of the Jebusites among the Israelites in the time of David, 500 years later.

As I read the comments on pieces like these, there's much glee: look, we disproved the Bible! Aren't we clever!

No: all you proved is that, despite being so eager to disprove the Bible, you haven't yet troubled yourself to read it. The ignorance is widespread, and wilful. Welcome to the modern West. We think we're the most advanced, sophisticated people who ever lived. Apparently you can be educated enough to be an expert in genetics, publish papers, write the accompanying press releases together with their "clever" PR angle, get it published in newspapers .... and nobody will spot the glaring error.

Thursday, 27 July 2017

Homosexuality, what is "natural", and the thought police


A few unorganised thoughts:

- Is there still someone out there who thinks that the "gay rights" movement is really just about freedom to do what they will in the privacy of their bedrooms, rather than the wholesale re-engineering of society in their image? Let this survey, the associated comments, and all the other propaganda pieces you're seeing in the news this week (the time of the 50th anniversary of the 1967 acts decriminalising private homosexual intercourse) disabuse you of that notion.

- It's the thought police. The idea that someone, somewhere does not approve of their bedroom activities drives "gay rights" activists wild. It's not just "I want freedom to do what I want", but "everybody must approve of it" and "nobody must even think differently". The idea that some people still don't want to whole-heartedly endorse their views maddens them, and they can't live with it: the campaign must be total and eternal. Why would that be? Something to do with conscience?

- i.e. A totalitarian agenda. Nobody can be accused of peddling conspiracy theories when they point this out any more, since now they have sufficient cultural power to be completely open and straightforward about saying so, and have for a number of years.

- Note that the headline, like very many headlines dealing with the results of surveys, is wrong. The headline says that "Four in 10 British people believe gay sex is 'unnatural'". However, the article goes on to explain that this number of people both (presumably) think it is wrong and were willing to say so in the survey, despite the considerable social pressure to hide their true thoughts and say otherwise. The aspect of social pressure means, with a very high degree of likelihood, that the true number of those who believe that homosexual acts are unnatural is very much higher.

- Of course they do. If they don't, then they must be pretty ignorant of some rather basic anatomical facts.

- "Seventy-eight per cent of people aged 18 to 24 said that gay sex was natural, while 69 per cent of those aged 65 and above believe it is not." I wonder how much part social pressure pays in that. People aged 65 and over have much less to lose in various areas if they say what they really think, compared to 18-24 year-olds who've been given continual indoctrination as to what they are supposed to believe. Of course, the 1960s sexual revolutionaries have spent a long time teaching people to reflexively believe that younger people are automatically more interesting, relevant, thoughtful, cool, etcetera - that was a useful tool in the fight against other authorities in society (strong families, church, etc.).

- The main issue with the question itself, is what "natural" means. People with different world-views will interpret that in totally different ways. Christians believe in an "order of nature" - which isn't an order artificially imposed upon nature with only an arbitrary (fiat) relationship to it, but rather an order intentionally embedded by God in creation, arising from its construction, so that creation reflects his purposes and the right uses of things and indicates their binding nature upon us. But, what is "natural" to an atheist? They could stick to physicalism, i.e. biology (in which case homosexual acts are unnatural), or they could take it to mean "something that happens in the universe", in which case more or less anything is natural as long as it isn't physically impossible, and then the question is meaningless.