HPV PREVENTION. Dr Joel Palefsky, an infectious disease expert from the University of San Francisco (left with Dr Mark Gilbert and Dr Natasha Press), told the gay men's health summit in Vancouver that all boys should be vaccinated against HPV. (Nathaniel Christopher photo)
The next general election is over two years away if held when constitutionally due. The health of the economy, freedom of information, integrity legislation and immigration issues we suspect will feature prominently on the next general election platform. Another issue we suspect will be on the list is one of morality, specifically homosexuality.
The members of the BU family who have been with us from our early days know the interest we have shown in homosexuality (do a search of BU using ‘homosexuality’ keyword). It is one of the pillar issues we feature from time to time even if of late it has not featured on the BU rotation with the same early frequency. Interestingly the subject of homosexuality is one which a high level of hypocrisy can be levelled in Barbados. Whether we like the Jamaican approach Prime Minister Bruce Golding has echoed the position of most Jamaicans, zero tolerance to batty men in his cabinet because he feels it does not reflect the public position. Jamaicans appear to wear the label of homophobic like a boy scout would wear a badge of honour.
In Barbados we have a long way to go regarding how as a country we want to deal with the issue of homosexuality. BU remembers very well prior to the last election listening to representatives of the Democratic Labour Party (Dr. Byer-Suckoo) and the Barbados Labour Party (Reverend Joseph Atherley) dipsy-doodle around the homosexuality issue. In contrast Jamaicans are sending a clear message. Some Jamaican homosexuals are not being deterred and have started underground churches. The venom of Jamaicans directed towards homosexuals have forced many homosexuals in Jamaica to go underground. Stories of Jamaicans suspected of the homosexual lifestyle being publicly beaten by fellow Jamaicans are a matter of record.
The lobby by homosexuals to promote greater tolerance in our predominantly heterosexual and Christian driven societies is gathering momentum. This issue is not going away. The fact many believe homosexuality to be a deviant behaviour does not remove the fact that homosexuality has now become a civil rights mater. The reality that our societies are built on Christian values and by extension the socialization of our people will continue to build tension in the minds of the average Barbadian when confronted with the homosexual issue.
In a related matter we read with interest that the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) among gay men, especially those already infected with HIV. When you are HIV-positive virtually everyone has HPV,” Palefsky says. And gay men who are HIV-negative are still at high risk. This information was circulated at the Fifth Men’s Gay Summit held last week. The local medical and homosexual community should note the recommendation by Dr. Palefsky who is an infectious disease expert: Palefsky believes that all boys should receive a universal HPV vaccine before they are sexually active “because there’s no way to know who is going to be gay.
Alluded to above Barbadians need to start discussing the matter of homosexuality and how we intend to make the societal changes to accept this group of people who continue to be marginalized. It would be unfortunate for some if we wait until the next general election to do so. To discuss the matter driven by political considerations will be unfortunate.
348 responses so far ↓
David // November 16, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Dr. GP would like to get your medical opinion on this HPV business.
X-MAN // November 16, 2009 at 3:52 AM
off message – apologies
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/nov/15/west-indies-cricket-team-cricket
Interesting interview with Viv Richards.
Crusoe // November 16, 2009 at 5:23 AM
Homosexuality, for whatever reason, is a choice. Certainly, there are those who clearly are born and develop differently than most, this may clearly impact their choice as a ‘natural’ choice.
Nevertheless, regardless of source, this becomes a matter of their personal right vs societal demands.
Surely, as long as this can be seen as not impacting negatively on society per se, why should a person not have a choice of their lifestyle, generally and specifically?
I personally have deep reservations in ’selecting’ any particular group and labelling their ways as wrong, whether they be of any ethnic or religious origin or simply a person of ‘different’ lifestyle choices.
You see, once one starts ’selecting’ groups and labelling, this creates a dangerous atmosphere of bigotry, hatred and witchhunting.
Who is next then on the ‘ist’?
No, we must come from a position that seeks to include persons of alternate lifestyles, as fellow human beings.
It is one’s behaviour to others that counts, one’s contribution to society that guides how one should be treated.
There can be no other yardstick but this.
If one does not wish to approach this issue with an open mind, we could done the discussion right now and go home.
Personally, I will treat people as individuals, as to how they interact with me as a person, as to their own value system, their integrity and honesty.
Finally, you reference Jamaica in the article.
We all know the reputation has for being homophobic.
Gosh knows where it comes from. Is it a case of ‘doth protest too much’?
Then again, Barbados has always been known to be a more tolerant and open minded society than Jamaica.
At least on the surface. Bajans will let you ‘get on bad’ at Crop Over, but talk about yuh behind closed doors.
Bajans wont pelt rocks, but will lickmout that same evening.
True?
Amused // November 16, 2009 at 6:03 AM
Crusoe // November 16, 2009 at 5:23 AM. Amen. Well put. I agree. Ef the en hurting you, lef duh loan. It is not your business, unless they choose to involve you in it. And then you have the right to say yes, or no.
As for Jamaica, you are right. Too much protest. Nuff batty boys there, including the ones in government that got wives (although some might call them “beards”).
As for Jamaica’s “zero tolerance”, it will find out that all the major industrial nations that Jamaica depends on for financial handouts have a “zero tolerance” for their “zero tolerance” takes the form of “hate crime” legislation.
So, it is far better to do as successive governments of Barbados have done – keep the buggery laws so as not to offend those who might be offended, but don’t enforce them because (a) you would have to apply them against certain members of parliament, and (b) against, maybe, some of your own relatives. This is pragmatism at its best – and, for once, I agree that we maintain the status quo.
I offer this little bit from the London Telegraph that may be of interest. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/6574238/Lesbians-make-better-parents-says-senior-parenting-official.html
Any inoculation that will help to keep people healthy and no matter what age, ought to be administered – and particularly in a place like Barbados where there is no reliable data on HIV/AIDS, simply because people too fraid to get tested or come forward, due largely to the negative backlash than might ensue. At least, if you are inoculating all, then there is room for anonymity. But it will not address the enormous number of undiagnosed and undeclared cases of HIV/AIDS that already exist in Barbados – or Jamaica, for that matter.
It is also worth remembering that much religeous dogma and practices (like the Jewish/Arab not eating pork) arose, not because these creatures created by God were actually unclean, but because of the lack of refridgeration and proper storage facilities. So, religeon has, throughout history (until now) incorporated health and other safeguards for practical, non-religeous reasons aimed at the well-being of mankind.
We are faced with a medical situation worldwide and it ought to be religeon that carries out its traditional, pragmatic role. But these days, the religeous pundits are too busy enriching themselves by pandering to the prejudices of their congregational paymasters to follow the clear direction provided by their predecessors. Far better, they think, to enforce rules and dogma of no relevance today, than follow an example. Sad!
As for pork, well I doubt there is a Bajan alive who would not resist with every fibre of their being any attempt to remove from them their pork chops. Or what bout puddin n souse?
GOP // November 16, 2009 at 6:59 AM
In December of 2008 the UN General Assembly presented a declaration against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Only St. Lucia in the Caribbean has signed against this declaration.
I wonder where our leaders lie on homosexuality in Barbados.
Take a look at the following link:
http://trivester.com/christian-news/world/americas/caribbean/barbados/homosexuality/nov2009/
peltdownman // November 16, 2009 at 7:51 AM
“The members of the BU family who have been with us from our early days know the interest we have shown in homosexuality”
___________________________
Hmmmm! That speaks volumes!
David // November 16, 2009 at 7:58 AM
@Peltdownman
Is this BU attracting another label?
peltdownman // November 16, 2009 at 8:14 AM
BU, I really don’t know. What I do know is that there is definitely something unhealthy about your blog’s rabid interest in homosexuality. At worst it is hate-mongering, and at best it is pandering to uninformed prejudices. I am definitely with Crusoe on this one.
kiki // November 16, 2009 at 8:21 AM
what people do in bed is their own business not society’s
Anonymous // November 16, 2009 at 8:25 AM
HPV is often (one might even say “most often”) transmitted by heterosexual sex. Having the HPV vaccination is simply smart and has nothing to do with one’s sexuality.
Linking the HPV vaccination with homosexuality is simply an irrelevant red herring.
Anonymous // November 16, 2009 at 8:50 AM
The HPV vaccine has only been developed for women and is hard to detect in men. While there is in development a vaccine for men, there is no known date as tow when it will be available and how testing in men will be carried out as it is not the same for women.
John Walcott // November 16, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Why are we giving the homos so much prominence.
David // November 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM
@peltdownman
You are entitled to your view. Interestingly we heard similar sentiments when BU raised concerns about immigration, race relations and the like. BU does not condoned the barbaric behaviour of Jamaicans when dealing with the subject of homosexuality but the silence which occurs in Barbados and is only discussed in lunch rooms and other places in whispered tones does not make us any better. Let us confront the issue to reach some middle ground.
Zoe // November 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM
As a Christian, I do not hate, despise nor fear ‘Homosexuals’ anymore than I hate adulterers, fornicators, or muderers, or for that matter any other sinner, as we are all ’sinners’ either Saved by God’s grace, or not saved, it is a choice either way.
However, in recent decades the Homosexual Agenda in America, a very well organized platform from which they speak, has a clear well defined strategy of ‘deception’ based on refocusing the issue from a ‘moral’ one to that of ‘human rights’ and it would be folly not to believe that here in B’dos, that strong advocates for this ‘human rights’ facade like Peter Wickham et al are not working along these lines with their counterparts in North America.
The four stages that homosexual activists have taken in the United States toward thir goal of unbridled sexual behaviour, and silencing of the Church? That has led to the ‘moral’ demise of a culture, are as follows:
1. The Community Establishment Stage.
In this stage, a group of like-minded individuals (homosexual activists) who practice such lifestyles of sinful behaviour, discover each other and start to play a larger role in society. They start to feel empowered.
2. The Organization Stage.
In this stage, the group now feels empowered and start to get organized and develop a game plan for ‘legitimizing’ their behaviour in society.
3. The Mobilization Stage.
The group starts to pool together all of its resources. That develop a ‘common’ language and strategy for presenting their case to the public. They reframe the issue, taking it out of the ‘moral’ realm, and present it as a ‘human rights’ issue. Those who oppose their arguments are deemed “hateful” or “intolerant” toward those who are “different” even though the groups only *identification* is that of a chosen sexual behaviour.
4. The Legitimization Stage.
Once the issue has been redefined from a moral absolute to an individual choice, society starts to be reprogrammed that the arguments of the group are valid, and therefore special *privileges* from previous “injustices” and for affirmation of the behaviour occur.
In America and some other countries, we are at stage 4 and are at the eleventh hour with regard to homosexual activism, and religious freedom. The homosexual activists have the ball, as it were, on the ten-yard line, and it is first and goal.
While this is the stage at which homosexual activists have reached in North America and some other countries, let us not forget what Mia Mottley attempted to do in this regard, and was shot down by the majority of Barbadians, and as Owen Authur, said, ‘…she has being mortally wounded….give her a brake…”
The underlying purpose, agenda of these homoxesual activists, is to *erase* all religious and moral values from our society, and to impose themselves under the guise of being *value neutral* and *value free* when in fact they are laden with all kinds of values, which are alien to the beliefs, of the majority of Americans, Barbadians et al.
In short, they accuse those who disagree with their lifestyles, as being ‘intolerant’ when in fact, they are vehemently *intolerant* toward the majority of citizens, because we don’t want their ‘value neutral’ ‘value free’ so-called human rights, to become law, thus changing what marriage IS, between a ‘man/woman’ as Almight God did NOT create ‘Adam and Steve’ He created Adam and Eve!
We, must therefore be very careful, in understanding the sinister, deeper agenda of these homosexual activists, especially those who are able to articualte their cause, under the subtle veneer of so-called *human rights*
David // November 16, 2009 at 11:46 AM
@Zoe
Given your religious bent how do you explain divisions with the Church ordaining homosexuals? This act certainly validates a position which is contra to yours expressed above. In other words are you prepared to accept we live in a pluralistic society and holding fast to a position rooted in religion will not reconcile the issues?.
Technician // November 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM
The homosexual activists have the ball, as it were, on the ten-yard line, and it is first and goal.
…and this is why we, as concerned adults should be BLITZING !!
Negroman // November 16, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I tend to agree with Peltdown Man.I do not understand why BU continues to have these post on homosexuality.That is a subject that should never be discuss on the best Barbados blog.Leave that despicable,anti-life disgusting habit to the race that created & love to do it,the immoral,bulling Europeans.
Homosexuality is anti-African and we of African ancestry should never be discussing a despicable act such as homosexuality.
Leave homosexuality to the originators of that act,the bulling Europeans who love to have sex with little boys and who have their man – boy sex clubs.
POOPERTALLIAN // November 16, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Any bullers or wick-kers in here ?
Tell us how it feels to be antiiman ; anti-woman
Jack Bowman // November 16, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Likelihood that someone will say anything sensible for the rest of this thread: approximately zero.
That’s partly because of concern that, even anonymously, some doofus with a God-obsession or a “wasn’t-it-so-much-better-in-the-old days” obsession is going to use vulgarity to accuse you of being something you’re not. Clear as day.
The dull and the straw men are always with us …
Quoting David: “[T]he silence which occurs in Barbados and is only discussed in lunch rooms and other places in whispered tones does not make us any better [than Jamaicans]. Let us confront the issue to reach some middle ground.”
Okay. Here’s some middle ground. Some people, such as myself, like to have sex with people who have a different kind of reproductive apparatus. Some other people like to have sex with people who have the same kind of reproductive apparatus.
That’s middle ground. End of any need for discussion. Deal with it.
Amused // November 16, 2009 at 1:53 PM
David, it is clear and always has been what your personal opinion of homosexuality is….and you are entitled to it. It is ALSO clear that you have advocated the finding of a means of understanding and coexistence, which has clearly been missed by your detractors. My understanding of what you have always said is, “I don’t agree, but I want to understand and coexist”. Anyone who does not acknowledge your right to disagree and the magnaminity that makes you want to understand and coexist, has serious problems and an agenda that defies reason. Pay absolutely no attention to them – no one else does – including people in the “gay” world.
Dennis Johnson // November 16, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Taken from the Jamaica Observer:
Beenie yanked from NZ show following gay pressure
Monday Musings
with Yasmin
Monday, November 16, 2009
Following headlines over the weekend that gay lobby groups in New Zealand were presuring the promoters of music festival, Big Day Out, to pull Beenie Man from the line-up, and subsequent defence of their decision to use him as the only reggae act, the promoters have now backpedalled and have yanked the deejay from the concert.
Beenie Man… yanked from line-up for music festival Big Day Out
Internet reports say that New Zealand MP Kevin Hague was among those objecting to the inclusion of the King of the Dancehall based on his anti-gay lyrics. Hague noted that hate-mongering is not welcome in New Zealand, and reportedly urged the Big Day Out to uninvite Beenie.
“Music is a powerful shaper of culture, values, attitudes and behaviour,” said Hague. “Music that denigrates gay men and lesbians in the most extreme way imaginable sends some very powerful signals both to young gay and lesbian people but also to their peers. It is not true that ’sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me’.
“Hate speech like that of Beenie Man gives permission to prejudice and discrimination and creates it where it didn’t previously exist. It blights and diminishes the lives of all who are exposed to it, most particularly young lesbian and gay people who suffer violence, harassment, lowered self-esteem and all the consequent health and social problems.”
Gay reaction stemmed from a song recorded by the deejay in which he says, “I’m dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays.”
The promoters had said in a previous release that they were aware of Beenie Man’s controversial past, but he had renounced those feelings and was now promoting “peaceful and humanistic values”.
However, a release posted yesterday said, “The depth of feeling and hurt amongst these groups has convinced us that for us to proceed with his Big Day Out appearances was, and would continue to be, divisive among our audience members and would mar the enjoyment of the event for many.”
Beenie Man, as is the norm, could not be reached for comment.
The sad part about this is that it’s not just Beenie who has lost out, it’s the music. This is a lost opportunity to promote reggae/dancehall in a major way and would no doubt have been a big boost – financially and otherwise – for Beenie Man himself. The fact is that there must have been big demand for this artiste for the promoters to have included him in a line-up with names such as Lily Allen, Muse, Eskimo Joe, The Mars Volta, Calvin Harris, Lisa Mitchell, the Horrors, and others. Between January 15 and 31, the Big Day Out will be held in Perth, Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne and the Gold Coast, and according to the concert’s website, many of the venues are already sold out.
Alex Fergusson // November 16, 2009 at 2:34 PM
And as an excuse, given its inability to manage the economy and put Barbadians to work, David Thompson seeks to blame the educational system for not creating entrepreneurs.
But while he is doing that, more and more Barbadians are coming to the same conclusion.
They are saying that whenever the DLP says anything that makes sense, it is extracted from the BLP’s manifesto or the same National Strategic Plan 2006-2025 that the DLP refused to debate when it was laid it the House or it is something that President Obama has said.
Turn to page 6 and 7 of the DLP’s 2008 Manifesto to see why the DLP now talks about enterprise creation and entrepreneurship.
B.I.G DICK // November 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM
homosexuality represents a pre-occupation with sex
sex is for procreation; pleasure is not the main focus.
indiscipline pushes the sex/pleasure principle to the apex
B.I.G DICK // November 16, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I might not know everything
but I know some things
One thing that I know is that
The more you learn , the less you know
michael // November 16, 2009 at 3:44 PM
For our thoughts to be taken away from the task at hand, which is,how can we get our leaders to lead Bim in a way that will benefit all the people especially Afro bajans we are talking about Bullers & wickers this is a distraction …Zoe is right,check the world population how many normal people are they how many deviants are they,Elton John was not stopped from performing in T&T but Beenie man has been stopped from performing, if you are black you must be stopped but if you are white you are harmless,this whole thing is a white man agenda we as black people has been suffering for centuries and it has not stopped but the gay lobby has got their agenda to the UN in less than 30 years does this not tell us some thing
Bonny Peppa // November 16, 2009 at 4:03 PM
B.I.G DICK
H.O.W. BIG??
Adrian Hinds // November 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Oh lord, It would appear from these postings, and many from other forums that bajans are social conservatives. I have also gathered that Bajans seem to be, at the personal level, fiscally conservatives. Who of our poltical class has gone beyond labeling themselves as a socialist democrat, to bodly declare themselves to be liberal? who? and what does it mean?
Jack Bowman // November 16, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Quoting the always fantastically hilarious and deeply insightful Bonny Peppa, fount of endless wisdom, a true comic, always deeply funny, not in any way a profoundly dull dispstick:
“B.I.G DICK
H.O.W. BIG??”
How funny can a person be? That made me laugh so much that I stopped.
Perhaps later I’ll respond to the semic-comical subliterate racist bigot Negroman. Perhaps not.
David // November 16, 2009 at 5:20 PM
For those accusing BU of inciting the population by fanning the issue of homosexuality let us be clear. It does not matter what BU thinks, what matters as Adrian alluded to is the conservative posture by mainstream Bajans on this issue and others. If all groups must coexist peacefully on the little rock some serious discussion needs to peltdown man.
For those who feel the homosexual issue is a distraction you need to wheel and come again. Barbadians will have to decide very soon, in about two years, what mirror image we want to project in our leaders.
Jack Bowman // November 16, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Quoting David, evidently a maestro at debate and always a stylist of gorgeous prose:
“For those accusing BU of inciting the population by fanning the issue of homosexuality let us be clear.”
Yes. Please, David, be CLEAR. Who exactly on this thread has accused BU of “inciting the population by fanning the issue of homosexuality”? Who? Please give one anonymous name. One. Give one, please, or grow the f**k up, even if you think it’s too late for you to grow up. Give it a try.
And if you can’t do that, can’t you at least take a class in basic English grammar somewhere?
Jack Bowman // November 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Quoting Zoe: “As a Christian, I …”
I assume that was where everyone stopped reading. Right there.
Anonymous // November 16, 2009 at 6:11 PM
So David, now the agenda becomes clear, once again. This is really just an assault on Mia Mottley, cleverly disguised as a general discussion about homosexuality.
Jack, as always, love your posts.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 16, 2009 at 6:17 PM
The complex origins of human behaviour are always good areas for study. New research looks at the effect of chemicals that may cause ‘effeminate behaviour’, http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#1eLmfq/wellness.blogs.time.com/2009/11/16/can-plastic-chemicals-cause-effeminate-behavior-in-boys//. This current study suggests that, not only does prenatal exposure to these common chemicals impact testosterone production, but it may also have longer term influence on gender identity and play behaviors as children grow up.
ac // November 16, 2009 at 7:27 PM
@Dennis Jones.
If my memory serves me right Homosexuality has been in civilisation back from bibical times and that was before all of the man made chemicals .
To clarify my point Sodom and Gommorah was such a city
Now in todays society we are still arguing about homosexuality which maybe genetically.
rohan // November 16, 2009 at 7:27 PM
LOL @ Jack Bowman..haha
ac // November 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM
@ Bonny Peppa
I think B.G.Dick might be packing a WEENIE
Ha ha———————————————-
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 16, 2009 at 7:33 PM
@ac, I’m not sure what you are calling ‘civilization’, but what we now call homosexuality has been around for a good few centuries, recorded for a couple of thousand years, and often with not a European near the scene.
But, I did not mention homosexuality when citing the research, merely that “The complex origins of human behaviour are always good areas for study.” I mentioned effeminate behaviour, which is not the same thing as homosexuality.
I was not meant to be a red herring, though some will follow it where it does not lead.
Apollo Y. Hyacinth // November 16, 2009 at 7:46 PM
What about Denis Lowe? Anyone heard him at Digicel’s BlackBerry launch the other night? He was saying how the phone jockeys were so handsome, strong and well-equipped! I thought Shelly Williams was going to pee herself, especially when he tried too late correcting himself. You hear he get lock out of his place in chancery lane? He had to beg for a chance to retrieve his clothes, someone needs to get to the bottom of where all his money goes. It seems Denis’ finances are on the downlow or very brown, if you know what I mean?
Bonny Peppa // November 16, 2009 at 8:11 PM
ac
I feel so too but hate to hurt a fella’s ego.
Jack Ass Bowman
‘I assume that was where everybody…..”
I tried my best not to laugh but that was hilarious.
Gotta hand it ta ya…………regretttably.
Ya id’jit.
Zoe // November 16, 2009 at 8:13 PM
David, Regarding the first part of your question, “Given your religious bent how do you explain division with the Church ordaining homosexuals.”
First, that section of the World wide Anglican church in America, who ordained that homosexual priest, Robinson, I think his name is, most certainly do NOT Biblically, Scripturally, nor theologically, constitute being recognized as ‘part’ of the true Church of Jesus Christ, they are *blatant* apostates, as even within their own communion of fellowship, there IS strong disagreement on this ordination, which is a *flagrant* disgraceful, scandalous, outright rejection, of what is clearly, and emphatically, condemned in God’s Word, both in the Old and New Testament Scriptures.
“Therefore, God also gave them up to *uncleanness* in the *lusts* of their hearts, to dishonour their *bodies* among themselves.”
“Who exchanged the truth of God for the *lie*, and worshipped and served the creature, rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
“For this reason God gave them up to *vile* passions. For even their *women* exchanged the natural use (heterosexual) for what IS AGAINST NATURE.” (Lebianism)
“Likewise also the men leaving the natural use (heterosexual) of the woman, *burned* in their *lust* for one another, men with men (homosexuality) committing what IS *shameful* and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge. God gave them over to a *debased* mind, to do those things which are not fitting. Being filled with unrighteousness, *sexual immorality* wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness, *haters* of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscering, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful, who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who *practice* such things are deserving of death, not only do the same, but also *approve* of those who practice them.” (Rom. 1: 24- 32) emphasis added.
Any so-called ‘church’ masqurading as Christians, who fly into the face of Almighty God, and His Word, the Bible, contemptuously, and falgrantly defying God’s clear and emphatic denounciation of ‘homosexual’ and ‘lesbian’ relationships, IS in for His judgment sooner or later.
Regarding our society being a pluralistic one, this is not the point David, from the OT era, after SIN entered the human race, all societies have being pluralistic, BUT, this does not mean Almighty God approves of it.
Barbados has always being a pluralistic society, BUT, before the advent of this blatant Homosexual agenda, such behaviour, as wrong as it has always being, WAS not sought to be imposed on us by a change of Law, it was done quietly, though always sinful and disguisting, in privacy.
Now, we have a force of a different nature, these reprobate minds, are marching, demanding that their ‘vile’ wicked lifestyles, MUST be given rights,
so-called ‘human rights’ a LIE, fostered by rampant propaganda, seeking to have our laws changed, so they can walk down the streets, in front of our children, hugging and kissing one another, is this what we want our boys and girls to be openly exposed to in our society, and this IS their agenda, and it does not stop there, it goes even more deviant than this.
In some parts of North America, they want rights, to teach little boys and girls about, *fisting* how they do this to each other, don’t be fooled, this IS all part of their evil agenda.
IF, we once open the door through legislation, to accept homosexuality, as they want it, under so-called ‘human rights’ gay marriage, etc, etc, it will set a precedent in law, that will run wild in having to meet all of the other disguisting, immoral, deviant things they want imposed on society.
The historic stability of our society, socially, morally, politically and otherwise were built on our religious/moral value principles, in spite of all our inherent failures, it nevertheless, was, and to some extent, still is, the stabilizing force, guide for our rational, moral compass, which the rabid homosexual activists want outlawed, and their ‘value free’ value neutral’ debased lifestyles to replace it.
If a man/woman, want to engage in this God condemned filth, in their own privacy, the present law gives that that right. BUT, to extend their agenda as it really is, IS something entirely different.
ac // November 16, 2009 at 9:01 PM
@ Dennis Jones
AS usual you are always good at skirting the issue .Never willing to be specific on your point . In other words straddling the fence. For once let me know what Denise Jones really thinks on any topic instead of hiding behind somepersons theory.
The ” red herring “makes my point.
Vox // November 16, 2009 at 9:05 PM
GOP // November 16, 2009 at 6:59 AM
In December of 2008 the UN General Assembly presented a declaration against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Only St. Lucia in the Caribbean has signed against this declaration.
…………………………………………………………
B’dos has same percentage of hmosexuals as countries around the world. No more no less. Did GOP conduct a scientific survey? Guess not. GOP are you ST.Lucian? Have you gone to Gros Islet on Friday nights. Gay men in drag all over the place.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 16, 2009 at 9:13 PM
@ac, when one has a discussion or a debate, how one lets views be known is quite personal. Mine is clear, but maybe not to you, which is fine. One does not have to convince others and there is no voting during the process, so what would ‘knowing’ views really do? If your belief is that by sharing my views others may change theirs, then I’m not convinced. What is clear is that people tend to display bias once they think they have determined someone’s view.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 16, 2009 at 9:15 PM
@ac, I should have added that debate is about offering information that others may find useful in determining their views, which is what I have done. The ‘red herring’ is only for those who do not think that a difference exists between being men being effeminate and being homosexual.
Crusoe // November 16, 2009 at 9:32 PM
ac
WERE you trying to be funny, or did it just happen (bearing in mind the blog title) when you said ‘AS usual you are always good at skirting the issue .Never willing to be specific on your point . In other words straddling the fence.’
Crusoe // November 16, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Looks to be a bit of Freud there?
kingdom child // November 16, 2009 at 9:35 PM
It is not natural and unGodly .God will judge such an act just as he did with sodom and like every sin. Opposites go together, it is natural.[so God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. God bless them and said to them, be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it.] Homosexuality is not fruitful and cannot bring an increase. It is dead wrong and against the will of God for mankind. Homosexuality is an act were people want to please their own evil desire and not God’s desire will for mankind. It is out of order and thus must be judge.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 16, 2009 at 9:50 PM
@Crusoe, I must admit that moving from a male to female name for apparently merely skirting the issues seemed like a dressing down. I’ll live with it, though.
Adrian Hinds // November 16, 2009 at 11:48 PM
One of the influential voices of the 1960s, C.Wright Mills, say in The Power Elite that privileged groups participate in a “higher immorality” in their ability to marginalize as deviant those in society who become troublesome. For Mills and his follwers, society’s elites use their wealth, prestige and power to sustain their privilege and ensure that their intereste become national policy.
If in the past it was wealthy and powerful elites who labeled others as deviant, this perogative has now been sized by influential interest or advocacy groups. Women’s groups and gay rights organizations, for instance, now have the ability to silence speech by those with whom they disagree.
Deviance is being rediscovered by ordinary people who have suffered the real world consquences of the academic elite’s rejection of the concept. Those whose communities have been broken by failed welfare policies, or whose families have fallen apart as a result of teenage pregnancy or divorce, are now speaking out about the moral chaos that is destroying their neighborhoods, their schools and their families. The pendulum continues to swing; where it will stop is not clear
For more than thirty years, the evolving politics of deviance has demanded that we adopt standards of conduct that come from human will and desire as mediated by advocacy groups, rather than those that derive from reason and commons sense. Social theorist Philip Jenkins has proposed that the current social contructionist environment can be likened to a market place in which activist compete to win buyers for their products. As marketers well know, success in convincing buyers that they really want to purchase a new product , especially when they are perfectly happy with the one they already have, can be achieved only through creative packaging of the product. The packaging of ideas involves a complex system of communication aimed at reaching people on an emotional level, convincing them that they want a redefinition of deviance even though they never realized that they needed it.
The politics of deviance
Anne Hendershott
The book explores the culture war between traditional and postmodern definitions of deviance. Its central argument is that moral good or moral harm can come to a society according to how this conflict is resolved. The author does not believe that all behaviours are created equal. And no conception of what is morally right exist without a corresponding idea of what is morally wrong. The distinction between these —- that is, the bondaries of deviance —– must not be established by politically powerfull advocates through savvy marketing techniques. The author argues that we must reject the marketplace model. and instead draw from nature, reason and common sense to define what is deviant and reaffirm the moral ties that bind us together.
Remember this as you experience the marketing blitz starring Mia Mottley coming to the media near you, in the not to distant future.
David // November 17, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Our agenda is clear, it is Barbadians have to decide how we are going to threat with the issue of homosexuality. Mottley is a key actor given her public position on the matter and having to be saved by Arthur. Since she is the PM in waiting we can discuss it now or during next election. One thing is for sure, it is an issue which will not go away easily.
sad very sad // November 17, 2009 at 5:31 AM
SAD VERY SAD
David // November 17, 2009 at 6:38 AM
Did anyone read the piece posted by Dennis Johnson. There is a consequence at individual and probably country level for not toeing the line on this issue.
Comments anyone?
Adrian Hinds // November 17, 2009 at 10:13 AM
David: Anne Hendershott provided us with a statement of fact
[If in the past it was wealthy and powerful elites who labeled others as deviant, this perogative has now been sized by influential interest or advocacy groups.
Women’s groups and gay rights organizations, for instance, now have the ability to silence speech by those with whom they disagree. ]
In many countries the wealthy and powerful elites are also members of the womens and gay rights movement.
Dennis Johnson article provides evidence that proves Anne Hendershotts Statement of Fact.
Global Voices Online » Barbados, Jamaica: The Politics of Homosexuality // November 17, 2009 at 10:18 AM
[...] a long way to go regarding how as a country we want to deal with the issue of homosexuality”: Barbados Underground says “it would be unfortunate for some if we wait until the next general election” to [...]
michael // November 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM
What are you suggesting? that we accept the European morals and norms for the 30 pieces silver (few Dollars)a society is more than that, societies has been built on the cohesion of families,not just on families of the 20th 21th century but before that and this is on a heterosexual life stile,deviants will always be with us but we can not allow them to lead our thoughts,The north Americans and western Europeans has an agenda that is not compatible with the rest of the world but they want to make it the norm,we in bim need to be aware of what they want to force on our society,we should focus on good leadership(heterosexual)every thing else is a distraction
I know that we will still get the tourist if they know that Barbados is a welcoming place for the family
Zoe // November 17, 2009 at 10:52 AM
How Did We Get Here?
“If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of *sodomy* to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread; we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamfulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then…national weakness, for which remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth…To these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men (women) who submit to this degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom.”
“Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a *nation* has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much secrecy…and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and after some hundred years it will no longer be the same…powerful country it is at present.”
-Sir John David Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, 1814.
In 1983, 30 percent of Americans said that they knew someone who was homosexual. By 2000, that figure had skyrocketed to 73 percent. In 1985, only 40 percent of those polled said they were comfortable around individuals who practice homosexual behaviour. By 2000, that number had risen to 60 percent. Also, in 1985, 90 percent of Americans said they would be upset if their son or daughter announced they were homosexual. By 2000, that figure stood at just 37 percent.
The subtle process of gradualism is deadly. Most morally persuaded people, at first, reject this deviant lifestyle outright. Then, they begin to be somewhat passive in what they formally knew to be wrong, by not speaking out against it. Then they tolerate it, then acceptance, becomes embracing, what was inherently known to be a vile, vice!
The homosexual activists, had a long-term strategy implimented well in advance, to transform America’s perception of homosexuality, and of those who oppose homosexual behaviour.
As Gene Edward Veith wrote about the tremendous gains made by the homosexual activist movement: “Homosexuality used to be considered a vice; now even those it makes uncomfortable now must avow – as Scinfeld episode – ‘not that there’s anything wrong with it,’ while those who think there is something wrong with it are considered to have the vice of intolerance.
The reason is a well-thought-out strategy that was devised in part by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen and publicized in two publications; a 1987 article titled, “The Overhauling of Straight America” and a 1989 book titled “The Ball.” When one reads both of these works, one sees how radical homosexual activists have implimented the strategy laid out in these publications almost to the letter.
The homosexual activists laid out a six-point strategy to radically change America’s perception of homosexual behaviour. Their six points were:
1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.
2. Potray gays as *victims*, not agressive challengers.
3. Give homosexual protectors a ‘just’ cause.
4. Make gays look good.
5. Make the victimizers look bad.
6. Solicit funds; the buck stops here (i.e., get coporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause),
Needless to say, this deviant, subtle strategy, has worked extremely well for the homosexual activist in America.
Here at home in B’dos, though nothing as brazen as in America, nevertheless, homosexuals have come out of the closet over the last twenty years or so, openly displaying themselves in shows, blantant homosexual ‘whores’ at night, offering themselves to those men, single and married, to fullfil their abominable lusts, for a price.
And, a former high ranking government official, tried to push this ‘vice’ down our throats, hoping to be able to legislate this abomination into law.
Thank God, there are still the majority of Bajans, who said NO! with a loud voice!
It is one thing to have this practice, now obviously much more widespread than before, with many men and women, both single and married, plus teenagers in school being enticed into this vice ; BUT, for any government to want to, or even consider going the so-called lawful route, be assured, this will bring the judgment of Almighty God that’s already hanging our our heads, even faster, to the ultimate demise our of land.
One of America’s deadliest mistakes was embracing and tolerating this wicked, evil, debased subtle agenda of the homosexual activists, and giving them, so-called ‘human rights’ on par with Husbands and Wives, men and women!
Be warned Barbados!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM
@Zoe, whatever your views on homosexualtity, I suggest you get a few things straightened out on sodomy. When I saw the laws (and I do not think they’ve changed in last 2 years) they did not define it as a male-male act; quite on the contrary-that is a subset and heterosexual activities that many people may see as ‘normal’ are covered too.
You can also look at case law in the Caribbean too, and even smile at how one Jamaican MP, who opposes homosexuality very vehemently was earning his money as a lawyer defending a man for sodomizing his niece. Ernie Smith MP is a good lawyer and he got the man off.
kiki // November 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM
in the old days gay meant happy..
Adrian Hinds // November 17, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Barbadians need to ask themselves if they are socially liberal or conservative.
They must find out what are the social ideological leanings of their leaders and potential leaders.
They must recall who endorse the bashment culture.
who spoke out against it,
They must recall who criticise a fellow member of the political class for always being in church.
They must recall who supports legislation that is concidered friendly to Homsexuality. Not that there is anything wrong with it. lol!
They must recall who the person is with the idea that supporting and strengthening the traditional family unit (the building block of society) is to encourage men to take a horn.
The signs are clear, the intent is known, you would be a fool to ignore them and endorse the person, persons and or groups that are representative of the above, which collectively you may not.
@Zoe:
It is possible to say that America made a mistake in embracing the intial arguments of the gay lobby, but as Anne Hendershott wrote in her book “The politics of Deviance”
“Deviance is being rediscovered by ordinary people who have suffered the real world consquences of the academic elite’s rejection of it.”
America is now saying no:
Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote.
YOU CANNOT LEGISLATIVELY FORCE ACCEPTANCE ON THIS ISSUE.
Jack Bowman // November 17, 2009 at 4:12 PM
@ Zoe
Dear Z,
Among members of the not-a-moron community, it is normally considered good form to quote the sources of one’s writing – rather, say, than simply stealing phrases wholesale in large blocks from wingnut websites, stitching them together, and then pretending that the finished product is one’s own work.
Quoting Zoe: “Owen Authur, said, ‘…she has being mortally wounded….give her a brake’…” That made me laugh out loud. Thank you. I had my car serviced recently by an excellent guy, and if you need his number I can give it to you. He can give you a break on a good brake.
Quoting Zoe: “they accuse those who disagree with their lifestyles, as being ‘intolerant’.”
As a rampant heterosexual, Zoe, I would never accuse you of being intolerant. I can simply sit here and read your stuff and know, without accusation, that you are an idiot.
Negroman // November 17, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Jack Bowman
You are the English expert on this blog always being critical of the usage of the English Language by the contributors to this blog.If we are sub-literate,unintelligent,racist bigots,why come here and have a debate with persons you consider to be down right idiots.
Jack Bowman,a person of your intellect with a great command of the English language you should be contributing more meaningful and thought provoking contributions rather than nit-pick at grammatical errors many of us bloggers make with our limited knowledge of the English Language
Bloggers such as Dennis Jones,Chris Halsall & few others even though many of the others bloggers including Your Truly do not necessarily share the same views of those bloggers,they postings are very enlightening and I have gained great knowledge on many subject matters on this blog from Dennis Jones (Living In Barbados) & Chris Halsall.Unfortunately I cannot say the same thing about the contributions from you Jack Bowman.
Jack Bowman if we are that dumb please make your contributions on the other blogs that cater to people of your high intellect and leave us the sub-literate,racist bigots on BU alone.Jack Bowman that is my humble plea to a scum like you.
David // November 17, 2009 at 5:09 PM
To support the point which Adrian et al has been making it is interesting to note the reaction by parents to a book about two male penguins. The book based on a BBC report has garnered the most ban requests.
Crusoe // November 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM
And here playing ‘devil’s advocate’ (no intent on that word, other than the traditional sense)…
Some above criticise the European ‘ways’ etc as being a causation of alternate lifestyle.
But, surely marriage etc is a European tradition, whereas most other nations lived in the tribal settings?
Eunuchs etc were well known in Eastern and African societies, witnessed by none other than Cleopatra’s own Court.
Even today in India, there are professional eunuchs, developed from young boys grabbed or sold from villages.
This is not a sudden occurrence, this is an age old happening.
Now to my own opinion. While yes, we guard our young against those who would turn them away from our own expected standards, some more thought must go into reasons and the underlying societal relationships on this issue, rather than mere ostracism and spewing of intolerance.
I repeat, when one is intolerant towards any sector of society, be aware that one day, someone may be intolerant towards you.
What is even more surprising, is that by now we all should have learnt that particular lesson, being in a position to look back at history, particularly the last 500 years, with all of its trials and tribulations for all races and creeds.
Sadly, I can see that a true Age of Aquarius is far from reality, given the tunnel vision and bigotry that still exists on a widespread basis.
Then too, either as a part of this or compounding this, are those who are under the misconception that their path in life is the only path.
This is quite against the Natural Law and has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Adrian Hinds // November 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Negroman, you must understand the Jack Bowman needs us anti-spellers, and grammaticunts more than we need him. He is but a language maven. Would that it were, we all could spell and use proper grammer in our contributions; why he would wither away from a lack of purpose. lol!
Jack Bowman // November 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Negoman I Must apolojiz, you are write and everythink I so sorry,
Negroman,you is a greatthinker and Africa,is, great, and everything.
So Negroman,what I say to you isd you cool and all,that. All agree,with,all,yousay because you a real,thinker.MY apologees.
Anonymous // November 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Africa is a fascinating place. Many of our preconceptions about this large and varied continent may be more European in origin than African. Check out the following:
http://saharanvibe.blogspot.com/2007/02/wodaabe-beauty-ceremony.html
Jack Bowman // November 17, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Quoting Mr Hinds: “we all could spell and use proper grammer in our contributions; why he would wither away from a lack of purpose. lol!”
Well, that’s not exactly true, Mr Hinds. As long as there are comically witless dullards still writing “lol” as if they were unusually tedious American children, my mission will always be ahead of me.
If you can’t write properly, you can’t think properly. Bad news for you, clearly, but try to do your best to deal with it. Okay?
And can I please say: “lol”. Thank you. It’s so laugh-out-loud moronic that it makes me smile. Thanks.
Zoe // November 17, 2009 at 6:36 PM
@Jack Bowman, Your opinion of me is utterly useless, and void of any significance whatsoever!
You are a ‘classic’ example of the following:
“The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your *eye* is good, your whole body will be full of *light*. But if your eye (Bowman!) is *bad* your whole body will be FULL of *DARKNESS* If therefore (Bowman!) the light that IS in you is *DARKNESS* how great IS that DARKNESS.” (Matt. 6:22) emphasis added.
Carry on smartly, Bowman, in the pit of your own self-imposed DARKNESS!
Zoe // November 17, 2009 at 7:22 PM
@Dennis Jones, The point is, that the idea of changing our present laws re sodomy, yes, which cover, as you rightly say, both the heterosexual activity, and the male-male act, was the thrust of a former government official, with the obvious intent to ‘liberalize’ those ’sodomy’ laws, thereby subtly opening the ‘door’ for a much more homosexual/lesbian oriented society, than presently obtain under our current laws.
Ruel Daniels // November 17, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Homosexuality is not an issue of gender. It is not an issue of social differences. It is an issue of sexual differences, plain and simple.
What about if a person is born wih a predisposition to have sex with pubescent boys or girls. This is a social and legal taboo in our society to the same degree that same gender copulaton is a social taboo.
Yes, what adults do in the confines of their privace is their business. In addition, the fact that a man wishes to asume the affectations of a female is not a justification for us to be intolerant of him as a person. However, where he crosses the line is when he attempts to equate the un-natural act of same gender copulation with the natural process of reproduction. You cannot by a function of choice just decide that apertures and organs that are constructed for particular natural functions must be recognized differently because of your individual erotic predisposition.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 18, 2009 at 4:02 AM
@ Ruel Daniels // November 17, 2009 at 9:45 PM “You cannot by a function of choice just decide that apertures and organs that are constructed for particular natural functions must be recognized differently because of your individual erotic predisposition.” [That's broadly what the existing sodomy law covers--I presume you're familiar with it--and it does not distinguish who is involved: man, woman, humans with animals, too.]
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 18, 2009 at 4:07 AM
@ Zoe // November 17, 2009 at 7:22 PM You seem to draw lines where they do not exist. The current sodomy law is comprehensive covering same sex relations (both genders), hetero- relations, and bestial ones to (as was shown in a recent case of boys with sheep in Barbados).
You’ve drawn a conclusion from a hypothetical change about what ‘liberalising’ the law would mean, but we have no proposal to consider.
I have no problem with your being against homosexuality: that’s your personal choice. I just find it hard that you argue strongly or stridently from thin air.
Crusoe // November 18, 2009 at 4:53 AM
Ruel Daniels, your post of Nov 17, 9.45pm,
was a finely played straight drive. Good point, well said.
If I may, you got in place by acknowledging where intolerance could not be accepted, then you played your shot.
This is where proper discussion without abuse can be exemplified.
Well done.
…………..
On the issue of taboo. As with most laws, most taboo’s etc are usually to protect the ways of society and in some aspects, individuals themselves, developed over years of learning practically.
Some may come across as mere superstition, but in some way, could have been seeded because of ‘elders’ keeping their people within ‘boundaries’ for one reason or another.
This is where things become difficult, when we now have to interpret freedom of choice and tolerance, as these relate to acceptable boundaries that we place as valuable to our development and where we wish society to go.
We are necessarily creating artifical but acceptably necessary boundaries.
For example, in history it was in all civilisations, common for a man to take a very young wife, just reached puberty.
We, and my opinion is ‘rightly so’, abhor this.
Why? Because we have come to place value on women and a girl’s right to education and personal development and fulfillment.
Probably, the discussion on this aspect of societal relationships is a matter for extensive discussion and analysis, I cannot see it being easily addressed on one blog, except by personal choices and views.
michael // November 18, 2009 at 8:17 AM
cruso
read the bible it is older than European written history
Zoe // November 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
@Dennis Jones, “You’ve drawn a conclusion from a hypothetical change about what ‘liberalising’ the law would mean, but we have no proposal to consider…I find it hard that you argue strongly or stridently from thin air.”
When Mia Mottley commissioned the study done by Pro. Mickey Waldron, re giving prisoners ‘condoms’ and other related issues, albiet to control the spread of HIV/AIDS, which would have necessitated a change of the sodomy laws, in order to grant such ‘legal’ status to prisoners, to ’sodomize’ each other, there was a ‘hue and cry’ across the nation, where Dr. Carol Jacobs attempted to hold town-hall meetings, hoping to get Waldons report more acceptable to the general populace, the voice of people, writing to the press, call-in radio programs, and the town-hall meetings, were so angry at this report by Waldron, which Mottley was hoping would find favor with the people, thus find its way into law; BUT, it was put on the back-burner, until a more appropriate time!
This, is hardly arguing from thin air!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM
@Zoe, but Ms. Mottley and her party are not the government and there is no proposal on the table now. I’m no lawyer but supplying condoms to male prisoners could co-exist with no change in the sodomy law. You recognize that the law is being broken and if caught then prisoners do more time if convicted. That seems similar to having condoms on general sale and knowing that they are bought and used by unfaithful/adulterous heterosexual couples or by under aged persons together or with adults (itself involving a stipulated crime).
Adrian Hinds // November 18, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Zoe good for you. The Jamaican LIB has gone from accusing you of arguing out of thing air to a clumsy conclusion on condom supply and current law.
During the firestorm directed at Mia I never once heard anyone suggest anything similar.
I personaly believe her opinions had little to do with the welfare of prisoners, the overcrowding that in part may have had a role to play in the burning of Glendairy, under her watch suggest otherwise.
I believe she was more likely to be guided by her liberal views.
This is why I maintain that Bajans need to determine if they are social conservatives or liberals and if their political representatives, leader and potential leaders are on the same page with them.
Zoe // November 18, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Some further insightful facts re Overlooking the Core Problems of Structural Incompatibility as it relates to homosexual behaviour, by Dr. Robert A.J. Gagon.
“Contrary to Peterson and Hedlund, the first and most significant problem with homosexual practice is not its typical promiscuity. Rather, it is the structurally incompatible character of merging two people who are already of the same sex. This is an erotic attraction for what one already is as a sexual being and a denial of the reality that a man and woman are the two and only complementary halves of a sexual whole. This sexual attraction is narcissistic, if one realizes that it is for the distinctive features of one’s own sex and self-deceptive if one does not realize it. Increasing the commitment to such a bond merely increases the commitment to a form of union that is contrary to nature, and, from a scriptural perspective, contrary to God’s revealed will in creation…The primary problem with homosexual behaviour is no more its typical promiscuity than is the potential for birth defects the primary problem with adult incest or jealousy the primary problem with polyamorous unions. A long-term homosexual unuion merely regularizes the deception of viewing and treating a person of the same sex as one’s appropriate sexual counterpart.”
“Modern secular societies, to say nothing of religious ones, retain the notion that sexual relationships must meet special structural criteria; that is, the objective facets of congruity or complementarity that are gounded in nature or physical makeup, and transcend positive disposition of the heart or mind and even positive behaviors. Those include considerations of consanguinity ( i.e., no sexual relations with close blood relations), numbers (i.e., a limitation to one parter at a time), age (no sex with children), and species (no sex with animals). There is a need for multiple leves of structural correspondence between sexual parters.”
“Biological sex (gender) has a just claim to being a foundational criterion for valid sexual unions, the basis or analogical model for others. If commited multiple-parter inions and incestuous unions are unacceptable, then commited homosexual unions should be even more problematic. For the twoness of human sexual relations, on which a prohibition of polygamy is based, is predicated on the deep structure of two sexes. Moreover, the structural requirement of complementary difference, on which a prohibition of incest is based, is more keenly disclosed in sexual differentiation than blood unrelatedness. Dissolving a two-sex prerequisite for valid sexual unions strikes at the heart of whether there should be any requirement of deep structural compatibility between prospective sexual partners that takes its cue from the material structures of creation and transcends the issue of personal affections. For at the heart of all sexual practice is the sex (gender) of the participants. Because there are two sexes and because two sexes are structurally complementary at many levels, a given individual, by virture of belonging to only one of these two sexes, interacts as only one incomplete part of a two-part sexual whole. On the crucial level of sex (gender), one’s structural complement or counterpart can only be a person of the other sex. There is no escapting the rational basis in nature for this conclusion. When one perceives union with a sexual same as an avenue for completion of the sexual self, the integrity of one’s sex is implicitly denied.”
(Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture, A Response to Peterson and Hedlund’s ‘Heterosexism, Homosexual Health, and the Church’
By Robert A.J Gagnon, Ph.D, Associate Professor of New Testament Pittsburg Theological Seminary, 2005.
An extremely valid, sensible, rational perspective, based on the factual structure of man/woman, and the compatibility of such union, as intended by our Creator.
Anonymous // November 18, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Adrian Hinds, I don’t know why you keep referring to Dennis Jones as “The Jamaican”. At least he actually lives in Barbados and no doubt has a better grasp on day to day life and opinions in Barbados than you.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 2:00 PM
@anon:
Of course you know why. He is Jamaican.
The Jamaican LIB did not seem aware of the reasoning with which Mia Mottley sought that particular change in law. Granted, he may not have been “living in Barbados” at the time, but neither was I, yet I knew. So much for being on the ground, and or having a better a grasp of day to day life.
btw: what we do today in Barbados could very well have a history behind it that escapes the Jamaican LIB.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 2:13 PM
@Adrian Hinds, I am very aware of the reasoning that MIGHT have been in Ms. Mottley’s mind in the past. But what it was it’s not material now. As I said, “Ms. Mottley and her party are not the government and there is no proposal on the table now”. She leads a very small opposition party. So, to me, her view on the issue and her reasoning are not that relevant. If at the next election she is the leader of a party and then we can see what her position may be on this and other issues. If her views are sufficiently disliked she wont win, so what’s the worry? The world is full of people who have ideas that we may feel are unpalatable, but if they are not in a position to implement them are we going to chase them all down?
Obviously, being on the ground only gives a certain perspective on local situations–literally–as you surely know. But it also can obscure your objectivity.
Now, I could equally argue that the way that Jamaicans and Jamaican society think and deal with homosexuality puts them in a position quite different to Barbadians and with views that some would say are much clearer.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Going into an election the leader of either BLP or DLP will emerge as the Prime Minister in waiting, and the potentially the LOTO in waiting.
The PM has so much authority that he/she can be liken unto a dictator while in office. Although accountable to parliament; if his cabinet which is largely made up of existing parliamentarians he/she can have so large a cabinet that parliament cannot exercise authority over it. This was the case with the last constituted parliament under the BLP government.
The PM gives and takes regarding appointments to ministerial positions, where there are monetary and other incentives for recipients to consider.
The PM office and the Cabinet it controls are largely responsible for the executive functions of government and for determining what legislation comes to parliament for a vote into law. Bi partisan committees of parliament are not everyday entities in Barbados parliament.
What would we think of a PM who did not have their stamp of authority of the cabinet they are suppose to have power and control over? Maybe I should ask what could happen.
Therefore, you have a potential leader of government or leader of the opposition who has declared adherence to an ideology that the majority of Electors may not subscribe to, should they not pay attention to where this person now sits, and be mindful of where they are likely to be sitting given their views.
It matters who the political leader of a political party is at all times.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:04 PM
@Adrian Hinds, I would not dispute that your “It matters who the political leader of a political party is at all times.” is valid. But you put that up after a piece saying how powerful the PM of the day is, not about how powerful the Leader of the Opposition is. Do you forget that one party has just come from 14 years in Opposition? That’s a long time for ideas to lay fallow.
In the existing Constitutional setting, no PM can put through a legal change single handedly, so if he or she does not have the majority of Parliament on side, the laws wont change. If the majority of Parliament go that way then we have to accept that as their expressing the people’s will. So, my thought would be that you need to check first what is the disposition of the current government, and come election time the disposition of each candidate.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Only the existing parliamentarians can choose the leader of the BLP and potential Prime Minister of Barbados.
Currently the entire general membership of the DLP chooses their Leader and potential Prime Minister of Barbados.
In Westminster types government which we have in Barbados, patronage is an accepted tool to gaining loyalty, from which a leader or potential leader can project power.
Is it not easier to “gain” loyalty from eight or nine parliamentarians as oppose to several thousand general members of a party?
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM
@Adrian Hinds, the BLP can change its rules (as had the DLP).
It is near universal that patronage gains loyalty, not unique to Westminster based systems, and not unique to politics, either. Surely, the USA, where you live, gives you enough examples of that.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 4:35 PM
1: Mia Mottley first referred to the Sodomy laws, and homosexuality in prison in response to a question. A question that some say was planted by Owen, and to which in her defense she said she was only answering a question.
2: Rather than let it die there. She then attempt to force the issue by way of the Mickey Walrond report.
3: That, further intensified the Anti-Mia rhetoric, With Owen calling on Barbadians to give her a break.
4: Probably sensing prolong if not permanent damage to her reputation, she retreated to her original position of only answering a question. Adding to this she also said that no government should ever legislate no matter what, without the consent of the majority. She also added that this issue will have to be address at some point.
She is the political leader of a major political party in Barbados one election away from having the authority, and power to influence her social views into law.
It is true that the concept of being first amongst your equals can check the power of a PM. It has in the past with Sandiford, and I believe we are seeing it again with the delay in legislating ITAL.
But the power of PM in the hands of a person at the head of a party where demonstrated best practices of patronage as seen via “the politics of inclusion” are plentiful. Loyalty of fellow parliamentarians can be purchase and that has shown to be enough for them to sign off on the peronal initiatives of the leader, “in whom they are well please”.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM
@Adrian Hinds, the BLP can change its rules (as had the DLP).
————————————————–
ha ha ha Such a change is not in Mia Mottley’s interest, nor of those parliamentarians who voted for her, or the leadership council who approved of her, or of those stalwarts who never liked the current popular alternative to Mia.
But this is what Owen Arthur said must be address. He said the BLP has to address how they pick leaders, and if the general membership do not make known their wish and do so in a forceful manner, the BLP will never turn over or share its queen and king making apparatus to a bunch of lowly BLP members. Never.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM
@Adrian Hinds, you are postulating a desired outcome. Ms Mottley is NOT “one election away from having the authority, and power to influence her social views into law” in the same way that over 14 years the leader of the DLP was not one election away from gaining power. For those with apocalyptic notions, they may wish to fill 2012 with more drama, but it’s a stretch.
Your points to the BLP positioning raise again the spectre that Ms. Mottley was being ’set up’ for a fall, but so far it has not happened. Which just goes to show that in politics, many outcomes are possible, and no certainties exist.
Done.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:58 PM
@Adrian Hinds, whether a change of rules is in Ms. Mottley’s interest is only part of the matter. The BLP parliamentary leader is not the leader of the BLP: Mr. George Payne is Chair of the BLP Executive Committee. The BLP is also clearly not a one person party.
If you want to speculate, do so. You could even postulate what it may take to see a break up of the party. I mention that merely because that might resonate with you in the USA as some in the Republican Party who may have presidential ambitions have recently spoken openly about how good it may be for a ‘third’ party to be formed (listen to some of Ms. Palin’s recent interviews).
David // November 19, 2009 at 5:03 PM
@Adrian
This is our read of the situation. Arthur is currently keeping his options open. The move by Mottley to opening put the leadership issue to bed for now was a smart move knowing that Arthur is not ready to make the move at this time; the DLP popularity is still distubingly too high even in a recession. Be assured Arthur will test the wind down the road, the key will be when the polls show a dip in DLP popularity. Arthur obviously doesn’t fancy working very hard to regain the reigns. He does not have the zeal to do so. Interesting times ahead. Thompson would rather face Mottley for sure.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 6:31 PM
@Adrian Hinds, whether a change of rules is in Ms. Mottley’s interest is only part of the matter. The BLP parliamentary leader is not the leader of the BLP: Mr. George Payne is Chair of the BLP Executive Committee. The BLP is also clearly not a one person party.
————————————————
No body pays much attention to the general sec. chair or other similar positions unless it is filled by the political leader.
How the political leader is chosen is the issue. A political party is indeed, not a one man show. Neither should it be an eight man parliamentary team show, nor a too few leadership committee show. Were that the case, the PEP, PDC and others would have a much better change of gaining a single seat in parliament.
The party is its entire membership and this is the missing voice in who elects the political leader of the BLP. No real legitimacy can be had or sustain from what transpired to give Mia her position.
Mia Mottley gain the Leadership of her party the very same way that Owen did the difference being while the general membership although not having a direct say endorse it, nevertheless now they don’t and may want to have that direct say now and into the future.
Clearly Thompson has more legitimacy in terms of numbers from his party than Mia does. Why sould Barbados Electors vote enmasse for the party whose political leader its membership are not “warmed” on?
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 8:29 PM
David your assessment is sound, but don’t you think Arthur’s current national appeal while inpart due to his 14 years at the helm, remains as strong as it is due to the economics of the day and his training as an economist?
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 8:56 PM
@ Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 6:31 PM
You seem to have rationalised Ms. Mottley away as a potential political power, so why then spend time worrying about her ideas?
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 9:41 PM
what does rationalizing have to do with the reality of elective politics in our first past the post two party system?????
worry is not a good word to use. But would you like me to stop analyzing?
Are you part of the planning committee for the Mia show coming to the Barbadian media sometime before the next election?
I got quite a bit of what I call mia-morabilia” collected over the years, that could be useful to her or Thompy. :)
Zoe // November 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Regarding the radical ‘homosexual’ agenda, coming from North America, and seeking to infiltrate our Caribbean region, the following is taken, in part, from a very well informed Jamaican, who wrote in June 20, 2008:
“The Homosexual Agenda and the Caribbean, and the de-Christianisers Coming from North America.”
“Yes, Bible believing Christians have, often falsely, but sometimes with cause, been accused of being hostile and unsympathetic to those facing homosexual temptation, or caught up in related habits.”
“Therefore, however imperfect Christians are, to be truthful and corrective, but concerned for people, whoever they are.”
“Over the past several weeks, (ca June, 2008) several incidents, such as the BBC Hardtalk interview with PM Bruce Golding of Jamaica, that alerted us to a rising surge to ‘normalise’ homosexuality in law, policy, media, public opinion and education in the Caribbean.”
“Around that same time, a related call came through PM Dr. Denzil Douglas of St. Kitts, in the name of helping to address HIV/AIDS. But, there is always more to such stories than meets the eye.”
‘The Agenda’
“An April 3, 2008 account in the Jamaica Star, ‘Gays give Jamaica Deadline.’ tells us…one individual who has been involved with Jamaica AIDS Support for Life and the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays since 1998 and is now in Canada seeking asylum along with his partner, said, “Its not just that we are singling out Jamaica and it will be only about Jamaica, but as soon as the issue in Jamaica have been addressed, then we’ll move on to another country. We’re not only looking at Jamaica, but also the *region* the 11 other countries that have *sodomy* laws on their books.”
“In short, the HOMOSEXUAlists have the *Caricom* region in their sights.”
“What is being Demanded”
“They want the Government of Jamaica to produce ‘public service announcements denouncing homophobic/transphobic violence. They are also calling for a national homophobic/transphobic *education* campaign, and the repeal of the *buggery* laws and other legislation that further stigmatize, discriminate and criminalize consensual same-sex acts.”
“They are also calling for government policy to protect human rights and inclusion of ’sexual’ orientation’ as a ground for non-discrimination in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“Additionally, they want to see a focus at the Canada-CARICOM 2008 Summit to include human rights for ‘Lesbians, Gays, bi-Sexuals, and Trans-identified people.”
“And, if we don’t fall in line,…the groups [ Egale Canada, and Metropolitan Community Churches [a homosexualist 'church'] promise to make a public announcement on may 17, the ‘International Day Against Homophobia’ calling for, among other things, a Canadian tourism *boycott* on Jamaica and a boycott of goods and services here…”
“The groups are planning to make an international call for the ‘Lesbian, Gay, bi-Sexual, and transsexual community to support the boycott and suspension of Jamaica from the Commonwealth for human rights.”
“[NB: There is no gov't sanctioned persecution of homosexuals in Jamaica; though...sadly, there have been occasional instances of mob violence, similar to what rountinely happens with Goat thieves caught in the act. And the JFLAG activist MUST know that!]”
“If Sodomy is decriminalized”
“On evidence of what is now going on in the US and Canada, a demand would soon go out to legalise so-called ’same-sex marriage,’ and to write that into the education system.”
“Husband and wife, Mom and Dad, etc., would become forbidden words in the classrooms [as is happening right now in California].”
“Activists would then use the ‘law’ to silence those who object as attacking legal, duly declared ‘human rights’ of homosexuals,[To refuse to rent to, print invitations for a photograph the 'wedding' of a same-sex 'couple' will also be to expose oneself to human rights law.]”
“In particular, to teach what Leviticus 18, or Romans 1 or I Cor 6: 9-11, etc., say about homosexual conduct, would be deemed criminal ‘hate speech’ [A Pastor in Sweden was sentenced to goal for preaching such texts.]”
‘The Underlying Strategy’
“As David Kirpelian of WND sums up in his “Marketing of Evil”
“The sophiticated strategy [Marketing Professionals] Kirk and Madsen lay out for changing the way Americans think about homosexuality, boast three phases: ‘Desensitization’ ‘Jamming’ and ‘Conversion.’
NOTICE.
“For instance above, the Government of Jamaica has been slandered as if it were sponsoring anti-homosexual persecution.”
“Never mind, that those making the false accusation know or should know better.”
The salient point is, that no one in government in Jamaica, has attempted, to call for what Mottley did in B’dos, they would be *mad* to even think such an idea in Jamaica, BUT, the seriousness of the *intent* of the HOMOSEXUAList, agenda, not just in the US and Canada, is a world-wide strategy, which in very subtle ways, is already been talked about at the United Nations, and is very much a part of the ‘New World Order’ One World Government, yes, it is all there in the multiple thousands of pages, that many are not familar with, as it is tedious reading!
Zoe // November 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM
The Family Under Attack
“The storm that will break over America after but a single vote *legalizes* gay marriage will surely be a moment of decisive social reckoning. In the wake of the first legalization, the battle over gay marriage will be characterized by rapidly escalating confrontation, followed by a radical, nationwide resolution…As soon as even a single state legalizes same-sex marriage, the nation will be plunged into a furious legal, political, and cultural struggle. The bitter and ongoing polarization to even an exceedingly liberal state like Vermont is a clear foreshadowing of the conflict to come. As legal and political battles over traveling couples spread from state-to-state, the chaos will multiply and the courts, already inclined to mandate same-sex marriage, will grow increasingly receptive to arguments that the Full Faith and Credit Clause demands national gay marriage. And the even stronger arguments for nationally mandated gay marriage under the Constitution’s equal-protection clause will also find favor in the courts.”
-Stanley Kurtz, writing in National Review. ( The Homosexual Agenda, Exposing The Principle Threat To Religious Freedom Today, p.89).
The following quotes taken from the above source, emphatically reveal that the Homosexaulists Agenda in America and elsewhere, is to dethrone our God Ordained sanctity of Marriage, as defined historically by our creator, between one man and one woman, the very bedrock upon which any stable, rational, well-balanced society has prospered, and raised its children into meaningful, productive citizens of any country, which cannot be refuted with any soundness of of mind.
“What Stanley Kurtz warned about happened on November 18, 2003. When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that same-sex couples have a newly discovered legal right to ‘marry,’ the court radically redefined marriage for the citizens of the Commonwealth – ignoring nearly four hundred years of state and national history and stripping marriage of its core purpose of uniting men and women as the basic unit of the family. *One vote has changed the course of history.* America’s moment of reckoning had come.” (Ibid., p.89).
“Why is this battle so important? Because it goes to the very heart of God’s plan for marriage and the family. When anyone tinkers with that plan, the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of future generations is put at severe risk.”
“For instance, in Europe a generation of children are growing up with no idea of what a traditional family is like. In countries such as Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark, it has been decades since many children have known what it is like to live in a traditional family with a mother and a father. More than half of the children in Europe are born to unwed mothers. In Sweden, 54 percent of all children are born out of wedlock. In Norway, the figure is 49 percent, in Denmark, 46 percent, and in Iceland, it is over 65 percent. And, in America, 26.7 percent of children born to white mothers, and 68.8 percent of children born to black mothers, are out of wedlock. Over 43 percent of all children in America will live in a single-parent home sometime in their childhood.” (Ibid., p.90).
“Marriage and family are under attack by homosexual activists and their allies, both in America and internationally. At a conference at the University of London called ‘Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: A Conference on National European and International Law,” one of the main themes of discussion was whether marriage should exist at all. The attendees laid out strategies to circumvent each nations’s democratic process via the judicial system to force governments to sanction and accept same-sex marriage. There was also discussion about ultimately *abolishing* marriage so adults could be free to pursue any sexual relationship they want with no legal restrictions whatsoever.”
“Part of Europe have already proceeded well down the road to the abolition of marriage. Same-sex marriage is already legal in the Netherlands, and many other European countries have some sort of formal recognition of same-sex couples. In January 2003, Belgium joined the Netherland to officially recognize same-sex marriage.”
“In Norway, the nation’s finance minister, Per-Kristian Foss, *married* his homosexual partner via a ‘partnership,’ which means that they have ‘almost the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples’ but not the title.”
‘In Germany, a similar partership law was passed. The first lesbian couple to take advantage of the law, Angelika and Gudrum Pannier, dressed themselves in black tuxedos and white bow ties. They exchanged rings and ended their ceremony with a kiss. Angelika said, ‘It is a great honor to be Germany’s first lesbian couple to have a legal partership. It is very exciting. It is also very important to have my family beside us on this great step for civil and human rights…There is still a lot more to do, but this is the first step.” (Ibid., p. 91).
“The first step is just the precusor to wholesale destruction of marriage.”
“What has all of this to do with gay marriage? Everything. The argument over gay marriage is only incidentally and secondarily an argument over marriage,. Unless a government is sufficiently powerful and disdainful of religion to crush the objections of the local churches – and few governments are – gay marriage will turn out in practice to mean the creation of an *alternative* form of legal coupling that will be available to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. Gay marriage, as the French are are vividly demonstrating, does NOT extend martial rights; its *abolishes* marriage and puts a new, flimsier institution in its place.”
“The gay marriage argument is only the latest round in an argument over marriage and the family that began some 35 years ago. It *pits* defenders of marriage against those who condemn it as stultifying and oppressive. It *pits* the wishes of adults against the needs of *children*, the urgings of the *self* against the ‘obligations’ of *family*. As such, the argument is a much more evenly matched *battle* than a gay-straight fight would ever be. The *battle* has been lost in France and Scandinavia. It is well on the way to being lost in Britain and Canada. And it is very much in danger of being lost in the United States.” (Ibid., p.93).
‘Radical homosexual activists recognize that domestic-partner policies, civil unions, and so forth will eventually destroy the *institution* of male-female marriage. Chris Crain, writing in the homosexual newspaper the ‘New York Blade’, acknowledged this: ‘In the English-speaking world, the *faux* marriages have been called ‘domestic parterships.’ In france, they are called ‘Pacte civil de solidarite,’ or PACS…The effect on ‘traditional marriage’ has been dramatic. In France, where PACS first became available in 1990, some 14,000 couples signed up the first year, and almost half of them heterosexual…Back in the States, many heterosexual couples are also choosing domestic partership [DP] over marriage for many of the same reasons.”
“Radical homosexual activists readily acknowledge that *redefinition* of marriage IS just a *tool* in their greater agenda to *reorder* society. While they will not admit it, *children* are just pawns to be used as they strive for total acceptance of their behavior. Consider the quote from Evan Wolfson, former president of the Lamba Legal Defense and Education Fund, a leading lobbying and legal action group for homosexual marriage. ‘We can win the freedom to marry….We can *sieze* the terms of the debate, tell our *diverse* stories, engage the nongay persuadable public, enlist allies, work the courts, and the legislatures in several states, and achieve a legal *breakthrough* within five years. I’m talking about not just any legal breakthrough, but an actual change in the law of at least one state, ending discrimination in civil marriage and permitting same-sex couples to lawfully wed. This just won’t be a change in the law either; it will be a change in *society*. For if we do it right, the struggle to win freedom to marry will bring much more along the way.” emphasis added. (Ibid., p.94)
“George W. Dent Jr., writing in ‘The Journal of Law and Politics’ writes that once same-sex marriage is affirmed, then *other* forms of *marriage* will quickly be affirmed as well, such as polygamy, endogamy (the marriage of blood relatives), beastiality, and child marriage. In fact, the policy guide of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls fo the legalization of *polygamy* stating, ‘The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of *plural* marriage violate constitutional protections of *freedom* of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.”
Hear this: “For the children, it makes no difference whether their parents are married or not. Traditional *family* values are *not* important to us anymore. They are something we do research on like a *fossil*” -Ebba Wilt-Brattstroem, Stockholm University, Professor of comparative literature.
“Once marriage is redefined for same-sex partners, it opens the *Pandora’s* box to be redefined for any assortment of individuals. After all, if two men or two women have a right to be married, why not two men and three women, or two men, one woman, and a dog and a chimpanzee?” (Ibid., p. 94) emphasis added.
Many in our part of the world, obviously don’t have a clue, regarding what the Homosexualist Agenda is really all about, and the inroads they have already made in a number of countries, as cited above; OR, are also part of this subtle, devious, wicked, evil agenda, to eradicate our historic, God given family *unit* of Father and Mother, which is already under severe stress from all of the other *ills* that plague us daily!
kiki // November 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Motherless Children
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/motherless-children/
B.I.G DICK // November 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM
ac // November 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM
@ Bonny Peppa
I think B.G.Dick might be packing a WEENIE
Ha ha———————————————-
——————————————-
There is always a pre-occupation with size but usually many people cant handle size and often complain .
Remember a giant size WEENIE might seem small to a giant but extremely large to a dwarf.
B.I.G DICK // November 20, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Homosexuality is an abomination, Why would a man want to forego the pleasure of a warm moist and juicy orifice such as is found on a female to go and dabble in shit ? Tell me nuh ! Tell B.I.G DICK
B.I.G DICK // November 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM
OK
I have given up
BULL all you want
kiki // November 20, 2009 at 3:07 PM
getting so much resistance
from behind
Catch this Sound
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/catch-this-sound/
ac // November 20, 2009 at 6:48 PM
@B.I.G.Dick
You ain’t saying nothing.
The fact that you are homophobic speaks volumes about your sexual insecurety .Look at the stupid alias you are using, that alone makes me wonder
about your true sexuality .Some how I think you are a closet gay. Maybe in time you would come ou of the closet.
Pat // November 21, 2009 at 8:25 PM
@ B.I.G Dick
If I had a choice between a big dick and a small dick, I would go for the small dick. Small dick men aim to please. Big Dick men just hammer away, no finesse. They just dont know how to use their big dicks. They think a big dick makes the man a good lover, pooooo!
ac // November 21, 2009 at 8:34 PM
@PAT
whatever makes you happi————– Ha Ha——————————
ac // November 21, 2009 at 8:45 PM
@Zoe
Question? What happen to “Love thy neighbour as you love thyself”.
Maybe the homosexual debate should tell you more about yourself and the unwillingness to be tolerant. Let God be the judge of all people .”he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
Pat // November 21, 2009 at 11:23 PM
@ac
Dont waste your time on Zoe, we dont take fanaticism seriously. In fact, do what most do, scroll by.
Praetorious // November 22, 2009 at 12:16 AM
This is all so very interesting. I love how every few decades there is some moral panic or the other.
I don’t find anything wrong at all with homosexuality, nor have I found anything which proves that it is indeed wrong. Religious arguments abound, but they are pointless, and rather ironic. Here we find christians, say, losing there minds over the “gy agenda” and lobby, when they themselves have a sinister christian agenda and lobby as well, using much the same tools and apporaches as the homosexuals are claimed to have used. Furthermore, the complaints about homosexuals being intolerant reprobates, trying to force their “immoral” behaviours on the rest of us are quite ironic as well, for here we have another set of people, religious ones, christians, say, trying to impose upon the rest of us their perspective and take on morality and nature, through lobbies and legislation and government. It is not a governments job to legislate morality.
I have indeed read the bible cover to cover, and have found nothing in it which establishes marriage as a god ordained institution between one man and one woman.
In fact, many of the famous characters in the bible had many wives. From the bible we see a polygynous view of marriage. Indeed marriage was a social contract, used to sell off daughters, gain social mobility…
Besides, the bible is a poor piece of first century literature, which had no view into the future, and the moral situations handled in its stories are woefully simple, if they indeed exist at all. Hell, Shakespeare handles more complex moral situations than the bible.
If there is indeed a god, and it is indeed the christian one, and it is indeed our judge, why fuss so much? Surely everyone will have their comeuppance on judgment day right? Then you’ll be free to live in your wonderful heaven, free of us sinners.
Why would god be so bothered with where i stick my penis anyways, and be so moved to destroy nations because of an act? surely there are more important matters to tend to.
From a family perspective, I would just like to say that only a third of humans are monogamous, so, there is no universal argument from the dad-mum-kids view, unless of course we bound the argument to western societies. There is nothing to say that homosexual parents are incapable of raising heterosexual children.
@ Ruel
“However, where he crosses the line is when he attempts to equate the un-natural act of same gender copulation with the natural process of reproduction. You cannot by a function of choice just decide that apertures and organs that are constructed for particular natural functions must be recognized differently because of your individual erotic predisposition.”
Have you any idea of just how many species exhibit homosexual behaviour? Indeed, marriage is not found anywhere in nature, it is a human invented thing and can be changed. Human sexuality is not only related to our biological development but to our cognitive development as well. Cognitive development having split from our biological development means that we will do things contrary to our biology. Every time we use contraception we do this.
There is nothing which explicitly says what we can or cannot do, and which ascertains a sole use for our members. That is something entirely dependent on us, were you born with an instruction manual tied to your toe?
Consider the skin, it is the largest organ, it’s primary use is to protect the body against pathogens and excessive water loss, provide insulation and regulate temperature. However, it is also a sensing apparatus, indeed it does cover out entire exterior. The skin is the most sensual organ we have, key to sex and sexuality. Would you say that we use skin in an unnatural way when we pleasure each other? Indeed what of tanning?
I do agree that this is an issue which must be discussed in Barbados. But we should leave poorly reasoned arguments, religious arguments and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.
There is so much to respond to, I wish I had the time. Well, small steps.
michael // November 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM
@Praetorious
you are a disgusting deviant
first of all let me say this the family is the bed rock of human civilization with out it man would cease to exist ,you and the people like you are minuscule in the plan of things,because you think you have captured Europe and north America and any where that let you degenerates feel comfortable you are now cumming after the Caribbean,another statement you have made about the bible is false and you know it,or your bible is not the same as mine,I think you have torn out some of the pages you don’t like,i would suggest that you go and do what you are good at,and don’t talk about the bible.may i point you to the true bible genesis ch 2 ver 24 and if you don’t care fore the bible i will say this man to man don’t create a child
kiki // November 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM
The LORD said to Abram, “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and curse him that curses you; and all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you.” — Genesis 12:1-3, New Jewish Version.
http://www.whosoever.org/v2i6/genesis.html
Zoe // November 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM
@Praetorious, says:
“I have indeed read the Bible from cover to cover, and have found *nothing* in which establishes *marriage* as a God ordained institution between one man and one woman.” emphasis added.
Really, Mr. Praetorious! When did you read the Bible from cover to cover? When you were a Toddler!
Let’s hear from God’s Word, the Bible, what He ordained for man and woman in His Institutional desire for them.
“Therefore a *man* shall leave his father and mother and be *joined* to his *wife*, and they shall become *one* flesh” (Genesis 2: 24; See also Matt: 19:5; Mark 10:6-8) emphasis added.
NB: Here in Genesis, Almighty God establishes the *union* of marriage, between one man and one woman, ‘…and they shall become one flesh” (v.24b). ‘leave’ connotes a priority on the part of the *husband*. ‘be joined’ has the idea of both passion and permanence. ‘One flesh’ carries a number of implications, including *sexual union*, child conception, spiritual and emotional intimacy, and showing each other, the same respect shown other close kin, such as one’s parents and siblings. This is enhanced in the NT where it is clear that Christian mates are also each other’s brother and sister.
Praetorious, then goes on to say elsewhere, “Why would God be so bothered with where I stick my penis anyways.”
The same Almighty God, our Creator who ordained the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, (Gen. 2:24) severely condemns “homosexuality” sexual desire directed toward members of one’s own sex.
Homosexualty had been condemned in both Leviticus (18: 22; 20:13), where it is abhorrent to God, defiling, punishable by death, and in Deuteronomy (23:18), where it is forbidden to bring the hire of harlot or homosexual (“dog”) into the house of God in payment of religious vows, both being abhorrent to God.
In the New Testament, *Homosexuals* “will not inherit the Kingdom of God” (I Cor. 6:9-10); because of idolatry God gave the heathen up “to dishonoroable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations (heterosexual) for unnatural (lesbianism), and the men likewise gave up natural (hetrosexual) relations with women, and were consumed with passion for one another (homosexuality), men committing shameful acts with men, and reciving in their own persons, the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:26-27). Here the association with idolatry, the *unnaturalness* of the practice, and the divine judgment which abandons individuals to it [an echo of Sodom?) are all significant. The Sodom story recurs in Jude 7 (“unnatural lust”) and II Peter. 2: 6-7) (“lust of defiling passion”), perpetuating the biblical tradition that homosexuals were under Divine ban.
Crusoe // November 22, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I do believe that every child, if the Almighty wills, benefits from the presence and influence of both parents, not just one.
I cannot say however that I will follow blindly, anything else of life and living said.
But, Praetorius has a right to speak and be heard.
Interesting that after only one post, Praetorius has been pilloried as a ”disgusting deviant’.
Definition of deviant ‘One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behaviour and attitudes differ from accepted social standards’.
Therefore, in various parts of the world, many or most of us would be considered deviants, depending on where we happen to be located and from whence we came, surely?
Do you some of you still wish to name call, rather than address issues with more substance?
Or would some of you not mind being in another country and pilloried for your own views?
Some tolerance IS called for.
Dogmatism cannot lead to understanding and social development, only creates walls that cannot be moved.
Crusoe // November 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Merriam-Webster Online, definition of dogmatism,
”positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant”
Something to ponder on.
Pat // November 22, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Praetorious // November 22, 2009 at 12:16 AM
After reading your post, you strike me as being rational and level headed. I tend to agree with what you have said above. I have always cautioned people on this blog to “live and let live”. After all, they dont know what may turn up in their families tomorrow, next month or next year. There is a homosexual in every family. It is just tht some dont know.
michael // November 23, 2009 at 6:52 AM
Yes it is right to live and let live,and i can agree to that,but what you are missing is that the homosexuals want to change society to make their practices seen as normal,i draw your attention to PARETORIOUS last written line where he says small steps,this is how they operate.In England in some schools children are being encouraged not say that they have a mum and dad they are to say that they have two parents,why?this is because(the fair thinkers say)if there is a child with only one parent it would feel unhappy not being able to talk about mum or dad what ever the case might be, and then the story goes well if a child only has two mums or two dads they two would be upset in the presents of a child who would be talking about mum and dad,so the ground work is being laid to make this practice normal.The fact is you do not here heterosexual people making a case for adultery as a good thing or what they do in private is for everyone.let me put it this way the mouth is made for eating & talking because i choose to blow a musical instrument with it, it does not mean that it is a natural thing to do
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados // November 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM
@michael, whether there is a plot or not by some to make something seem normal, remember that we in the Caribbean live whgat see as very abnormal lives. Many of our children are born out of wedlock and do not know their fathers, or rarely their mothers. I look forward to the whole banning of flute or trumpet playing, as abominable deviant behaviours.
ac // November 23, 2009 at 6:47 PM
@michael
Weird conclusion you make between homosexuality and a flute.
I think you are ver confused to make such a comparison.
Pat // November 23, 2009 at 7:22 PM
@Michael
Is this practice in England (and I am not sure it is true) not to protect the plethora of single parent kids in that society? Those kids without fathers and those without mothers? I read two or three British papers every day and dont recall that policy you refer to. Could you please point us to the source? Thanks.
ac // November 23, 2009 at 10:30 PM
@Scout
Yes many of us got an ass beating .
That is the reason we are against “beating” children . It is a cruel and barberic punishment that a person should have to be subjected to.
I know of many families who have raised decent law abiding children without ever beating them.
Having said that I also know people who were beaten as children and whose lives have turned out completely opposite people refer to them as “bums”
ac // November 23, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Please ignore the above comment on the wrong page
Praetorious // November 24, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Hello All,
Apologies for my late reply, I’ve many things to do and not as much time to reply.
My usual method is to move sequentially through the comments posted in response to my statement, but I think I’ll leave my response to Zoe’s post for last.
@michael
Hello, michael.
“you are a disgusting deviant”
In what regard, I would like to know. This pejorative is also a universal statement, and obviously, false.
“first of all let me say this the family is the bed rock of human civilization”
Interesting analogy, however this is still fallacious. I think that humans are the foundation of civilisation, humans working together towards a common goal. A family is merely a unit of people and concerned primarily with its needs, cannot on its own be the foundation of a civilisation, in which there exist many different groups of people. Indeed, man can and has existed without a family.
“you and the people like you are minuscule in the plan of things,because you think you have captured Europe and north America and any where that let you degenerates feel comfortable you are now cumming after the Caribbean”
And what kind of person or group do I belong to? I have made no statements even hinting to such, so essentially what you have done is to make an assumption about my persona, create an image and then you proceed to attack it. Yet another logical fallacy, can you guess what it’s called?
Where have I said that I think I “ have captured Europe and north America and any where that let you degenerates feel comfortable you are now cumming after the Caribbean”
Clearly these are your thoughts, not mine.
“another statement you have made about the bible is false and you know it,or your bible is not the same as mine,”
Which statement is false? Neither myself nor anyone can know which one you mean unless you specify.
“I think you have torn out some of the pages you don’t like,i would suggest that you go and do what you are good at,and don’t talk about the bible.may i point you to the true bible genesis ch 2 ver 24 and if you don’t care fore the bible i will say this man to man don’t create a child”
This is interesting, what I find is that many people just pick and choose what verses in the bible they can find to support their position, ignoring other verse and indeed ignoring contradicting verses altogether. The thing is that you can find a verse in the bible to support almost any position, as such, if the text is not congruent within itself, how then can it be used to make a rational decision? Indeed, a man and a man cannot biologically create a child, but that is no barrier to them doing so. There are and have been such things as surrogate mothers.
“Yes it is right to live and let live,and i can agree to that,but what you are missing is that the homosexuals want to change society to make their practices seen as normal,i draw your attention to PARETORIOUS last written line where he says small steps,this is how they operate.”
Michael, come now. I said :
There is so much to respond to, I wish I had the time. Well, small steps.
Clearly I was referring to responding to the posts on this thread, and not about how homosexuals “operate”. This error isn’t too surprising, when one is quote mining off course.
Also, I would have you know that I am heterosexual, so perhaps you shouldn’t lump me in with “they” ( I may be mistaken here).How do “they operate” by the way, what evidence have you?
“In England in some schools children are being encouraged not say that they have a mum and dad they are to say that they have two parents,why?this is because(the fair thinkers say)if there is a child with only one parent it would feel unhappy not being able to talk about mum or dad what ever the case might be, and then the story goes well if a child only has two mums or two dads they two would be upset in the presents of a child who would be talking about mum and dad,so the ground work is being laid to make this practice normal.The fact is you do not here heterosexual people making a case for adultery as a good thing or what they do in private is for everyone.”
Alright, As I was reading this the first thing that struck me was yet another logical fallacy, affirming the consequent. In the extract you present a situation, which on its own, shows only that children are being told to say they have two parents, when indeed they have two parents, regardless of their parents’ gender. In addition, there is a lovely non sequitur in there, where it is said that a child may be unhappy not being able to talk about mum or dad or whatever combination thereof. Indeed a child might not be unhappy because of a particular combination or more importantly because of their parents’ genders, as long as they are in a loving caring environment. Indeed, if one or both of the parents are abusive, the child may not be happy talking about them period.
You then go one to mention something about “making this practice normal”, I have no clue what you mean by this, but taken as a whole, it appears that you are trying to relate this to homosexuals, albeit through a fallacy…I would like tot see this article btw.
“let me put it this way the mouth is made for eating & talking because i choose to blow a musical instrument with it, it does not mean that it is a natural thing to do””
Okay, just because we talk with our mouths, does not mean they are made for talking. The mouth’s features coupled with our brains enable speech. I hope you see what I’m saying here.
Finally,
@Zoe
I hate “bible boxing” it’s pointless. I make this claim”Presupposition and prejudice, rather than “biblical evidence” have shaped the tradition of biblical interpretation.
“I have indeed read the Bible from cover to cover, and have found *nothing* in which establishes *marriage* as a God ordained institution between one man and one woman.” emphasis added.
Really, Mr. Praetorious! When did you read the Bible from cover to cover? When you were a Toddler!”
Yes, really Zoe. There is * nothing* in the bible which says so. I’ve read it cover to cover maybe 2 years ago, definitely not when I was a toddler. It’s interesting, through all of your posts, this one included, you seem to talk down to people. Do you think your command of the Bible is superior to mine? Do you think that you are more enlightened than the rest of us?
Also, marriage as one man and one woman is actually a modern definition.
“Therefore a *man* shall leave his father and mother and be *joined* to his *wife*, and they shall become *one* flesh” (Genesis 2: 24; See also Matt: 19:5; Mark 10:6-8) emphasis added.
NB: Here in Genesis, Almighty God establishes the *union* of marriage, between one man and one woman, ‘…and they shall become one flesh” (v.24b). ‘leave’ connotes a priority on the part of the *husband*. ‘be joined’ has the idea of both passion and permanence. ‘One flesh’ carries a number of implications, including *sexual union*, child conception, spiritual and emotional intimacy, and showing each other, the same respect shown other close kin, such as one’s parents and siblings. This is enhanced in the NT where it is clear that Christian mates are also each other’s brother and sister.
Yes Zoe, I know this one. You will however observe that the verse doesn’t say the word marriage at all.
In fact, your “NB” shows that all you can go on is your own personal interpretation of the bible, it being subject to your prejudices, biases and intelligence of course. You use the words “connotes” and “implications” The former word means to signify in addition to a primary meaning, and to imply. However, implication can be false, basic logic if p implies q, and q is false but p is true, the whole statement of p implies q IS false. Furthermore, we are looking at a metaphor, a metaphor is subjective. One can change it’s interpretation and meaning depending on many things, as I have stated above. Indeed, everything there is a metaphor, so you cannot draw a definite command from it. In the bible, as you know, when god commanded something, he tended to state it as explicitly[which still is pretty vague] as he could.
Also, an interesting point to note is that when a man becomes a one flesh with his wife in Matthew 19:5-6, this doesn’t mean that the man can’t be one flesh with another woman. He can be one flesh with his first wife, and one flesh with his second wife, and one flesh with his third wife etc.
To throw some verse at you:
In the old testament, there are numerous verses about legal, holy marriage between one man and many women:
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon’s son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 “If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons….”
In addition, there is no verse in the New testament which condemns polygamy, or even defines marriage as one man and woman.
This truly is tiring, but I will continue!
“Homosexualty had been condemned in both Leviticus (18: 22; 20:13), where it is abhorrent to God, defiling, punishable by death, and in Deuteronomy (23:18), where it is forbidden to bring the hire of harlot or homosexual (“dog”) into the house of God in payment of religious vows, both being abhorrent to God.”
Yeah, and Leviticus 20:9 says”
“For everyone that curseth his father and mother shall be surely put to death” yet we don’t kill rude children.
Leviticus 19:19-20 says
“ Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind, thous shalt not sow thy field with mingled seeds”
Yet we do this always and the world hasn’t ended. Cattle are bred from different species for different traits. We know that mono-cropping depletes soil quality.
And that lovely Leviticus 20:13-14
“If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind…”
Well, a man can’t have sex with a man as he would with a woman, because men don’t have vaginas. This verse would make sense though, if men and women had both vaginal anal and oral sex, in which case, a man could then have the latter w relations with another man. This verse DOES NOT condemn homosexuality, but sexual acts between men, acts, which are not specified.\
Leviticus 20:18 is interesting
Apparently, if a man has sex with you on your period, you are both to be cut off from the people. Odd.
What I’m saying is that you can’t pick and choose verse, and that even today we do not use bible verses to establish laws and what is right and wrong.
I can only concede to the verses which use the word homosexual btw.
Please, don’t bring the Sodom story, that is the worst thing you can do:
In Gen 18:20, god wanted to destroy Sodom because
“The cry of Sodom and Gommorah is great, and because their sin is very greivous”
Gen 13:13
“But the men of Sodom were wicked & sinners before the Lord exceedingly”
Note, the nature of the sin is NOT KNOWN.
Gen 19:5
“And they called unto Lot, & said onto him, Where are the men which came in to thee..Bring them out unto us, that we may know them
This could not be the sin Sodom was to be destroyed for, because god had already decided to do so before he sent the angels. The angles came to warn lot to flee. Moreso, the only apparent sin is “the intent to rape” rather than just homosexuality.
I will point that the sin if Sodom is stated however, in Ezekiel 16:49
“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor or needy”
Jude 1:7 says it is also fornication, although fornication does not imply homosexuality.
Again, there is so much to reply to, but I haven’t the time. Well, small steps.
Praetorious // November 24, 2009 at 12:29 AM
@ Crusoe,
Thanks, you are quite an astute individual.
@Pat,
Thank-you. I try my best. It is sometimes a chore to stay calm and keep the whole of the arguments in mind. Not that I am prone to anger, moreso annoyance.
Anonymous // November 24, 2009 at 5:57 AM
Praetorius
while not supporting the gay bashers, some of your rebuttals to Zoe fall short. To wit, whether we observe all of the commands of the Bible or not e.g. rude children, does not negate the fact that the Bible does condemn sexual activity between males. Quite contrary to your rhetorical query, God is concerned with where you stick your penis.
I believe that we are on firmer ground in terms of logic, common sense and decency to recognise the illogic and incoherency of ALL religious texts and to proceed from there.
See you at the next stoning to death (as instructed by the Koran) of an adulterous woman while the male co defendant is given some lashes.
Praetorious // November 24, 2009 at 7:30 AM
@Anonymous.
Thanks for the comments. I said at the top I hat bible boxing and find it pointless, and I don’t quite have the time to write as detailed a response as I would like.
“To wit, whether we observe all of the commands of the Bible or not e.g. rude children, does not negate the fact that the Bible does condemn sexual activity between ales.”
Yes, I never said anything to the contrary, but my point was, that there are quite a few things god condemns and says which we do not hold to and which contemporary christians are either ignorant of or choose to ignore. I have said that religious arguments are pointless, just wanted to give Zoe another perspective.
“God is concerned with where you stick your penis.”
Still can’t find something which says that clearly in the bible.
“I believe that we are on firmer ground in terms of logic, common sense and decency to recognise the illogic and incoherency of ALL religious texts and to proceed from there.”
Agreed, and as i said in my fist post:
I do agree that this is an issue which must be discussed in Barbados. But we should leave poorly reasoned arguments, religious arguments and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.
It’s just that some people can’t see this, and I find myself trying to show there poor logic. Then there are those who seem to understand something if it’s from the bible…
Thanks for the comments,
Next time I will try a bit harder to be more detailed.
Hey, the guy doesn’t always get lashes if he can offer a ram of trespass.
Anonymous(2) // November 24, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Praetorious: You are far too logical and intelligent to be posting in here. Just ask Dennis Jones and Jack Bowman. You are dealing with simpletons and the religiously constipated.
Amused // November 24, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Praetorious, I am thoroughly enjoying your excellent posts. Keep going please. Most of the responses you get will be from dissenters, but that is because you are doing so well from the point of view of those of us who agree with you that I, for one, don’t have anything to add. Other than encouragement, that is.
michael // November 24, 2009 at 5:26 PM
@praetorious well! well !well!
You are so conceited,(too proud)that i cant think of where to start i will give it a shot
1 I do not subscribe to the way in which you use the word surrogate, a woman giving birth to a child is the mother of that child ,people like you like to use words that are not thought through properly,the only person who it can truly be said of as a surrogate is JESUS CHRIST and he was GOD.he died in our place
2 you have replaced the word man and woman by using the word( human)this is what i call slight of hands(impolite act)there are certain things that a women can do that men cant and visa versa
3 man can and has existed with out a family,again you have tried to miss lead man as a individual and woman can and do live by them self but man as the species do need one another to exist
4 your statement, i have indeed read bible cover to cover and have found nothing in it which establishes marriage as a God ordained institution between one man one woman .I will ask again what bible are you reading
@ pat the information that you ask for, it was in a local paper for the east Anglia area i think it was the EAST ANGLIA TIMES i cant find the article i am not in that area i heard it on their local radio it was not in the national press
back @ praetorious
as i understand it the children were being told how to say things,there were not ask whether they had a patient or parents
i do not intend to match you for eloquence obviously you went to university for my self i only attended mount tabor and schooled in the uk but i still know what is right and wrong and no one like you can manipulate me to think evil is good. I find it strange that a man that claims that he is heterosexual can find so much common ground with B*****s and put forward their case with such clarity
Zoe // November 24, 2009 at 11:31 PM
@Praetorious, So I see you like ‘logic’ that’s good!
You say, “Yes, Zoe, I know that one. (Gen. 2:24) You will however observe that the verse doesn’t say the word marriage at all.”
Come now P, as an intelligent, obviously well read man, using logic, surely you can from the very Logic of implication, reasonably, rationally, and coherently, conclude, that the ‘union’ between Adam and Eve, without the specific word ‘marriage’ used in the text, qualifies this union, between one man and one woman, as a ‘marriage’ as it came to be known thereafter.
Your argument on this flimsy basis, is simply not good enough for an intelligent person like you. It is like the JW’s insisting that because the word ‘Trinity’ is not a word used in the NT, that it is not Biblical to formulate the doctrine of the ‘trinity’ when the obvious ‘Logic’ of implication, drawn from a number of text, clearly, congruously, and coherently, identify the ‘three’ distinct ‘persons’ of the eternal Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is a ‘Trinity’ of persons, without the explicit use of the word Trinity used in the scriptural text.
(See Matt. 3: 16-17; 28: 19; John 14: 16-17; I Cor. 12:4-6; Eph. 2:18; II Cor. 13:14; I John 5: 7-8; Rev 4-5).
You also say, implication can be false. I agree, but, implication can also be true!
It depends entirely upon the implied statement, and its premise. That’s why the Structure of Justification, in defending any propositional ‘truth’ claim, is coherence, as coherence is our sole criteria for truth!
“In fact, your “NB” shows that all you can go on is your own personal interpretation of the Bible, it being subject to your own prejudices, biases and intelligence of course.”
That premise of yours is not right, it flows from your own prejudices, biases, as well, dealing with a subject matter, that you obviously have little or no regard for, and hence your prejudices and biases against the authenticity of the Bible, as Almighty God’s divinely inspired Word, will be terribly tarnished by your contempt for its self-authenticating Word.
Also, I do not have my own personal interpretation of God’s Word, yes, as a fallible human being, I would naturally have my own presuppositions, as we all do, however, like all disciplines, theology and bible, has its own established principles of interpretation, which are governed by sound Biblical Hermeneutics, Contextual Analysis, and Linguistic Exegesis, just like Medicine, Law, Engineering, etc, have theirs, yes, therefore when one is guided by these sound, historic, grammatico, linguistic rules and principles of correctly, ‘dividing’ His Word, one is not apt to go too far wrong.
Obviously, you will not agree with me, but, I ask you then, by which principles of sound, logical, coherent interpretation, do you arrive at you interpretation of the Bible?
One last point for the night. You mention Matt 19: 5-6, lifting the clear intent of Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees who, “…came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘It is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” (v.3).
“And He answered and said to them.’Have you not read that He made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh, (union of marriage!). Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate.” (vv. 4-6).
“They said to Him. ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and put her away?” (v. 7).
“He said to them. ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the *beginning* it was not so.” (v.8).
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and *marries* another, commits adultry: and whoever *marries* her who is divorced commits adultry.” (v.9).
Interestingly, here Jesus uses the word ‘marries’ twice, a verb, to take as one’s wife or husband, and as incarnate Diety, the eternal Son of God, God of very God, validates the Old Testament Genesis 2:24 narrative account of *marriage* though the word is not explicitly used, but, nevertheless, explicitely implied. BTW, I coined that expression, ‘explicitely implied’ as a logical connotation.
Hear you tomorrow!
Zoe // November 25, 2009 at 3:55 PM
@Praetorious, Getting back to your contention that because the word ‘marriage’ is not used in Genesis 2:24, that there is no institution of marriage in the Bible. Suffice to say, I believe my post of last night, logically, and coherently implies, that the union of becoming ‘one’ flesh and, as was used in the following texts from the Old Testament, confirm that there was such an institution of Marriage.
“And Judah said unto Onan, go in unto thy borther’s wife, and *marry* her, and raise up seed to thy bother.” (Genesis. 38: 8)
“If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were *Married* then his wife shall go out with him.” (Exodus 21: 3)
“If he take him another wife, her food, her rainment, and her DUTY of *Marriage* shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21: 10)
“And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had *Married* for he had *Married* an Ethiopian woman” (Numbers 12:1)
“And if they be *Married* to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel….” (Numbers 36: 3a)
“This is the thing which the LORD command concerning the daughter of Zelophehad saying. Let them *Marry* to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they *Marry*” (Numbers 36: 6).
“For Mahlah, Tizah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were *Married* unto their fathers’s brother’s sons. And they were *Married* into the families…” (Numbers 36: 11, 12a) emphasis added throughout. (See also, Deut 7:3; 22:22; 24:1; and Joshua 23:12).
I believe that the verses cited above, shows clearly that the institution of ‘marriage’ was very much a part of the Old Testament culture, especially in Numbers 36, and verse 6, where “This IS the thing which the LORD COMMAND….Let them MARRY…”
You also contend, “In addition, there is no verse in the NT which condemns polygamy, or even defines marriage and one man and woman.”
An argument from silence certainly does not establish what you are saying.
Yet, there is ample proof from the New Testament that ‘marriage’ as God originally intended, prior to the fall of Adam into to sin, WAS between one man, and one woman, becoming ‘one’ flesh, in the beauty and sanctity of marriage, until SIN messed it all up.
Hear the Lord Jesus Christ:
“And every one that hath forsaken houses, (plural) or brethren, (plural) or sisters, (plural) or father, (singular) or mother, (singular) or WIFE, (singular) or children (plural) …” (Matt. 19: 29) emphasis added.
No polygamy implied here!
“And another said, I have *married* A WIFE (singular)….” (Luke 14: 20a) emphasis added.
No polygamy here either!
“Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his WIFE (singular) even as himself; and the WIFE (singular) see that she reverence her husband” (Eph. 5: 33) emphasis added.
“Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, have been the wife of ONE man.” (I Tim. 59) Literally, one-man woman.
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.” (I Tim. 3: 2)
Note: ‘…the husband of ONE woman. Some think this means having only one wife at a time, others only one living wife. Let us look at I Corinthians 7: 39, and by contextual analysis, see how Scripture interprets Scripture, a fundamental principle in good hermeneutics.
Marriage and Remarriage.
“The WIFE (singular) is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be *married* to whom she will; only in the Lord.” (I Cor. 7:39). emphasis added.
“I hate “bible-boxing” it’s pointless. I make this claim “Presuppostion” and prejudices, rather than “biblical evidence, have shaped the tradition of biblical interpretaion.”
Your “bible-boxing” is more appropriately called ‘proof-texing’ that is, taking a single verse, apart from all other text dealing with the same subject matter, and seeking to prove something. Taking a ‘text’ out of context, invariably becomes a ‘pretext.’
This IS not good biblical hermeneuctis!
Biblical Hermeneuctis and Linguistic Exegesis, is a very detailed and absolutely necessary course of study at Bible College and Seminary, without a proper grasp and understanding of these detailed principles, one will NOT be in a position to ‘correctly’ divide God’s Word.
Leviticus 20: 13, “If a man also ‘lie’ with mankind, as he ‘lieth’ with a woman, both of them have COMMITED an ABOMINATION: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
You say, “This verse DOES NOT condemn homosexuality, but sexual acts between men, acts which are not specified.”
“I can only concede to the verses which use the word homosexual.”
Come on P, what kind of intelligent reasoning is this?
The word ‘lie’ ‘…with mankind (a man) as he ‘lieth’ with a woman…’ and the fact that Almighty God emphatically state, “…both of them (men) have COMMITTED AN ABOMINATION…’ by any reasonable, rational, logically, understanding, IS obviously referring to ’sexual’ activity, regardless of which act(s) are participated in, IT IS NOT permitted by our Creator, it IS ‘…an ABOMINATION…”
Because, the modern word ‘homosexual’ is not used in the Old Testament,but, rather the euphemism ‘lie’ does NOT validate your illogical rejection of what is emphatically stated, that ‘IF’ a man ‘lie’ in other words, when a man lieth with a woman, in this context, he/she is having somekind of ’sexual’ activity, and, what God deems an abomination, is when two men, replace this normal activity, man/woman, with being together for the purpose that He Created a man and woman for.
Another point I want to stress, is this, the Old Testament cultural and linguistic expressions were vastly different from our modern day language, this is why it is imperative to be knowledgable and have access to Hebrew Word Study books, in order to do an etymological study of the meaning of various words used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, though some are very obvious in the intent of their meaning, some are not.
An example of this euphemistic type of termology used in the OT era, is when we read in Genesis 4:1:
“And Adam ‘knew’ his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain…”
‘Knew’ was a common euphemism for ’sexual’ relations, rather than saying as we would today, ‘He had sex with his wife; similarly, the euphemism, ‘lie’ with a ‘man’ as with a ‘woman’ constitutes somekind of ’sexual’ relations, man with man, which God severely calls an abomination.
BTW, when I use CAPS, I am not shouting at you, not at all, it’s just for emphasis and augmentation, OK!
Will check in latter!
Zoe // November 27, 2009 at 10:47 AM
@Praetorious, Let us get back to your erroneous interpretation of the ‘Sodom’ issue, you say:
“Gen 19:5, This could not be the sin Sodom was destroyed for, because God had already decided to do so before He sent the angels. The angels came to warn lot to flee. More so, the only apparent sin is ‘the intent to rape’ rather than just homosexuality.”
Almighty God, in His Omniscience, (ALL knowing) certainly decided to ‘destroy’ Sodom and Gommorah, because, “And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gommorah IS GREAT, and because their SIN is VERY GRIEVOUS.” (Gen. 18:20) emphasis added.
Therefore, when the angels made their appearance, to DESTROY these twin towns, their SIN (was already) very grievous, now confirmed by the behaviour of the ‘men’ when they saw the two angels, not knowing or realizing that these (two) were not just ordinary ‘men’ BUT angels. Lot knowing the wickedness of these depraved ‘Sodomites’ implored the angels to come into his house, rather than spend the night in the streets, which they eventually agreed to do.
Now, here are the two verses that you simply will not deal with honestly, trying to skirt around to avoid the obvious ‘intent’ of the Sodomizing ‘men’ of Sodom.
“But, before they (the angels) lay down, the ‘men’ of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, ALL the people from every quarter: And they called out Lot, and SAID unto him, Where are the MEN (angels) which came in to thee this night? BRING them OUT UNTO US, that we man *KNOW* them.” ( Gen. 19: 4,5) emphasis added.
As I explained in an earlier post, the Hebew ‘euphemism’ to ‘KNOW’ as the men of Sodom clearly said, ‘…that we may ‘know’ them” was to ‘force’ *rape* homosexually, these two angels, who appeared as men. This is precisely why Lot (v.3) insisted that the visitors come into his house, because he knew the danger they would face from the Sodomites, ‘homosexuals’ of Sodom if they stayed all night outside.
But, the supernatural power God has enabled His Angels which, is then manifested when these evil Sodomites ‘…came to break the door” (v. 9b)
The angels then, “And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with *blindness* both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door” (v. 11). Blindness, the Hebrew word (found only here and in 2 Kings 6:18) convey the idea of loss or distortion of vision resulting in mental confusion and bewilderment.
Yes, as Ezekiel 16: 49, states, “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of *idleness* was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strenghten the hand of the poor and needy.”
But, verse 50 then goes on to say, which you omitted, “And they were haughty, and COMMITTED ABOMINATION before Me, therefore I took them away as I saw good” (v.50) The obvious ‘committed ABOMINATION, before Me, WAS the blatant homosexuality, that was pervasive throughout Sodom, coupled with their *pride* the first sin that turned angels into demons. Gluttony, is here called, ‘fulness of bread’ and love of ease. ‘Idleness’ is an inlet to much sin, the standing waters gather filth, and the sitting bird is the fowler’s mark. Nether did she ’strenghten the hands of the poor and the needy.’
In seeking to bring Ezekiel 16: 49, alone, isolated from the entire chapter, which is not good hemeneutics, as it lifts a ’single’ verse from its chapter ‘context’ which must never be done, as any one verse of Scripture, must always be read in the ‘context’ of the preceding and following verses, in order to properly understand what is the import of its statement, and meaning.
Therefore, Ezekiel chapter 16, is dealing with, and depicts ‘Israel” as an unfaithful wife (metaphor) used in relation to her Covenant with Almighty God, which she has blatanly violated with ‘Idolatry’ (cf. Hos. 1-3; Jer. 2; Isa. 1:21; 50:1). Her sin is described in verses 3-34, her punishment in verses 35-52, and her restoration in verses 53-63. In verses 15-34, ‘Isreal’ referred to as the ‘wife’ became unfaithful to God by practicing *Idolatry* (vv. 15-22) and by entering into alliances with foriegn countries (vv. 23-34).
In verses (20-21) Children were offered in sacrifices to Molech (cf. Jer. 7:30-32; 19: 4-5; 32: 35). In veres (24-25) Idolatry and prostittution were evident everywhere. In verses (26-29) Judah imported foriegn *idols* and made foriegn alliances with Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon.
Therefore, because Israel were so favoured by Almighty God, in Covenant with Him, as He decreed, and had witnessed so much of His blessings on them, like no other nation of people, AND, having now turned their backs on Him, and ventured into such blatant , rampant, wicked *Idolatry* etc, etc, His judgment, on her, and Israel’s punishment is described (vv. 35-43) and justified, because her ’sin’ collectively, is worse, and expressley so, because of her Covenanted relationship with Almighty God, then Sodom and Samaria (vv. 44-52).
P, therefore, what you have done, is so typical of many, who attempt reading God’s Word, the Bible, completely out of ‘context’ lifting verses entirely out of there contextual meaning, this, as I have said earlier IS bad hermeneutics, it always produces faulty and erroneous interpretation.
The word “context’ is composed of two Latin words, “con,” meaning “together”; and “textus,” meaning “woven”; and denotes something that is woven together. In literature it refers to the connection of thought running through a portion of the whole of a writing. In relation to Scripture, it signifies the connection of thought running through either the whole of Scripture, a Testament, a book of the bible, or a particular passage. In being used of God to weave the Biblical ‘contexts’ the divinely Inspired writers of Scripture, utilized two methods; writing fresh revelation, and weaving together previous revelation.
Therefore, the ‘context’ of Scripture falls into four categories:
A. The Whole of Scripture Context: The context of any specific verse is the whole of Scripture. No ‘one’ verse should be used on its own apart from its relationship to the whole body of Scripture. The phrase “Scripture interprets Scripture” means that the best interpreter of Scripture is the Scripture.
B. The Testament Context: Within the whole of Scripture the ‘context’ of any verse is the ‘Testament’ in which it is found. Each of the two Testaments, has its own distinctive character and emphasis. The general emphasis of the Old Testament is ‘Law’, the emphasis on the New Testament is ‘Grace.’ That which is the dividing point between the Testaments is the ‘Cross.’ As a general rule, the New is the interpreter of the Old.
‘The New is the Old contained, the Old is the New explained.’
C. The Book Context: Within the Scripture and the Testament, the ‘context’ of any verse IS the specific book in which it is contained. Each of the sixty-six books of the Bible has its own particular purpose, message, and style (e.g., The general theme of Romans is ‘Justification’ by faith, while the general theme of James, is justification by works. Any verse in either book must be interpreted within the ‘context’ of its respective message).
D. The Passage Context: Within the whole of Scripture, the Testaments, and the books of the Bible, the ‘context’ of any verse IS the passage in which it occurs. Each book of the Bible is divided subject-wise into passages, each consisting of a group of consecutive verses, pertaining to a particular subject. Any single sentence or verse within a passage must be interpreted in the light of the subject-context of that passage. (e.g., Romans 11: 26 must be interpreted in the light of the subject-context of Romans 9-11, which constitutes the passage.)
Therefore:
The context of a verse is the passage.
The context of the passage is the book.
The context of the book is the Testament., and,
The context of the Testament is the whole Bible.
Therefore, the old adage, “a text out of context is a pretext” must be rephrased to say, “a text taken out of context of the whole Bible is a pretext.” The ‘context, therefore, of any verse is not only the passage, but, also the book, the Testament, and the whole Bible.
This why, the literary method of ‘weaving together context’ used in ‘writing Scripture’ gives rise to the ‘context principle’ of soundly ‘Interpreting Scripture.’
The above was taken from “Interpreting The scriptures, A Textbook On How To Interpret the Bible, by Kevin J. Conner and Ken Malmin. And the forgoing, was only scratching the surface of this indispensible work, which covers many other principles that are absolutely necessary in rightly, ‘dividing’ the Word of Truth!
Praetorious // November 27, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Hello all,
So I’m taking some a little time out to reply, to michael at least. Forgive me if it’s lacking, I honestly have little time to do this.
@ Zoe, I am working on a response to your posts, but it will take some time. Responding to Michael’s first because it is less labour intensive at the moment. Would it be too much to ask that you give me some time before posting something else. Not saying this because I want to shut you and your criticisms up, but so that I can have enough time to properly address your posts, and, that in the next post you make, you can address my response. Any such luck for a busy hardworking gentleman? Honestly there would be no way for me to your prolific voluminous posts till after Tuesday but I can try for an earlier date.
@michael
“You are so conceited,(too proud)that I cant think of where to start I will give it a shot
1 I do not subscribe to the way in which you use the word surrogate, a woman giving birth to a child is the mother of that child,people like you use words that are not thought through properly, the only person who it can be truly said of as a surrogate is JESUS CHRIST and he was GOD.he died in our place.”
I am conceited? No need for name calling. I don’t think that in the course of my posts I had written anything which would make you feel this way.
You say you “ do not subscribe to the way in which you use the word surrogate” Interesting.
I said “surrogate mothers”, a surrogate mother being a woman who bears a child on behalf of another. If I had said plain surrogates, then the plain meaning of a”a person who stands in for another in a role or office, say or to appoint a successor, deputy or substitute for oneself” would apply. Surrogate mothers are well established occurrences, indeed I said that a male homosexual couple could use one. All it means in this case is that the mother is replacing the man to carry and birth the child. Being a surrogate mother is one of the most generous things one can do, to help out another who can’t have a baby, whether it be a man, or a woman.
I do not understand what bounteous connotations you associate with the word. Jesus was more of the blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices though. There is a difference between mere surrogacy and self sacrifice.
“You have replaced the word man and woman by using the word( human)this is what I call slight of hands(impolite act)there are certain things that women can do that men cant and visa versa”
Michael, I refer you simply to your post, the one which I replied to:
“first of all let me say this the family is the bed rock of human civilization”
Clearly I did not replace “the word man and woman” as you yourself did not use either of the two.
You used the word human, so I used it as well in my reply. Are you then guilty of “slight of hands”
“man can and has existed with out family, again you have tried to muss lead man as a individual and woman can and do live by them self but man as the species do need one another to exist”
Umm michael, there is no “mis lead”ing here.
I said:
“I think that humans are the foundation of civilization, humans working together” Clearly, by using humans I have included both men and women, and I clearly said that human working together are necessary for civilization’s existence. Men and women have existed without a family, but I never said all men and women have. Humans do need to cooperate and do need eachother to exist because we are and have been raised as social creatures.
To point 4:
Yes, and I maintain this. The mistake that bout you and Zoe make is taking what I have said to mean that there is “no institution of marriage period”, there is, but not exclusively as one man and one woman. Go find a verse about marriage to cure me of this error instead of repeating yourself.
I can’t say that my schooling is responsible for my manner of speech nor can I say that my education has any bearing on logic, unless I was educated on how to spot fallacious arguments, which I was not.
And michael, I am not trying to “manipulate” into thinking that”evil is good”. That is being disingenuous now. I am merely putting my views out there, for all criticism and glory they may attract and am showing you what holes exist in your argument. I so far am the only one on this entire thread who has “put forward their case” . So naturally I would try my best to do so with as much clarity as I can muster. The fact that you use the pejorative “Bullers” shows me that your arguments are more motivated by fear/hatred/insensitivity/misunderstanding that reason.
It is human nature to sympathize and empathize and otherwise understand the feelings of other humans.
Readdressing that East Anglia article. Apparently this matter is a movement out of the consideration for a child’s and parent’s happiness, such that the child would feel comfortable and not outcast by 2 simple words. This was a response to a growing number of cases where this occurred and not an effort to make it into what you are suggesting. About adultery, this has nothing to do with homosexuality, just a false analogy.
Best Regards,
@Zoe, hang in there, I’ll reply to you yet
Anonymous(2) // November 27, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Zoe girl or boy, as the case may be, you need to get yuhself some life, as in life outside your religious obsession. People like you scare me, seriously.
kiki // November 27, 2009 at 6:38 PM
catholics should denounce the
catholic priests who abused young boys
in their care for being religious and hypocritical etc
but the same goes for buddhist priests
who do the same
Zoe // November 27, 2009 at 9:02 PM
@Praetorious, I do believe and understand what it is like for you as a hardworking man, and therefore, unable to find the necessary time to respond as you would like to.
Your refer to my posts in response to what you had submitted earlier on, as ‘….your prolific voluminous posts…’ and kindly asking me to give you a chance to reply/respond, but, I only responded in my (3) posts essentially to what you had stated, was your position on these matters. As a serious believer in the authority of God’s Word, the Bible, and as a student of theology, I have to respond appropriately, which I honestly don’t believe was ‘prolific/voluminous, either, but, rather, dealing as briefly and concisely as possible with the ‘issues’ you raised.
And, yes, it also became necessary to elaberate on certain points that needed to be clarified, biblically, and linguistically, as there is no other way to, “…earnestly ‘contend’ for the faith, (body of doctrinal truth) which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1: 3b).
So, P, while I appreciate that time is not on your side to respond as you would like, I have to do what I have to do, and that is to post what is absolutely necessary in a reasonable, coherent, logical, Scriptural and Biblical manner, always using and applying the sound, established principles of Biblical Hermeneutics, Contextual Analysis, and Linguistic Exegesis, as there is no other way, to ‘righty’ *divide* (interpret) God’s Word.
Wishing you a good night, and a safe and happy Independence weekend.
Amused // November 28, 2009 at 4:27 AM
Zoe, I agree with Praetorius for not responding to you – why bother when you expose yourself and make his arguments for him. And I agree with Anonymous(2) – you need to get a life.
Crusoe // November 28, 2009 at 5:05 AM
Here is an interesting statistic.
The Nation today has a article that notes one in three new HIV infections as being a female.
That means the other two are male.
Now, maybe Heorgi8e Porgie can enlighten here, but I thought, maybe wrongly or not, that it is harder for a male to catch HIV due to the nature of intercourse and bleeding etc, than a female.
So, if that belief were true, then surely the HIV figures would be predominantly female?
Thus, the current statistics would mean that either
- men are having more intercourse thus becoming more exposed, which I doubt
- men are performing ‘other’ intercourse i.e. anal, and homosexual intercourse, making them more prone to exposure
The answer to this lies mainly on the question whether men are, due to the nature of intercouse between man/ woman, less exposed to HIV.
Right or wrong?
Anon // November 28, 2009 at 6:36 AM
@Crusoe // November 28, 2009 at 5:05 AM. Not sure how these statistics are obtained by the Nation, but……. I do suggest that the true figures in Barbados are not even begun to be known, due to the attitudes of people like Zoe. I suspect that they are FAR higher, bordering on epidemic, than we know. People do not want to come forward and be tested or, if tested, they are more likely to have the tests done outside of Barbados, rather than in Barbados, where the ‘news’ might get out.
HIV/AIDS is not going to go away, neither is irresponsible sex, no matter what sex or sexual persuasion anyone happens to be. Thus, until a cure and innoculation are found, the question as to why the individual has caught the virus (be it homosexual, heterosexual, anal, cunnilingus, felatio) is extremely unhelpful and does nothing to assist early diagnosis that would probably cause the person diagnosed to take precautions against passing it on.
I don’t rely on the statistics you cite. And I certainly don’t think it assists at all in finding the true statistics, to discuss how people may have got the virus.
David // November 28, 2009 at 7:47 AM
@Anon
The above is an interesting observation, care to elaborate? In does make a serious indictment on the medical profession and support services.
Dennis Jones // November 28, 2009 at 8:25 AM
David,
Your site is blocked where I am, so if I may offer the following you can feel free to post on my behalf.
I suggest that on the causes and spread of HIV/AIDS, people take a good look at UNAIDS 2008 report; the media kit is very helpful, .
I offer some comments on their points in [...]
Key points:
Surveillance systems are largely inadequate in several countries [so local data need to be treated with utmost caution]
Unprotected heterosexual intercourse is the region’s main driver of HIV transmission, [that should mean that an infected woman can infect many men, or that an infected man may infect many women and men; so how the spread goes via this route is complex]
however, unprotected sex between men is also a significant factor in several epidemics.
As many as one in eight (12%) reported HIV infections in the region occurred through
unprotected sex between men. It reportedly represents the main driver in Cuba, and
studies in Trinidad and Tobago have found HIV prevalence of 20% among men who
have sex with men. [Interesting that it says 'as many', whereas it could easily be 'as few']
The Caribbean epidemics occur in the context of high levels of poverty and
unemployment, gender and other inequalities, and considerable stigma
The scaling up of prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV programmes in
several countries, including Barbados, Guyana and Jamaica, has significantly reduced
the rate of transmission to infants.
Remember, that drug use is a key means of transmission worldwide, as well as simple transmission through birth from infected females.
Barbadians may need to reflect on what may be happening as the economy falters and poverty takes wider hold.
michael // November 28, 2009 at 10:39 AM
@praetorious
I will first of all deal with the statement surrogate mothers are well established occurrences-indeed male homosexual could use one,your statement.Let me say this i respect women,secondly I do not see them as a commodity every person that come into this world come via the womb,what about the child does it not deserve a mother what i can see happening here is that humanity is being tossed out the window for the sake of indulging wanton behavior this is untenable.
look lines must be drawn, in the pass people use to adopt children only now because homosexual men want to claim the impossible that we have this scenario,where the homosexual fraternity can claim that they too can be a family with children this is fallacious, if one choose to live as a homosexual man/men don’t then expect to have children.I find homosexual men behavior and mannerisms irritating and objectionable
I am sorry that i mentioned about Jesus to you if one is not a christian it is difficult for one then to understand where i was coming from what i was trying to say is that he was the only truly surrogate where he said he died for us.
So you do recognise that with out male and female we would fail to exist so why are you arguing for other types relationships
babadus is a small place and we cant have what happened in San Francisco with the bath house and that
you say that your schooling is not responsible for manner of speech? are you serious
as bajans we know what is meant by buller and i guest we also know what is meant by wicker and there is no need to extract every word for its meaning but I guest this is a cultural defect
Zoe // November 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM
@Praetorious, Good morning, trust that you are well.
I just carefully re-read your first post on this thread, Nov, 22, @12:16AM, where you make several conjectural statements, naturally from your obvious ‘humanistic’ secular worldview perspective, which are essentially, ‘relativist’ in orientation, that there is no absolute, moral right or wrong, as is reflected in your statement:
“There is nothing which explicitly says what we ‘can’ or ‘cannot do, and which as certains a ’sole’ use for our members. That is something entirely dependent on us, were you born with an instruction manual tied to your toes?
You then conclude , “I do agree that this is an issue which must be discussed in Barbados. But, we should leave poorly reasoned arguments, religious arguments, and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.”
So, P, only those holding to your ‘relativist’ worldview, no moral absolutes, no such thing as ‘right’ or wrong’ no such thing as ‘good’ and ‘evil, anything goes, as long as you do not infringe on any one’s basic rights, one is free to do as you please, morally, no consequences to worry about at all, a literal ‘value’ free, ‘value’ neutral society!
Tell me then, P, how come ‘murder’ is strictly prohibited in just about every know culture, society, regardless of how far back in antiquity we look? If there is ‘no’ absolute moral right or wrong, from where did humanity get this ‘notion’ that it IS NOT right to ‘murder’ another fellow human-being?
Natural law possesses one of the longest narratives in the history of human ideas, and clearly derives from an ‘transcendent’ being, not subject to the limitations of, the material universe, that inherently guide us toward what is the common ‘good’ so that we can co-exist rationally, without which, there would be utter chaos. And this principle of ethics and moral certitude, has been found way back in every civilization of antiquity, notwithstanding man’s bent, driven by sin, which always carries us in the wrong moral and ethical direction, which has, and continues to cause terrible pain and unrest for all societies, every where, bar none!
This inherent “unwritten law” of moral and ethical awareness, is indelibly imprinted in the ’soul’ of every living human being, regardless of where you look, it transcends culture, race, and ethinicity, and constantly appeals to an intuitive basis for ‘morality’ that stands over and above humanistic convention.
Therefore, as such, human conventions, must conform to these unchanging principles of justice, or risk the warth of our Creator, Almighty God.
History is replete with evidence, from civilization to civilization, that whenever mankind violates these inherent principles of moral and ethical conviction and certitude, the price he pays, is the ultimate demise and ruination of all that he tried to build, outside of Almighty God’s blueprint for him.
This is evidently seen, in the recorded annals of ancient history of all the so-called great empires, who flagrantly, and blatantly violated all of God’s moral, ethical, and righteousness standards, and all came crashing down in utter ruin, one by one.
God’s Word, which is forever settled in heaven, never, ever fails in its pronouncements, one way or the other.
“Except the Lord build the house (nation) they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” (Psa. 127:1).
These universal forms of natural law, (i.e., morality, ethics) are eternal and changless. For, they provide the intelligibility for all particular beings. In this way , we see the first rendering of a “human nature” that applies to all members, regardless of their temporal existence or their geographical location. This God given universal nature, so inherent in mankind, insures the constancy, and continuing *identity* of the particular. Thus, the form provides an ontological grounding for epistemological certainty. That is, we can be certain that even though particular humans may vary in shape, size, colour, and appearance, the universal form of humanity will not vary from place to place or from time to time, since, it is the eternal changeless form in which all the particulars participate.
Therefore, given the fact, that there is a ‘transcendent’ human nature, it follows, that because of our sin nature, which came through the ‘fall’ of Adam, that some actions will inevitably lead to the *flourishing* of that nature, and others to its *corruption.*
Interestingly, the pagan philosopher Cicero, who did not deal with the ‘doctrine of creation’ nevertheless, did claim that God is the ‘author’ of our nature, who has established the laws of right and wrong, and it is worthy of note, that Cicero lists the natural law as the following characteristics:
1. God has established it in nature.
2. It is eternally valid and invariant from culture to culture.
3. All people recognize it.
4. It cannot be abolished., and,
5. It directs us to the good and away from evil.
God’s Word, the Bible, makes it abundantly clear, that what some philosophers recognized as inherently true in our human nature, is resolutely declared in His Word:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of *men* who hold (suppress) the *truth* in unrighteousness; Because that which may be *known* of God is ‘manifest’ in them; (natural law) for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are *clearly* seen, being *understood* by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they (mankind) are without EXCUSE.” (Rom. 1: 18-20) emphasis added.
I will be responding to your other conjectural statements from this first post of yours, as they go to the heart of your ’secular’ humainstic worldview; while you take your time in responding to my other posts.
Take care, and drive safely.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados // November 28, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Zoe, you mention murder being prohibited in most cultures. Where then does human sacrifice fall as part of former religious practices? Just trying to judge where your line is drawn.
Zoe // November 28, 2009 at 1:13 PM
@Praetorious, I just want to answer one more of your very biased statements.
“I do agree that this is an issue which must be discussed in Barbados. But, we should leave poorly reasoned arguments, *religious* arguments and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.” emphasis added.
I will quote the following as it goes to the heart of your *intolerance* especially toward any *religious* input into this most serious, social, and moral issue of gay rights.
‘Gay Rights”
Tolerance.
Carl Horn III, J.D., University of South Carlolina, Attorney, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Says:
“Federal agencies and federally funded projects have sought to expand the definition of ‘Sex discrimination’ to include what is euphemistically referred to as ‘Sexual preference’ or ‘Sexual Orientation.”
The question that Horn poses in America, is equally relevant and pertinent for us here in Barbados; and it is this:
‘Whose values should be reflected in our Law and public policy?’
In answer to this question, Horn says:
“Whether sexual ethics are examined in the context of personal morality, in terms of the proper role of men and women in the church and society, or in regard to current public policy questions, the conclusion is much the same. The traditional answers from Judeo/Christian history, philosophy, and theology are often dismissed without a hearing, and our heritage including the *moral* roots of our legal and political systems is being exchanged for the views that the enlightened *secularists* offer in its place. While the biblical values affirmed by Evangelicals and other Orthodox Christians and Jews, may not, ‘ipso facto’ be appropriate for legislation, there are numerous instances in which these ancient traditions do offer the best alternative for public affirmation. As Lutheran theologian Richard John Neuhaus has written:”
“It was thought until very recently, by the cultural leadership of the Western world, that (the source of public values) had been resolved..by excluding religion and religious-based morality from the public arena…The idea of the separation of church and state…has come to by remarkable *convolution* of logic and law, come to mean in the minds of many people, the separation of religiously based values from public policy. But, the period is now past when it was assumed that these issues could be resolved by simply removing one side of the debate from the public square…We are NOT talking about imposing a belief system, BUT, rather about *resisting* the *imposition* of an ‘alien’ belief system, that *impose* themselves under the guise of being *value-neutral* and *value-free* when in fact they are ‘laden’ with all kinds of values, which are alien to the beliefs, the dreams, the (very) convictions of the American people,” emphasis added, and I dare say, the majority of Barbadians.
What is so one-sided from the ’secularists’ approach to this issue, is that while they are obviously in the ‘minority’ they want, stubbornly, to insist, that the ‘majority’ of us citizens, who believe one way or the other, in God, and clearly defined moral ‘roots’ that our ‘voice’ must NOT be heard in the public square, and ‘…leave poorly reasoned arguments, *religious* arguments and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.”
So, P, just your ’secularists’ value-free, value-netural, godless ‘anything’ goes system of immorality, must have the say over all others, who constitute the majority of citizens, whose voices still determine in our democracy, who rules, and upholds our public policy?
Crusoe // November 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM
My point on the relevance of the origin of infection was made to highlight the issue that although there is an argument made that homosexuality is not widespread, the incidence of HIV infection would seem to indicate otherwise.
In fact, it would seem to indicate that those forms of intercourse, including honosexual, seems to be more prevalent than some would have us believe.
michael // November 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM
@praetorious it is a followup to my reply AT 10.30 28.11.09
“I think that humans are the foundation of civilization, humans working together” Clearly, by using humans I have included both men and women, and I clearly said that human working together are necessary for civilization’s existence. Men and women have existed without a family, but I never said all men and women have. Humans do need to cooperate and do need each other to exist because we are and have been raised as social creatures.
you are missing the point text books do say human civilizations but before we can get to this point you have to accept at the beginning where one has small villages of people existing it is always a heterosexual existence and another thing you will notice it always one woman one man and even at this level there is always some domestic tension either between the woman and men of that family group or with their neighbours eg look at most of the tribes people living in the south America’s rain Forrest do we see homosexual men or women with children do we ever see them as a family group?wonder why
Lux // November 28, 2009 at 5:23 PM
@Zoe
Certainly your previous comments have not been as long as you deem duly required by a good theological paper, however, in the context of a forum, you must admit they are long posts.
You may be angered by me saying this, but you make it seem as if you need a degree to understand the Bible. The true meaning of the Bible. From any particular passage every individual can find so many meanings from it, how can you assume that your interpretation is the only correct one? Even having been to all of your theology classes, you are only believing the agreed interpretation of the group that invented all of the rules. Invented. People agreed on how to interpret it. Not God directly. As a relevant example, your argument for the sin of Sodom being homosexuality is not the same argument the Jewish, using the same Old Testament, agree upon. Instead they believe that “the cities were destroyed because the inhabitants were nasty, depraved, and uncompromisingly greedy.” (http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html). You may conclude that there were homosexual acts in Sodom, but there were so many other horrible things, why would they have been punished for homosexuality alone?
Now I will focus on your last comment to try to help Praetorius. I feel backtracking would annoy him, being such a busy fellow.
Now he says an absolute right or wrong. He does not deny that there are things which will be right or wrong in every society. He disbelieves in the concept that there are fixed, solid, absolute morals arbitrary to our social systems – imposed on them instead of developed by them (do correct me if I’m wrong, Tori).
Now if we can please exclude debating upon evolution (that would draw this topic much further off-course than it has already gone…start a new forum for that) I will speak about how murder can come to be strictly prohibited in every culture. Whether you believe that the first humans just appeared on the planet or not, you must agree that at some point there were a few originating humans compared to what we had today. We know that they were a lot more primitive. They had to face many beasts and such in the wild. Now because humans were so much physically weaker than other animals it became essential that they live in groups. People who went off on their own were more likely to be killed. This means that people would have had to develop ways to live harmoniously in a group. Even if you believe this group included Caine and Abel and whatnot. Obviously Caine was scorned from the group when he killed his brother. Even though we can’t know how people thousands of years ago felt about that, we know that this would have severely drained group resources. Anything that drains group resources more than benefits it is outcast from groups in nature, so it is assumed that this happened in early populations. (to be continued)
Lux // November 28, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Any cheating in a group, where someone tries to benefit himself alone, drains group resources, and this person is outcast. Thus people have developed an anxiety to doing anything that would harm others in the group, for fear of being outcast, while also developing reciprocation. The more good you do for the group, the more it will give back to you in your needs. Now this is a marvelous thing, but it is not solely found in humans. Even guppies show reciprocation. Humans have developed many manners and morals that dictate how to live in groups. So have many many other animals. Thus ethical awareness need not be limited by material limitations, if you don’t consider animals to have been graced by God with morals.
Every civilization or person that falls and loses it all is because they are outcast from other humans. They are cheating the rest of the humans, and it shows just how much we are dependent on each other.
Now, you say “These universal forms of natural law, (i.e., morality, ethics) are eternal and changless.” Sorry they are not as concrete. People from different cultures have different manners. There are different rules in each culture to show kindness, respect, etc, or even to show emotion. Different cultures have different norms, such as polygamy, which we would consider taboo. That is their way of life, and that is how to be a good human in their society. Over all cultures, morals like being kind are valued in different measures. I would agree that we are all human beings, but there is great debate over what is universal human nature, and if it exists, in psychological fields.
Your example of murder is good for showing exactly how morality is changeable. You say no one thinks murder is right. When the Crusaders drove through other civilisations and committed mass murder that was right to them. The Americans believed it was right to bomb Hiroshima. It was right to burn “witches” in Salem. Every government which has an army and capital punishment shows that they believe it is right to murder in certain situations.
You say there is a transcendent human nature. Evidence suggests that no one is born human; instead it is a thing that we learn to become. Feral children, such as Genie, never develop a sense of morality. In fact they do not care whether someone is taking care of them or not. They exist to fulfill their bodily requirements. They lose their capacity to form language and form extremely limited social bonds. Other evidence comes from Eastern Block orphanages where the children were never stimulated by attention and love from other humans, so have little interest in others, and form restricted bonds with caretakers. It is the treatment of our infants and children, which we ourselves have learned from our culture, that causes the development of a normal human. If we were inherently this way, any child, no matter the circumstances, would be interested in love and attention. But this is not true as shown by the feral and eastern block children.
Zoe // November 28, 2009 at 6:27 PM
@Dennis Jones, “You mention murder being prohibited in most cultures. Where then does human sacrifice fall as part of former religious practices. Just trying to judge where your line is drawn.”
Dennis, before answering your specific question, re ‘human’ sacrifice, it may be instructive to understand Biblical jurisprudence was based upon the assumption that ‘man’ is under obligation to carry out the revealed will of God in leading a holy life, respecting the rights of God and his fellow man, not simply upon a utilitarian basis of a pragmatic nature, but, rather as a creature made in the likeness of God. This obligation was regarded as unchangeable and absolute, beyond the authority of man to amend or adapt to any general standard prevailing in current society.
The moral requirements of Yahweh were not in the slightest lowered or affected because of the general breakdown of ethical standards prior to the Flood (Gen 6). On the contrary, the entire human race was consigned to destruction for flouting God’s law, except for one family (Noah’s) which still upheld it. Even in the Mosaic legislation it was made clear that such basic principles as capital punishment for ‘murder’ were NOT subject to modification or abolition; on the contrary, any community which failed to punish ‘murderers’ with death would incur God’s curse and be subject to His retibution (Num 35: 31-34). Even in NT times this responsibility of the community or state to inflict the death penalty for capital crimes is maintained (Luke 20:16; Acts 25:11; Rom 13:4), even though his personal relationships, the true believer is to return good for evil and turn the other cheek. But the Sermon on the Mount has nothing to say about the enforcement of public justice by the state. “Do not resist one who is evil” (Matt 5:39) applies only to the behaviour of the individual, not the state or civil authority charged with the responsibility of protecting society against wrongdoers.
The Mosaic legislation does not clearly distinguish between crimes and torts. There was little legislation relative to contract actions; this type of law did not become elaborated until later development of commerce and industry under settled urban conditions, such as those reflected by the Old Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. The Mosaic code pertains only to a nomadic culture or to a simple agricultural economy, appropriate to the times of the Exodus and the Conquest; had it been composed at an later period, it would certainly have dealt with medical malpractice, fraudulent building-contractors and merchants, and class distinctions of various sorts, such as marked the later history of Israel.
Broadly speaking, the Mosaic legislation dealt with two main types of offense; the religious and the civil, since all offences had a Godward reference as well as a manward, human relations were viewed as a direct concern of the Lord Himself.
Infant Sacrifice, was a kind of cultic ‘murder’ perpetrated against helpless infants in the worship of Moloch and other Canaanite idols with allegedly bloodthirsty appetites. It was punished by stoning to death (Lev 20:20. Later on, in the reign of Ahaz (743-728 B.C.) and especially in the time of King Manasseh (696-641 B.C. ), this abominable practice found government sanction, and there ensuded a general breakdown of ‘moral’ life and the glorification of violence ( 2 Kings 21: 6, 16).
I just want to stress that homocide, the basic sanction against ‘murder’ is contained in Genesis 9:6; “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in His own image.” Since ‘murder’ is a crime against God, in whose image man was created, it demands the extreme penalty of capital punishment. The concept is clearly retibutive justice, there is no room for the modern principle of seeking the rehabilitation of the muderer to persuade him to desist, if possible from committing further homicide. Nor does the sixth commandment in the Decalogue raise the slightest question as to the right and duty to take the life of anyone guilty of murder. It does not say, “Thou shalt not kill” BUT, “Thou shalt NOT commit murder” the verb ‘rasah’ is a specific term for *murder* and is NEVER used of executing a criminal or slaying an enemy in battle, war! In the chapter following the Decalogue, it is required that *murder* be punished by death (Exodus 21: 12)
Historically, when ever any kind of ‘human’ sacrifice was practiced, it was almost invariably to be found in ancient pagan societies, whose culture was awash in terrible idolatry, temple prostitutes, male and female, fertility rites, etc, etc, this IS why Almighty God, instructed the Jews, to literally kill everything in their sight, as they entered the promise land, as He directed them.
It is only when we begin to comprehend the absolute Holiness and Righteousness of our Creator, who cannot look upon sin, that, maybe, we can begin to understand why He commanded Israel to eradicate ALL life from those beastly, demonic, child-sacrificing cultures, before taking possession of the land He promised to Isreal.
Again, this is why God dealt so sternly with any sexual deviance whatsoever, even within the Jewish community, adultery, fornication, rape and seduction, incest, because any single ‘act’ of any of these various kinds of sexual immorality, would ultimately affect the entire community, which in today’s world, has wrecked havoc on us . It took me a while to ponder this reality seriously, but, when we really see the impact this kind of immorality has on any society, and its wide ranging consequences to almost everyn one, then, may be, we can understand why our Creator, who knows what is best for us, imposed those strict laws against such immorality, not just between man and woman, BUT, the one that is against all ‘naturalness’ when a man ‘lieth’ with a man, an utter abomination in the eyes of Almighty God.
Anonymous(2) // November 28, 2009 at 6:49 PM
I would like somebody to tell me how and where I could meet up with this Almighty God fella so I could hear directly from him what he does or doesn’t find an abomination.
Lux // November 28, 2009 at 6:51 PM
*sorry forgot to put quotation marks around murder being “strictly prohibited in every culture” in the first post.
So in essence, morality is based on what benefits humans on a whole. When things that are normally seen as immoral are perceived as moral (as in the case of murder mentioned above) this is when they believe greater benefit will come to the whole than not doing it. Morality is learnt, and not naturally imprinted in us. We have the capacity to learn it, but it is not, at the outset, there.
Now what the hell does this have to do with homosexuality exactly. Instead of going off on a rampage about humanistic/relativist/ whatever beliefs, we need to bring this back to HOMOSEXUALITY.
Morality is related to homosexuality because obviously people are very against it because they believe it is wrong.
What this debate so far has failed to bring up is that homosexuality is not an ACT, it is an IDENTITY.
Do we ever bother heterosexual people about what they do in the bedroom? As long as there is no children possibly able to be produced it is wrong? Every time you use a condom or birth control it’s wrong? Fallatio is wrong? S/M is wrong? Sex before marriage is wrong?
Now. Let’s say you agree with the last question. Just because you know a 18 year old boy who has a girlfriend, and is unmarried, you are not going to scorn him and talk behind his back about how disgusting he is.
Now if you have a man that you know has a boyfriend, people will speak his name badly, he will have animosity towards him, he may even be refused jobs. You don’t know what he does in the bedroom. You may not agree with it. But is it right to subject him to hatred?
And then being homosexual is not simply engaging in homosexual activity. A gay man has a specific gender, different from a male gender, different from a female gender. The same goes for lesbians.
We all agree it is unfair to treat women a certain way because of their gender. Yet we do not recognize the identities of homosexual, transgendered or transexual people.
Is it right for u to kill someone because of their identity??
Is it right for u to treat them as second rate citizens because of who they are??
Is it right for u to make them feel hated because of their gender??
How can these not be human rights.
To be not discriminated against due to sexuality.
It doesn’t mean you have to agree with their personal private activities – which u dont even know they do or not explicitly.
You shouldn’t treat ANYONE with animosity and hatred. If you can’t stand them, just leave them alone.
Lux // November 28, 2009 at 7:17 PM
@ zoe’s comment specifically:
1. Any population that did not stop murderers would be less fit than other populations because group stability would fall apart and humans do not survive well on their own. Also other human civilizations would kill them to ensure murderers did not enter their population.
2. Crimes and torts are human inventions.
3. The distinction between murder and killing is human invention. Both involve a human dying at the hands of another, in the most explicit sense. What makes sacrifice to a god different to killing an innocent civilian for a god, except for meanings humans have made up about it. Killing in war is shedding the blood of man by man.
4. Beastly and demonic is an opinion. Those cultures have rather beautiful stories and myths if you care to read, with morals not unlike the morals of any other Abrahamic religion.
5. Immorality threatens social stability, social instability makes a population less able to survive.
6. Many animals have homosexual activity as a part of normal social interaction (eg Bonobo monkeys). It is not necessarily unnatural. Things which are unnatural defy the laws of physics, therefore do not occur. Anything which does occur, in this natural world, therefore can be considered to be natural.
7. You can ignore this comment if you want to prevent further and further backtracking in the debate. I just wanted to make these points.
sad very sad // November 29, 2009 at 8:50 AM
no excuse for human homosexuality: animals cant reason !
sad very sad !
Zoe // November 29, 2009 at 8:51 AM
@Praetorious, Back to a few more of your first post comments and conjectures.
“In fact, many of the famous characters in the Bible had many wives. From the Bible we see a polygmous view of marriage…”
While this is true, that many Old Testament characters had many wives; this most certainly was NOT what God ordained or desired, this came about from the SIN that entered after Adam’s fall, and the numerous other things that flowed from mankind’s sin-stained hearts.
“Human sexuality is not only related to our biological development but to our cognitive development as well. Cognitive development means having split from our biological development means that we will do things *contrary* to our biology. Every time we use contraception we do this.”
Your use of the word ‘contrary’ is interesting, in relation to ‘…our cognitive development having ’split’ from our biological development that means we will do things *contrary* to our biology.”
Naturally, from a ’secular’ persepective, this makes a statement, without any rational, cognitive understanding of why this occurs!
Our Creator, Almighty God, made us with biological functions,our physical bodies, and cognitive intelligence, our brains, soul, to work and think in unison, between man and woman, in full complementary function, sexually.
This ‘bent’ or to use your term, which is correct, ‘contrary’ to our biological make-up, is dealt with extensively in God’s Word, the Bible.
The Fact of Sin.
It is emphatically evident that there IS something terribly wrong in the universe, with both the earth and its inhabitants. The source of all chaos, disharmony and strife in the world can be traced back to the existence of SIN.
A. Creation Declares It.
All of nature declares that something is wrong. The contrast between ‘Life’ and ‘Death’ harmony and discord, beauty and ugliness, light and darkness, declare the fact of SIN. And this is exactly so, for when *Sin* entered the human race, all nature fell with its king and turned against him (Genesis 3: 17; 8:22).
B. Human History Declares It.
The briefest view of human history with its chaos and confusion, war, bloodshed, the spirit of hate and murder, covetousness, moral corruption and dominance resolutely indicates that something is wrong in the nations of the earth. The answer in found in God’s Word, (see James 4: 1-4).
C. Human Logic Declares It.
To deny the fact of SIN in the human race would be an insult to all logic. Mankind knows that something is wrong inside himself. He knows that he is out of harmony with himself, that discord reigns within his being. It is the fact of sin that explains it. Educated mentality would seek to deny the fact of sin, but deep within every person’s being, he knows that when he would do good, evil is present with him (Romans 7: 14-21). Man does wrong, because he is wrong. Any one who excercises any measure of intellectual honesty will admit that sin is a fact.
C. Human Conscience Declares It.
This is closely linked with human logic, but conscience is a further witness to the fact of sin. The moment a person does something wrong, his conscience smites him and his thoughts begin to accuse or else excuse him (Romans 2: 14-15). The law of conscience gives abundant evidence of sin’s reality.
E. Human Experience Declares It.
When one reads the list of horrible sins in Scripture such as Romans 1: 21-32 and Mark 7: 20-21 in the light of the news of today, there is abundant evidence of sin’s expression in human experience. Immorality, crime, violence, perversion, and all forms of lawlessness abound. Sin desires to express itself and the corruption of society in modern civilization is evidence of the fact of sin. Scripture indicates that it will increase in the last day, and is manifestly so, before our very eyes and ears, all around the nations of the world (Matthew 24: 12; II Timothy 3: 1-5).
F. Human Religions Declare It.
In every nation there is belief in a god or gods. Nearly every nation has developed some form of religion involving priesthood and sacrifices of appeasement. They seek to appease the gods because of the inner sense of sin and as a realization of their need of redemption. Religion itself is another witness of sin’s reality. However, it is only true Christianity which has God’s answer to the sin problem as dealt with in the person of Christ.
G. Scriptures Declare It.
The highest court of appeal is the Word of God. The Bible declares the universality of sin, that ALL men are sinners in God’s sight, needing salvation [Psalm 14: 1-3; 53:1-3; Romans 5:12). Romans 3:23 – “ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. The Scriptures show that there are two major mysteries at work in the universe and all other mysteries referred to in the Word of God find their place under these two. These two mysteries are called “The Mystery of Godliness” and “The Mystery of Iniquity” (I Timothy 3:16 with II Thessalonians 2;7). Thus, good and evil, light and darkness, life and death, Godliness and iniquity are at work in the universe. All created beings, angelic or human, will make their choice and take their place under one mystery or the other. Their choice will settle their eternal destiny.
So, P, I put it to you, that the only document of antiquity, that spells it out for us, giving us an account of how it all began, when SIN entered the human race, and its utterly devastatingly consequences, IS the self-authenticating, Word of Almighty God, the Bible; whose proclamations, and prophetic revelations, throughout the history of mankind have being accuratly fulfilled, right up to this era, and continues to unfold in world affairs, as He said it would.
Anon // November 29, 2009 at 9:02 AM
David // November 28, 2009 at 7:47 AM . It is a known fact that not only do they have the testing done outside of Barbados, but they even arrange for the medication to be delivered in such a way that the news cannot get out in Barbados.
The saddest part of this is that the course of the virus needs to be monitored regularly by doctors specialized in this area. AIDS of itself does not cause death – rather it is the ailments that occur as the result of the breakdown of the immune system. Therefore, although the taking of medication can be delayed often, of diagnosed right away, for decades, at some stage, in order to avoid irreparable organ damage, the medication must eventually become a fact of life. I hasten to say that I know this only from the work I have done with HIV/AIDS sufferers, thank God.
The saddest part of this is that AIDS/HIV is not necessarily transmitted by homosexual contact at all. Mere sexual contact can do the trick – an exchange of bodily fluids.
In Africa, it is an epidemic with even one of the children of Nelson Mandela having died of it and the family acknowledging the cause of death. People like Bill Gates have footed the bill for much of the very expensive medication used in Africa. Then, there is Prince Harry who, following in the footsteps of his late mother, spends a lot of his time as a volunteer working with children with AIDS in Africa in the AIDS hospitals there.
Meanwhile in Barbados, we have Zoe and others like it who seem determined to Bible-bash everyone into creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred so that, far from the crisis being addressed, it is swept under the Barbados mat and allowed to proliforate. But hey, Zoe is “doing the Lord’s work”. I suggest Zoe look carefully to see which Lord’s work it is doing. Certainly not the one I follow.
Anon // November 29, 2009 at 9:07 AM
@Anonymous(2) // November 28, 2009 at 6:49 PM. But you mad? Don’t you realize you can only approach the Almighty through Zoe?
michael // November 29, 2009 at 10:45 AM
@lux
what are you taking or should I ask what are you on
You started coherently,then in the last part of your blog you lost the plot all i can gather from you have written is that you are amoral
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 29, 2009 at 4:30 PM
@Zoe // November 28, 2009 at 6:27 PM. Your answer was long but did not give an answer to my question. Let me just ask what the Commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ means. A brief answer please.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 29, 2009 at 4:34 PM
@Zoe, I should have used the words commonly cited, “Thou shalt not murder”. You only need to define murder to answer the question. It is not a riddle or needing a degree. Most definitions of murder include ‘unlawful killing of another human being’. So, all you have to do is define the law nicely and one can kill away, with a lot of latitude.
Lux // November 29, 2009 at 11:52 PM
@michael
not amoral. Just arguing against absolute moral. Morals have developed out of the need to live in social groups. People who do ‘immoral’ acts or selfish acts drain group resources and are outcast. I’m sorry if my blog changed topic halfway, I was trying to address the issues in Zoe’s comment. Next I go on to explain that morals are not exactly the same in every culture, and certainly not in every circumstance. Next I address Zoe’s claim that there is a transcendent human nature, but this is not so as exemplified by research into feral children and eastern block orphanages. I was following the sequence of issues in her comment.
In my 3rd comment i switch from a summary to the issues which should really be discussed in this debate, not focussing on this weird abstract attack on Praetorious’s character.
@Zoe. Again. What the hell does this have to do with homosexuality. Are you aware that all of your points in ur last comment are 1. irrelevant to the issue directly 2. entirely subjective, and therefore not facts. How can nature declare that something is wrong?? It is silent, and exists. You put your interpretation on it to think living and dying show something is “wrong”. How can you know that all humans feel there is something wrong in them?? Certainly people with Antisocial Personality Disorder don’t. People who have frontal lobe damage do not realize their own problems. Does this make them inhuman then? So if we all know there is something wrong in us, are homosexuals just more wrong? Whatever. Stop going off on some random tangent that seems as if you copy pasted it out of a textbook. Hoooomooooseexuuuuaaalliiiitttyyyyy.
This is the debate. Zoom in on the most relevant issues please.
@ Dennis, thanks. I hope we all remember the the Bible was a tool used by politicians throughout the ages, who would have had need for war.
Now. Someone answer the questions in my earlier post please.
And some further ones:
Why should you make a homosexual person feel hatred or discrimination when they do not hurt anyone else by being gay?
You do not know what acts they individually, personally perform, you hate them by their mannerisms and personality and discriminate.
We need to remove killers, thieves, rapists from our society. These hurt people. Why do you lop homosexuals in that group? What do gay people do except love others? Not to mention their great contribution to the arts and culture in many societies, including, yes, Caribbean ones.
You may say gay people would increase aids. They are a high risk group yes. But heterosexuals have the same ability to spread it. If we weren’t so hateful towards homosexual people, then we could actually get proper treatment for them and research data which could help all members of society.
Praetorious // November 30, 2009 at 3:41 AM
Hello all, I bring to you:
“The return of Praetorious: Zoe edition, in which every line is devoted to Zoe.”
Hello Zoe, (please, call me Praetorious) decided to spend some QT with your posts. This post will be a mixture of direct replies, and me just talking. Forgive me if this is weak, just putting something out there. I really have nothing introductory to say so lets begin:
Throughout your posts, you have made two arguments, in which you commit numerous logical fallacies. The primary argument is the religious one, the secondary one, are actually pointless arguments about me.
Oh yes, at the end of this lengthy response, or nearing it, I think I start to lose coherence, and forget a few things. Sorry, i’m tired, lack time, and Zoe just writes so many subjective irrelevant things.
Religious Argument
Fallacies Committed:
Chief Fallacies: Apriorism and Circular Logic, from which stem:
Argumentum ad antiquatum
Affirming the consequent
Fallacy of accent
Argumentum ad lapidum*
Conclusions which deny premises
Contradictory premises
Definitional retreats
Straw Man
Arguments About Praetorious
Abusive Analogy
Argumentum ad lapidum*
Ad hominem
Straw man
Fallacy of accent
Affirming the consequent
Straw man
Also, you present opinion as fact, you do know that conjecture means guess right?
Fear not, I will illustrate each with your posts, and my responses to those posts, or at least try, I don’t have the time to pick them all out. But you do commit all these fallacies..
Oh yes, bent is word I use eccentrically, not to mean something wrong. In fact, I use bent to refer to some eccentricity. I shouldn’t have done this.
I will first tackle the religious arguments.
Apriorism, Argumetum ad Antiquatum and Circular Logic
Most religious arguments are based on these two fallacies (yours are), and thus, pointless.
The first fallacy committed is Circular logic. Let me illustrate:
“ the authenticity of the Bible, as Almighty God’s divinely inspired Word, will be terribly tarnished by your contempt for its self-authenticating Word.”
Omitting the assumptions you make about me, let me put your posts in precis:
We know that the bible is true because god says so, we know that god says so, and indeed exists, because it is written in the bible.
and
We know about god from the bible. We know we can trust the bible because it is the inspired word of god.
Any claim based on circular logic, regardless of the truth of its premises is still a logical fallacy, and is thus worthless. That’s why I have little regard for the bible, and indeed why I wish to stay clear of religious arguments. Indeed, your entire religious arguments are destroyed by this one fallacy, by all rights I don’t need to continue here, but I will.
Oh yes, the Arguemtum ad antiquatum is basically argument from age. Specifically,m the use of ancient text, the bible. In that if it worked from them in those days it must work for us.
There is nothing in the age of a belief or assertion which alone makes it right. At its simplest, this is a habit which plays husbandry to thought, ie, prevents it.
This brings to the Fallacy of accent.
This is usually a fallacy found in a verbal debate, but you make it textually, every single time you enclose one of my words in asterisks, and runaway with what you found. You do this quite frequently.
@Praetorious, I just want to answer one more of your very biased statements.
“I do agree that this is an issue which must be discussed in Barbados. But, we should leave poorly reasoned arguments, *religious* arguments and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.” emphasis added.
…
What is so one-sided from the ’secularists’ approach to this issue, is that while they are obviously in the ‘minority’ they want, stubbornly, to insist, that the ‘majority’ of us citizens, who believe one way or the other, in God, and clearly defined moral ‘roots’ that our ‘voice’ must NOT be heard in the public square, and ‘…leave poorly reasoned arguments, *religious* arguments and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.”
So, P, just your ’secularists’ value-free, value-netural, godless ‘anything’ goes system of immorality, must have the say over all others, who constitute the majority of citizens, whose voices still determine in our democracy, who rules, and upholds our public policy?”
Here, you have chosen to put the stress on religious in my sentence, failing to recognise that I said:
“ we should leave poorly reasoned arguments, religious arguments and just plain stupid arguments”
I placed no stress on any of the three, and evidently hold stupid arguments, poorly reasoned arguments AND religious arguments in the same regard. Why then don’t you pick out * stupid * arguments, and post a dissertation on why stupid arguments should be regarded and tolerated, as you have so done for religious ones?
I will explain why you did it, you see, it is evident that your agenda Is a religious one.
Yes, we should leave religious arguments out. Simply because there are so many religions, and so many different denominations and interpretations within those religions, it would be pointless to make public policy based on them. In addition, all these religions with accompanying holy texts are quite ancient, and rather myopic. They could not and do not see into the future and the world we live in today.
And if you did make a law based on one particular religion, automatically you run into the muck of religious oppression, say, when that law conflicts with the beliefs of another group of religious people.
But there is another more serious reason why we should leave the religious argument out. The religious argument is dangerous. When you use religion to support a point, and the opposition counters that point or indeed the idea, it can be taken that they are not only against the idea, but against your religion.
This makes it easy to rally support, because people of the same religious affiliation will retaliate on the basis that the opposition is against that religion, without regard to the issue in question. No distinction is made between the point, and the reasoning behind it.
Clearly you have done this.
What is so ironic, as I stated in previous post, is that christians such as yourself complain about ’secularists’ wanting to influence the majority, when the christians themselves seek to do the same.
Secular humanism isn’t an anything goes system, in fact, some christians and religious people also subscribe to secular humanism. Perhaps you should read about secular humanism before making such poorly informed statements.
Democracies are funny, when since are 1000 people smarter than 1 person or vice-versa?
Apriorism
As I said earlier, all religious arguments are apriori.
You see, the way things are is that we allow facts to be the test of our principles. When we see what the facts are, we can retain or modify our principles, or throw them out altogether if so necessary.
To start out from principles from the first, and then to use them as the basis for accepting/rejecting facts is the wrong way around. Granted, we do need principles to determine if something is a fact, but in the case of this fallacy, it occurs when too much primacy is given to a set of principles.
This fallacy is used by those whose beliefs have very little grounding in reality anyway.
In short, what happens is that you throw out the evidence in a garbage bag of preconceptions.
Basically, “God done it!”.
But what you do is turn on your bible/god/opinion filter to either ignore or twist what evidence is there which contravenes your principles, even when this evidence comes from your bible.
Here’s a gem, an example of Apriori, affirming the consequent. In which your opinion of marriage causes you to make the following statements
“You also contend, “In addition, there is no verse in the NT which condemns polygamy, or even defines marriage and one man and woman.
An argument from silence certainly does not establish what you are saying.”
Wow Zoe, did you completely ignore the verses I posted showing these polymous relationships?
There is no proof from the New Testament that marriage as god originally intended was between one man and woman.
“Yet, there is ample proof from the New Testament that ‘marriage’ as God originally intended, prior to the fall of Adam into to sin, WAS between one man, and one woman, becoming ‘one’ flesh, in the beauty and sanctity of marriage, until SIN messed it all up.”
In the above we have the a priori and affirming the consequent. In addition, where is your evidence for this. This is a conjecture. Oh yeah, it is DEAD WRONG.
The in response to my statement:
“In fact, many of the famous characters in the Bible had many wives. From the Bible we see a polygmous view of marriage…”
You write:
“While this is true, that many Old Testament characters had many wives;”
No need to continue. It’s true.
Oh no, you continue:
“this most certainly was NOT what God ordained or desired, this came about from the SIN that entered after Adam’s fall, and the numerous other things that flowed from mankind’s sin-stained hearts. “
Were is your evidence for this? If these biblical figures were sinning for having more than one wife and concubines, how come they were not punished?
It clearly states in Exodus 21:10, that a man can marry an infinite amount of women, without any limits to how many he can marry.
If polygamy was a sin, why then did god not punish David for having 6 wives and all his concubines?
Then in Deutoronmy 21:15, It clearly says “If a man has two wives” so obviously it was an occurrence that a man had at least 2 wives.
The bible nowhere condemns polygamy, either explicitly or through implication.
I will not go back into this, you are wrong about polygamy in the bible, and wrong about marriage being explicitly stated as between one man and one woman. Stop now.
I will offer you this though. The reason why christian’s view polygamy as sinful and immoral, was because back in those days, under roman rule, polygamy was against the law. The bible teaches that you as a christian must adhere to the law of the land. Over thousands of years, that law never changed.
Another more complex a prior, mixed with Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Natural law possesses one of the longest narratives in the history of human ideas, and clearly derives from an ‘transcendent’ being, not subject to the limitations of, the material universe, that inherently guide us toward what is the common ‘good’ so that we can co-exist rationally, without which, there would be utter chaos. And this principle of ethics and moral certitude, has been found way back in every civilization of antiquity, notwithstanding man’s bent, driven by sin, which always carries us in the wrong moral and ethical direction, which has, and continues to cause terrible pain and unrest for all societies, every where, bar none!
This inherent “unwritten law” of moral and ethical awareness, is indelibly imprinted in the ’soul’ of every living human being, regardless of where you look, it transcends culture, race, and ethinicity, and constantly appeals to an intuitive basis for ‘morality’ that stands over and above humanistic convention.
Therefore, as such, human conventions, must conform to these unchanging principles of justice, or risk the warth of our Creator, Almighty God.
History is replete with evidence, from civilization to civilization, that whenever mankind violates these inherent principles of moral and ethical conviction and certitude, the price he pays, is the ultimate demise and ruination of all that he tried to build, outside of Almighty God’s blueprint for him.
This is evidently seen, in the recorded annals of ancient history of all the so-called great empires, who flagrantly, and blatantly violated all of God’s moral, ethical, and righteousness standards, and all came crashing down in utter ruin, one by one.
God’s Word, which is forever settled in heaven, never, ever fails in its pronouncements, one way or the other.”
“These universal forms of natural law, (i.e., morality, ethics) are eternal and changless. For, they provide the intelligibility for all particular beings. In this way , we see the first rendering of a “human nature” that applies to all members, regardless of their temporal existence or their geographical location. This God given universal nature, so inherent in mankind, insures the constancy, and continuing *identity* of the particular. Thus, the form provides an ontological grounding for epistemological certainty. That is, we can be certain that even though particular humans may vary in shape, size, colour, and appearance, the universal form of humanity will not vary from place to place or from time to time, since, it is the eternal changeless form in which all the particulars participate.”
Affirming the Consequent/ Definitional retreat.
You do this quite a bit. I can’t blame you for it though, because in the case of your religious agenda, affirming the consequent stems from Apriori.
“Come now P…you can conclude..that the union between Adam and Eve, without the specific word marriage..qualifies this union..as a marriage”
Umm, no no it doesn’t. If it doesn’t say it’s a marriage, it is up to us to decide what the union was. For all I know it could be a worker’s union. All it says is it is some sort of union.
To put it another way,
“When two people are married, they are in a union, here are two people in a union, so obvioulsy they must be married”
For valid logic, we must affirm the antecedents in order to prove the consequents, in this fallacy, you affirm the consequent to deduce the antecedent. This is worrisome because it is the basis of Circumstantial Evidence. Are you a Lawyer?
If what you say is true, a union is a marriage, a civil union between homosexuals in which they exhibit all the characteristics of some union likened to marriage, would mean that they are married.
Then I could say something like:
Come now Zoe, as an intelligent, obviously well read woman, using logic, surely you can from the very Logic of implication, reasonably, rationally, and coherently, conclude, that the ‘union’ between Adam and Steve, without the specific word ‘marriage’ used in the text, qualifies this union, between one man and one man, as a ‘marriage’ as it came to be known thereafter (marriage between homosexuals was legalised of course).
Another case of you affirming the consequent:
“Homosexualty had been condemned in both Leviticus (18: 22; 20:13), where it is abhorrent to God, defiling, punishable by death, and in Deuteronomy (23:18), where it is forbidden to bring the hire of harlot or homosexual (“dog”) into the house of God in payment of religious vows, both being abhorrent to God.”
That verse says “ Thous shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy god for any vow: for even both these are abominations unto the Lord Thy God”
This verse refers to Forbidding that any income gained from evil things should be applied to the service of God.
It is left to interpretation what “dog “ refers to. Actually, it refers to someone who has sodomised others. It refers to an act, not being a homosexual. Definitional retreat anyone?
Good biblical hermeneutics? No.
Conclusions which deny premises, Contradictory premises
This one is my favourite, because it cut down on the work even more.
In response to my statement:
“In fact, your “NB” shows that all you can go on is your own personal interpretation of the Bible, it being subject to your own prejudices, biases and intelligence of course.”
You write:
“That premise of yours is not right, it flows from your own prejudices, biases, as well, dealing with a subject matter, that you obviously have little or no regard for, and hence your prejudices and biases against the authenticity of the Bible, as Almighty God’s divinely inspired Word, will be terribly tarnished by your contempt for its self-authenticating Word.”
Then
“Also, I do not have my own personal interpretation of God’s Word, yes, as a fallible human being, I would naturally have my own presuppositions, as we all do, however, like all disciplines, theology and bible, has its own established principles of interpretation, which are governed by sound Biblical Hermeneutics, Contextual Analysis, and Linguistic Exegesis, just like Medicine, Law, Engineering, etc, have theirs, yes, therefore when one is guided by these sound, historic, grammatico, linguistic rules and principles of correctly, ‘dividing’ His Word, one is not apt to go too far wrong.”
Then
“Biblical Hermeneuctis and Linguistic Exegesis, is a very detailed and absolutely necessary course of study at Bible College and Seminary, without a proper grasp and understanding of these detailed principles, one will NOT be in a position to ‘correctly’ divide God’s Word. “
“The above was taken from “Interpreting The scriptures, A Textbook On How To Interpret the Bible, by Kevin J. Conner and Ken Malmin. And the forgoing, was only scratching the surface of this indispensible work, which covers many other principles that are absolutely necessary in rightly, ‘dividing’ the Word of Truth!”
Thank-you for being self contradictory, you have shown that you do indeed have prejudices and biases which affect your interpretations, namely your use of “good biblical hermeneutics” and the content of this author’s book. By the way, good according to whom?
You are however correct in saying that I have little or no regard for the bible. I explained why above.
Another wonderful thing you have done is shown that unless one has studied theology, studied hermeneutics, studied linguistic exegesis, studied Hebrew, Greek, Latin, ancient cultures, studied philosophy and a whole host of other subjects, you are not in any position at all to interpret the bible, much less use it to formulate laws, formulate morals, etc. Now, how many people have studied at least one of these subjects? How many people randomly pick out bible verses to support positions? How many leaders and authorities do this very thing, that is seek to make law based on the bible, without having any background in any of these fields
Thank-you for making every biblical argument on this forum, including your won, utterly irrelevant (unless you can provide us with some certification that you have indeed studied these things).
Argumentum ad lapidum*
This is also related to your wonderful use of A priori.
Evidence cannot be dismissed because it fails to conform to an existing opinion. Much as we would like to toss out things which offend our views, it is a fallacy. By refusing to admit material which mat be relevant to a sound conclusion, we proceed in ignorance. Ignorance is a more reliable source of bliss than correctness.
We see this when I give you obvious biblical passages and you just ignore them altogether.
Arguments About Praetorious
Straw man
Abusive Analogy
Argumentum ad lapidum*
Ad hominem
Straw man
Fallacy of accent
Affirming the consequent
This is actually quite funny, because every argument you make here is a hilarious form of the straw man fallacy utillising the other ones listed, either you do this intentionally, or you haven’t been reading my posts too well.
Straw man et al
Yes, I do like logic, it’s good stuff.
You say
“@Praetorious, Getting back to your contention that because the word ‘marriage’ is not used in Genesis 2:24, that there is no institution of marriage in the Bible. Suffice to say, I believe my post of last night, logically, and coherently implies, that the union of becoming ‘one’ flesh and, as was used in the following texts from the Old Testament, confirm that there was such an institution of Marriage.”
“You say, “Yes, Zoe, I know that one. (Gen. 2:24) You will however observe that the verse doesn’t say the word marriage at all.”
Come now P, as an intelligent, obviously well read man, using logic, surely you can from the very Logic of implication, reasonably, rationally, and coherently, conclude, that the ‘union’ between Adam and Eve, without the specific word ‘marriage’ used in the text, qualifies this union, between one man and one woman, as a ‘marriage’ as it came to be known thereafter”
Then you go on to quote verses about wives and marriage.
(If you don’t remember from above, that was affirming the consequent.)
You’ve got my arguments confused or, you’re constructing a straw man. I am not arguing that there is no institution of marriage, I never denied this.
You will note that I quoted verses about wives and marriage as well. I simply stated the fact, that in the bible, marriage is nowhere defined as only one man and one woman, hence this can’t be used to bar homosexuals from marriage. So, basically, all points you have raised, with regards to this (where you make it seem like I say there is no marriage in the bible) are now irrelevant. What you have basically done is construct an argument for me and counter it. No need, it was never mine in the first place.
So basically, all of your second post is irrelevant as well. Thanks for helping me make quick work of it.
Here’s another it is fallacious because it is some sort of straw man, and because it is irrelevant:
“ “I hate “bible-boxing” it’s pointless. I make this claim “Presuppostion” and prejudices, rather than “biblical evidence, have shaped the tradition of biblical interpretaion.”
Your “bible-boxing” is more appropriately called ‘proof-texing’ that is, taking a single verse, apart from all other text dealing with the same subject matter, and seeking to prove something. Taking a ‘text’ out of context, invariably becomes a ‘pretext.’ “
Zoe, I never said I was bible boxing, I said I hate it. You just wasted time grey matter.
Hmm, so if I hate bible boxing, which I do, and you equate it with proof-texting, then I hate proof-texting.
By the way, I have not taken any verse out of context, I have given it to you unaltered. How can I change the context of the verse.
Indeed, where is your evidence that shows I changed the context of a verse from one meaning to another, and who’s to say that your interpretation is correct anyway?
In fact, I have done what you and everyone posting bible verses on this forum, and indeed, in all other public forums have done. Take a verse and use it. SO if I am guilty of proof-texting, so are you. You have in every post, mined the bible for any and all scripture to support a position. Then you go on to talk about good biblical hermeneutics.
TO quote you on what you have done:
“This IS not good biblical hermeneuctis[sic]!”
Abusive analogy and ad hominem:
Zoe // November 28, 2009
“I just carefully re-read your first post on this thread, Nov, 22, @12:16AM, where you make several conjectural statements, naturally from your obvious ‘humanistic’ secular worldview perspective, which are essentially, ‘relativist’ in orientation, that there is no absolute, moral right or wrong, as is reflected in your statement:”
How do you know this? Can you read my mind? I never said anything about my morals and world view. Any argument put forth to this is automatically false and pointless. What you have done is made a conjecture, a guess about my morals, and form an argument about them. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MY MORAL VIEWS ARE ZOE.
To my statement:
“There is nothing which explicitly says what we ‘can’ or ‘cannot do, and which as certains a ’sole’ use for our members. That is something entirely dependent on us, were you born with an instruction manual tied to your toes?”
You write:
“You then conclude , “I do agree that this is an issue which must be discussed in Barbados. But, we should leave poorly reasoned arguments, religious arguments, and just plain stupid arguments out of the debate.”
So, P, only those holding to your ‘relativist’ worldview, no moral absolutes, no such thing as ‘right’ or wrong’ no such thing as ‘good’ and ‘evil, anything goes, as long as you do not infringe on any one’s basic rights, one is free to do as you please, morally, no consequences to worry about at all, a literal ‘value’ free, ‘value’ neutral society!”
Zoe, that statement concerned the functions of parts of the body. What does that have to do with a my take on morals?
You then go on to say wonderful things about my morals, drawing analogies about them. Saying things about my morals such as ” anything goes”, “ there is no.. right or wrong”, “value free..value neutral”.
Nothing but pure assumption, and pure conjecture on your part. Which you use to form a straw man, but more seriously, you draw an analogy which is used in an attempt to bring me into scorn or disrepute. You are directly comparing my moral views (according to you btw) with something which will elicit an unfavourable response from people. Namely, those who hold to good morals and religious ones.
“I will be responding to your other conjectural statements from this first post of yours, as they go to the heart of your ’secular’ humainstic worldview; while you take your time in responding to my other posts.”
Don’t bother, I haven’t sated anything to which you can post a reply. What ever you reply to is indeed your own assumptions and conjecture
In addition, you would only be moving away from the issue of homosexuality. In fact, your entire argument would be a wonderful straw-man/ad hominid mixture.
Sigh. Here is where I simply speak. I am tired now, so I won’t be putting things you’ve sdaid under the headings of their fallacies…Sorry everyone.
“Leviticus 20: 13, “If a man also ‘lie’ with mankind, as he ‘lieth’ with a woman, both of them have COMMITED an ABOMINATION: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
You say, “This verse DOES NOT condemn homosexuality, but sexual acts between men, acts which are not specified.”
“I can only concede to the verses which use the word homosexual.”
Come on P, what kind of intelligent reasoning is this? “
Zoe. Thank you again for this gem. Homosexuality is an identity, not an action. So yes, this verse only condemns sexual acts between men, and not homosexuality itself. I say I can only concede to verses which explicitly state something about homosexuals because the verse obviously refers to the identity of homosexuality. Both you and Anonymous make this error.
So when you say:
“In the New Testament, *Homosexuals* “will not inherit the Kingdom of God” (I Cor. 6:9-10);”
and other such verses, I cannot say that those verse do not condemn homosexuality. Ugh.
Also:
“Because, the modern word ‘homosexual’ is not used in the Old Testament,but, rather the euphemism ‘lie’ does NOT validate your illogical rejection of what is emphatically stated, that ‘IF’ a man ‘lie’ in other words, when a man lieth with a woman, in this context, he/she is having somekind of ’sexual’ activity, and, what God deems an abomination, is when two men, replace this normal activity, man/woman, with being together for the purpose that He Created a man and woman for.”
I never denied this, in fact, I clearly stated “This verse DOES NOT condemn homosexuality, but sexual acts between men, acts which are not specified.”
Contrary to your belief, I actually am familiar with biblical euphemisms.
“@Praetorious, Let us get back to your erroneous interpretation of the ‘Sodom’ issue, you say:”
Erroneous, interesting.
“Almighty God, in His Omniscience, (ALL knowing) certainly decided to ‘destroy’ Sodom and Gommorah, because, “And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gommorah IS GREAT, and because their SIN is VERY GRIEVOUS.” (Gen. 18:20) emphasis added.”
Yes, I agreed, I even quoted the self same verse.
“Therefore, when the angels made their appearance, to DESTROY these twin towns,”
Actually, the angels were sent to warn Lot, not destroy the cities.
“Now, here are the two verses that you simply will not deal with honestly, trying to skirt around to avoid the obvious ‘intent’ of the Sodomizing ‘men’ of Sodom.
“But, before they (the angels) lay down, the ‘men’ of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, ALL the people from every quarter: And they called out Lot, and SAID unto him, Where are the MEN (angels) which came in to thee this night? BRING them OUT UNTO US, that we man *KNOW* them.” ( Gen. 19: 4,5) emphasis added.
As I explained in an earlier post, the Hebew ‘euphemism’ to ‘KNOW’ as the men of Sodom clearly said, ‘…that we may ‘know’ them” was to ‘force’ *rape* homosexually, these two angels, who appeared as men. This is precisely why Lot (v.3) insisted that the visitors come into his house, because he knew the danger they would face from the Sodomites, ‘homosexuals’ of Sodom if they stayed all night outside.”
Zoe, are you paying attention, I did deal with this verse, after all I did say that the only apparent sin was intent to rape. Also, what if they wanted to rape the angels with sticks? Would that be “homosexual rape”. By the way, rape, is just rape. It doesn’t matter what its done, how it is done and who does it to whom. The fact is, it’s rape.
“Yes, as Ezekiel 16: 49, states, “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of *idleness* was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strenghten the hand of the poor and needy.”
But, verse 50 then goes on to say, which you omitted, “And they were haughty, and COMMITTED ABOMINATION before Me, therefore I took them away as I saw good” (v.50) “
Yeah, I didn’t quote that because it is irrelevant, it directly follows from the first one, that is those sins of pride etc.
“The obvious ‘committed ABOMINATION, before Me, WAS the blatant homosexuality, that was pervasive throughout Sodom,” “
No, no it’s not, here we see your prejudices influencing your interpretation. What happened to good biblical hermeneutics? Just because we are shown one instance of an abomination, does not mean that the abomination was the only one that pissed god off enough for him to destroy the cities. It doesn’t say what abominations were committed. You do know that cutting one’s beard is an abomination to yahweh, wearing a garment of two different weaves and materials is also an abomination. For all we know, the people of those cities were beard cutting, cotton-polyester wearing folk, and amongst these folk, there was only one group of men, who got a kick out of raping people, men and women included. Just because you have one group of men who attempted to rape other men, does not mean that all of the inhabitants wanted to do so. Perhaps these people were so free with there sexuality, that they had “known” everyone in the city, and just wanted some fresh meat. The fact is, all we can do, and all you have clearly done, is to speculate”
“In seeking to bring Ezekiel 16: 49, alone, isolated from the entire chapter, which is not good hemeneutics, as it lifts a ’single’ verse from its chapter ‘context’ which must never be done, as any one verse of Scripture, must always be read in the ‘context’ of the preceding and following verses, in order to properly understand what is the import of its statement, and meaning.
Zoe, you should do some thinking here. Verse 16 of Ezekiel details the sins of Sodom. How am I taking it out of context when I say what the sins of Sodom were according to that verse?
Ezekiel 16 is A parable showing the first low estate of the Jewish nation, its prosperity, idolatries, and punishment.
“Your use of the word ‘contrary’ is interesting, in relation to ‘…our cognitive development having ’split’ from our biological development that means we will do things *contrary* to our biology.”
Naturally, from a ’secular’ persepective, this makes a statement, without any rational, cognitive understanding of why this occurs!”
Zoe, I explained it. It occurs because our cognitive and biological development are separate. We use our brains and minds in complex ways. Ways which allow us to conquer or biology.
And what do you mean a ’secular’ perspective?
In your last post, you talk about nature declaring things to be wrong. Nature doesn’t declare anything. Nature knows no right or wrong because nature itself is not conscious. This is personification.
“The Fact of Sin.
It is emphatically evident that there IS something terribly wrong in the universe, with both the earth and its inhabitants. The source of all chaos, disharmony and strife in the world can be traced back to the existence of SIN.”
Zoe, you can’t say there is something terribly wrong with the universe because it is no p ossible for humans to know about everything occurring in the universe. Also, you creationists believe that we are the only intelligent life, so there can only be things wrong here on earth. Then again, the bible does say that the earth is all that exists in the universe so I suppose you’re right.
“The contrast between ‘Life’ and ‘Death’ harmony and discord, beauty and ugliness, light and darkness, declare the fact of SIN”
This makes absolutely no sense. Because someone may look beautiful and another ugly is proof of sin. Zoe, making no sense here.
“The source of all chaos, disharmony and strife in the world can be traced back to the existence of SIN.”
Hmm, so he hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural occcurences which cause these things in the world are due to the “existence of sin”. Wow. Not even, sinful people cause these things, but the mere existence of sin. That’s equivalent to punishing people for drug use simply because drugs exist, despite the fact that those people may have nothing to do with narcotics in any form or fashion.
“The briefest view of human history with its chaos and confusion, war, bloodshed, the spirit of hate and murder, covetousness, moral corruption and dominance resolutely indicates that something is wrong in the nations of the earth. The answer in found in God’s Word,”
Funny, many of the most grievous atrocities were due to religion. Inquisition anyone, holocaust anyone (you do know that Hitler was a catholic who never renounced his catholicism, the catholic church maintained contact with him throughout the war and declared his birthday a holiday or some such nonsense. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews is also because he was had seen a play in which Jesus was crucified by the jews.). Witch hunts anyone? World trade centre anyone? All the religious extremism in the world anyone?
“Human Logic Declares It.
To deny the fact of SIN in the human race would be an insult to all logic. Mankind knows that something is wrong inside himself. He knows that he is out of harmony with himself, that discord reigns within his being. It is the fact of sin that explains it. Educated mentality would seek to deny the fact of sin, but deep within every person’s being, he knows that when he would do good, evil is present with him (Romans 7: 14-21). Man does wrong, because he is wrong. Any one who excercises any measure of intellectual honesty will admit that sin is a fact.
“
Human logic doesn’t declare the fact of sin, what ignorance is this? Human logic, First Order Logic, is used to make conclusions…Religion, especially christianity, thrives on convincing people that they are guilty of something, that there is something wrong inside all of us, playing on our insecurities. Man doesn’t “know” there is something sinful about himself until some religion asserts that. There is nothing inherent or implicit in humans that says we are sinful.
In fact, the concept of sin is a human invention, a religious invention. Tribal religions and such have no concept of sin.
To F and G:
Just because something claims something doesn’t mean it’s true.
Sigh.
Sin was invented to control people. Convince enough persons that there is something inherrently wrong with them, and that only you have the solution, et voila.
Christianity takes the cake for asserting the concept of original sin, that we are all damned regardless.
Throughout history this has been used to control people and wage wars. Foolishness like indulgences, limbo…
The worst thing is this:
The uncertainty. No one knows what happens after we are dead, so you give them a story and tell them how they must live their lives, in pursuit of the afterlife. They forsake what they have allowing the religious leaders to control the only certainty, that is their life in the here and now, for something which may or may not exist. Absolutely detestable.
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.
“So, P, I put it to you, that the only document of antiquity, that spells it out for us, giving us an account of how it all began, when SIN entered the human race, and its utterly devastatingly consequences, IS the self-authenticating, Word of Almighty God, the Bible; whose proclamations, and prophetic revelations, throughout the history of mankind have being accurately fulfilled, right up to this era, and continues to unfold in world affairs, as He said it would.”
Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense.
I put it to you that this is true, and that you commit sin when you hurt homosexuals emotionally, spiritually, mentally and physically.
No, no it’s not. There are many other texts which talk about how it all began, what went wrong, and how to fix it. The bible is just another one. The new testament is just a copy of other stories, like those of Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, krishna…How do you explain those stories which predate the bible, but are essentially the same?
The onus is on you to assert that your particular fairytale is the right one. What if you’re wrong.
Zoe, you are a very resourceful lady. You seem intelligent and capable. But you are still wrong. All of your arguments are completely irrelevant. Is it possible for you to take your nose out of the bible and tackle a social issue from another perspective? Is it possible for you to argue your point without using your crutch of religion and the bible?
You do have a brain don’t you? You are capable of forming your own ideas based on your experiences and evidence, and not superstition right?
You need to understand as well, that no idea, no matter what it is, is exempt from criticism. You need to recognise that an arguments weakness is proportional to it’s claim of infallibility.
The bible is full of errors and contradictions, prejudices and just plain archaic, ignorant, tribal nonsense. You can use as much hermeneutics and exegesis as you want, but they will not be able to account for these things. They can show you how to interpret, but have nothing to do with the actual content of the book. If this thing is the word of god, why does god contradict himself?
Another thing I find funny is that you so vigorously defend one of the most misogynistic texts in existence. You are aware that a woman was regarded as chattel, in some verses less than an ox.
Again, your arguments are based on fallacies, and are thus irrelevant.
Can you stop arguing asides and get back to homosexuality?
Everyone, I’m sorry for writing something so lengthy, and sorry if it lost coherence.
Best Regards and have a good bank holiday,
Praetorious
Amused // November 30, 2009 at 5:22 AM
Well done, Praetorius. Long, but worth the read. I suppose now we will have a contradictory and flimisily-based reply full of biblical quotes and personal emphases from that self-annointed messenger of God, Zoe. Ah well, someone has to protect the business of extracting money from the credulous and fearful by the religious organizations in this world of ours.
Anonymous // November 30, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Praetorius
You agreed that that the Bible condemns sexual activities between males. I am at a loss as to why you need details on specific acts which according to you does not define homosexuality anyway, re: your assertion “homosexuality is an identity, not an action”.
Why do you attempt to rebut a religious argument through logic and evidence when the main if not sole basis of the religious position is one of faith? For a busy person you do like to waste time.
However, your assertion to which I referred is a good starting point for discussion. I am not aware of any laws on the Barbados statue books prohibiting/condemning homosexuality per se. There are laws prohibiting specific acts and laws or public policies which do not accommodate certain arrangements such as marriage between two people of the same gender, joint adoption by unmarried couples etc. So what can the “homosexual debate” be really about? I suggest that there are two debates.
One that is among religious persons and the other among those concerned with public policy and the laws of the land. The former cannot be prosecuted on rules of logic, evidence etc. Your lengthy post provides the reasons for this. The other (and ultimately more important) debate is the one that is less discussed and then (it seems to me) proceeds on the assumption that its outcome is dependent on the determination of the first debate.
So ignoring religion inspired interpretation, why should the law be amended to
(a) recognise marriage between persons of the same gender.
(b) decriminalise consensual anal sexual intercourse?
and on the public policy side:
Should consensual sexual activity among prisoners be condoned?
Should unmarried couples, single men, or same sex couples be allowed to adopt children?
Given that in Barbados, persons of suspected homosexual identity are well tolerated, work freely, own property, have been elected to national office, are promoted to senior if not chief executive positions and are not subject to official or institutionalized scrutiny of their private lives greater than that of suspected heterosexuals, and enjoy protection under of the law in all matters other than marriage and presumed sexual activity, I can think of no other questions about this otherwise really minor debate.
michael // November 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM
@ lux
Now because humans were so much physically weaker than other animals it became essential that they live in groups. People who went off on their own were more likely to be killed. This means that people would have had to develop ways to live harmoniously in a group. Even if you believe this group included Caine and Abel and whatnot. Obviously Caine was scorned from the group when he killed his brother. Even though we can’t know how people thousands of years ago felt about that, we know that this would have severely drained group resources. Anything that drains group resources more than benefits it is outcast from groups in nature, so it is assumed that this happened in early populations….This was taken from a part of your blog Do you think that homosexuals would have been beneficial to those early groups of people?I would think not ,women had to have lots of children just to ensure that some reached maturity (adult hood)girls were having children as early as 13 ,we only heard of this homosexual thing when societies became large enough to have spare food and society was structured in such a way that it allowed perverts to come together to act out their deviant desires.But let me say this if this is what they want, i have no problem with them keeping it to themselves ,but their norms should not be forced on the wider society ,I just worry for the young children in this society who may be forced into this deprave behavior because of their financial saturation because I know that the perverts from north America and Europe will be down there in a hart beat to turn Barbados in to the next Thailand .girlboys will be in every hotel foya to make a dollar I wonder if this is the kind of foreign exchange we need
Zoe // November 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM
@Praetorious, Trust that you are catching up on some much needed rest, after your in-coherent attempt at refuting the substance of my posts.
BTW, I am a man, fully 100% heterosexual, as God created me!
Truth by definition is absolute, regardless of who denies it. Man does not create truth, we discover truth. Almighty God, our Creator IS the Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresnt, Immutable, Infallible source of all truth.
Correspondence is a two-placed relation between a proposition, and the state of affairs that is its intentional object.
Thus, Truth is grounded in intentionality.
God, in His divinely inspired Word to us, declared many propositional ‘Truths’ which have intentionality, oftness, aboutness, directedness towards an objective telos, to those who heeded His Word, proved Him to be absolutely Just and Righteous in all of His promises. To those who scoffed at, and mocked Him, well, history is replete with their folly, and the price they paid in not listening.
Like so many, you scoff and mock at the valid historicity of the Biblical documents. This is just plain or (wilfull) ignorance of the facts and evidence pertaining thereto.
This subject matter has already being posted elsewhere on BU, should you have the time, and interest to have a read, may be, you’ll learn a thing or two!
I’ll just cite one of the numerous comments from a wide array of very bright scholars, who have taken the extended time, to carefully examine the biblical documents, and their unique position in relation to other such writing of similar antiquity.
History.
“From I Samuel through II Chronicles one finds the history of Israel, covering about five centuries. ‘The Cambridge Ancient History, (Vol. I, p.222) say: ‘the Israelites certainly manifest a genuis for historical construction, and the Old Testament embodies the oldest history writing extent.”
The distinguished archaeologist, Professor Albright, begins his classic essay, ‘The Bible Period.’:
“Hebrew national tradition excels all others in its clear picture of tribal and family origins. In Egypt and Babylonia, in Assyria and Phoenicia, in Greece and Rome, we look in vain for anything comparable. There is nothing like it in the tradition of Germanic peoples. Neither India nor China can produce anything similar, since their earliest historical memories are literary deposits of distorted dynastic tradition, with no trace of the herdsman or peasant behind the demigod or king with whom their records begin. Neither in the oldest Indic historical writings (the Puranas) nor in the earliest Greek historians is there a hint of the fact that both Indo-Aryans and Hellenes were once nomads who immigrated into their later abodes from the north. The Assyrians, to be sure, remembered vaguely that their earliest rulers, whose names they recalled without any details about their dead, were tent dwellers, but when they came had long been forgotten.” 27/3.
“The table of Nations” in Genesis 10 is an astonishingly accurate historical account. According to Albright:
“It stands absolutely alone in ancient literature without a remote parallel even among the Greeks….’The Table of Nations’ remains an astonishingly accurate document…(It) shows such remarkable ‘modern’ understanding of the ethnic and linguistic situation in the modern world, in spite of all its complexity, that scholars never fail to be impressed with the author’s knowledge of the subject.” 7/70ff.
John Warwick Montgomery, correctly asserts: ‘To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for NO other document of the ancient period are as WELL attested bibliographically as the New Testament.” 64/29.
The fact that ‘The Bible is Trustworthy’ is based on the same bibliographical examination of ALL other documents of antiquity, to validate their trustworthyness.
I. The Bibliographical Test.
2. The Internal Evidence Test.
3. The external Evidence test, and,
4. Its Confirmation by Archaeology.
‘EVIDENCE That Demands a Verdict, Historical Evidences For The Christian Faith, Volume I, By Josh McDowell.
Praetorious, I’ll critique your last, tiresome post later on.
Always remember that two competing ‘Truth-claims’ cannot be both right at the same time and place. The Law of Non-Contradiction in logic.
“To say of what IS, that it IS, or, to say of what IS NOT, that it IS NOT, is true.”
Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1077b 26.
Pat // November 30, 2009 at 4:53 PM
@Praetorius
That was a very good response to the Zoe. You should have seen by now, as most of us have, that the Zoe thinks he IS GOD.
Praetorious // November 30, 2009 at 5:20 PM
@Anonymous,
I really like your posts.
“Praetorius
You agreed that that the Bible condemns sexual activities between males. I am at a loss as to why you need details on specific acts which according to you does not define homosexuality anyway, re: your assertion “homosexuality is an identity, not an action”.”
I don’t need details on the acts. I firmly accept the bible condemns sexual activities among males, and in this verse doesn’t condemn homosexuality.
Here’s an example:
I put it to some acquaintances this way,
“We’re all straight here, but in a situation (prison, say) Would you give or take, or colloquially, bull or be bulled. Without fail, everyone said they would have to give, not take. I suppose this maintains their sexual identity as hetero, even though they would have performed a sexual act on a nother male.
“Why do you attempt to rebut a religious argument through logic and evidence when the main if not sole basis of the religious position is one of faith? For a busy person you do like to waste time.”
Well, the first thing is I did promise Zoe a reply, I’m in the habit of keeping promises. Perhaps pride factors in a bit as well, Zoe’s voluminous prolific posts left me feeling a bit underrepresented.
And most importantly, I know of no other way to evaluate claims, evidence and arguments other than reason and logic. Faith, like emotion makes us act, but to me at least, it is reason and thinking that determines what i do with that passion to act.
Do you know of another way to evaluate claims and such?
‘However, your assertion to which I referred is a good starting point for discussion. I am not aware of any laws on the Barbados statue books prohibiting/condemning homosexuality per se. There are laws prohibiting specific acts and laws or public policies which do not accommodate certain arrangements such as marriage between two people of the same gender, joint adoption by unmarried couples etc. ”
Yes I agree. Barbados does have archaic sodomy/buggery laws, a hangover from colonial law. Interestingly enough, Britain has abolished those laws and we have not.
Might I suggest reading about Alan Turing?
“So what can the “homosexual debate” be really about? I suggest that there are two debates.
One that is among religious persons and the other among those concerned with public policy and the laws of the land. The former cannot be prosecuted on rules of logic, evidence etc. Your lengthy post provides the reasons for this. The other (and ultimately more important) debate is the one that is less discussed and then (it seems to me) proceeds on the assumption that its outcome is dependent on the determination of the first debate.”
Yes, quite right. Actually, what is lacking, with this article atleast, is clear dileneation of what this debate is, what is the agenda. However, I would say that there are 2 lines followed, obviously for and against whatever it is.
On the against, we mostly find the religious arguments, moreso than any other….
“So ignoring religion inspired interpretation, why should the law be amended to
(a) recognise marriage between persons of the same gender.
(b) decriminalise consensual anal sexual intercourse?
and on the public policy side:
Should consensual sexual activity among prisoners be condoned?
Should unmarried couples, single men, or same sex couples be allowed to adopt children?
Given that in Barbados, persons of suspected homosexual identity are well tolerated, work freely, own property, have been elected to national office, are promoted to senior if not chief executive positions and are not subject to official or institutionalized scrutiny of their private lives greater than that of suspected heterosexuals, and enjoy protection under of the law in all matters other than marriage and presumed sexual activity, I can think of no other questions about this otherwise really minor debate.”
Finally I applaud you Anonymous, for raisng actual issues concerning homosexuality. I will post some of my thoughts on these questions a bit later.
I am still quite exhausted….
@Pat
Thank-you, I feel I could have done much better though.
Well, I always found it interesting that people are always telling you this that or the other about what god wants and what god means. Other than the fact that these things usually coincide with that person’s own desires opinions and ideas, why doesn’t god speak of itself and make itself absolutely clear on its wants and desires?
More later…
Best Regards,
Praetorious
Zoe // November 30, 2009 at 10:06 PM
@Praetorious, Your lists of alleged fallacies, are being used to create a smoke’ screen’ for the express purpose of imposing your own assumptions by default. Specifically, you are ducking the issue of needing to assess ‘Worldviews’ on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, logical coherence and explanatory power.
In effect, Praetorious, much of what you are doing is a ‘bluff’ and a distraction, to side track the thread into polarization!
In short, you are suffering from an acute bout of ‘Selective Hyperskepticism’ which I will show is in fact the case very soon.
Truth is the ultimate certitude. Even if the whole world goes insane, reality remains synonymous with truth, and truth IS unyielding. One can choose to ignore it, scorn it, curse and scoff at it, but to no avail; in the end ‘Truth’ impassively stands its ground in the face of the most overpowering emotional, verbal, and intellectual onslaughts.
Further, truth can be especially brutal to those who insist on worshippping at the Altar of Theory. This is because truth has a way of frustrating theory, and, much like a mongose circling a snake, ultimately wearing it down and devouring it.
More to the point, truth, confirmed by reality, is the bedrock of the Judeo/Christian Worldview, with literally thousands of years of evidence logically supporting its ‘Truth-Claims.’
Reason IS necessary for Revelation to be Coherent.
This is precisely why, as I alluded to earlier, that:
The structure of ‘Justification’ in defending any propositional ‘Truth-Claim’ IS *coherence* coherence IS our sole criteria for truth.
Therefore, assessing ‘Worldviews’ bears out the utterly fundamental grounding of Logic for thinking critically about ‘truth’ and worldviews. Because, the fundamental laws of logic point us toward truth.
The three fundamental princples in the laws of logic, are themselves ‘absolute’ truths, and are universal, regardless of culture, race, creed or ethnicity.
1) The Law of Identity
2) The Law of Non-Contradiction
3) The Law of Excluded Middle.
Without these ‘Laws of Logic’ no rational thought would be possible. To reject these basic laws of logic, one would have to utilize these very laws to reject them. As G.K. Chesterton said:
“The man who begins to think without proper first principles goes mad; he begins to think st the wrong end.”
The Historic Judeo/Christian World view.
This world view essentially contains claims about reality, which are either ‘True’ or ‘False.’
Therefore, any world view, must be subjected to, and must sustain (3) test in order to be considered valid.
1) Logical Consistency
2) Empirical Adequacy
3) Experiential Relevancy
The only religious world view, that meet and sustain all three of these, is Historic, Orthodox Christianity.
Secondly, and intricately connected to the above criteria for validity, every system must also demonstrate an deal with the following questions:
1) Origin
2)Meaning
3) Morality
4) Destiny.
Again, the theistic Christian worldview, is the only one that convincingly demonstrate and sustain to the above questions, unparalleled with any other religious world view inference to best explanation in light of historical evidence.
You say, “And most importantly I know of no other way to evaluate claims, evidence and arguments other than by ‘reason’ and ‘logic’. Faith, like emotion makes us act, but to me at least, it is *reason* and *thinking* (critically) that makes what I do with that passion to all.” emphasis added.
“Do you know of another way to evalute claims and such?
No, absolutely, not, because logical absolutes are the building blocks of discussion and analysis. When seeking to establish ‘Truth’ all our thinking must include the position that there are absolute truths. We cannot have a rational discussion if there are no logical absolutes, because, then our thinking would be self-contradictory.
Critical thinking, debate, exposing faulty thinking, etc., presupposes the existence of logical absolutes.
Without a standard of rationality, we cannot expose what is irrational. Whether or not someone recognizes this presupposition, is irrelevant to the fact that the foundation of rationality is built upon absolute truth and logical absolutes. We cannot have a rational discussion if truth is relative.
Someone once said that there is no such thing as logical absolutes, to which the other person said, “Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.” The illogical person then asked, “What are you saying?’ The logical thinking person, then responded, “I fly in grass coloured fishing barks.” Of course, the illogical man then said that the logical thinker was making absolutely no sense, whereupon, the critical thinker responded that he was correct. If everything is ‘relative’ then our conversation would have no meaning. The point is, that in order to have rational dialogue, we have to have a common truth, common absolutes.
More tomorrow…!
Praetorious, I trust that you’ll be more rested and lest exhausted in the morning! Be careful not to let truth wear you down, it is relentless, you know! (Lol!)
David // December 1, 2009 at 12:19 AM
This story just makes you go wow! Barbados maybe far away from the thinking of the Ugandans but there is a similarity at another level. What are we going to do? Are we ready to discuss it?
Praetorious // December 1, 2009 at 2:51 AM
@Zoe
I just read your post, and you’re still wrong.
Amazingly, you write entire paragraphs of nothing.
Oh yes, another fallacy i was hesitant to put is called blinding with science (although you offer no science, but that is characteristic of the fallacy), or in your case, blinding with the bible. Your then posts become increasingly and increasingly more complex. What i mean by this is your choice of words, choice of sentence construction, is indeed adding layers of abstraction to what you’re saying. You find this tactic in much of the post-modernist junk papers out there. Using fancy constructions to give something the appearance of greatness of some sort, when there really is none. By making something sound so grand, you mask that it has no substance. Some of us can actually see through this you know.
You’ve been posting nothing
“@Praetorious, Your lists of alleged fallacies, are being used to create a smoke’ screen’ for the express purpose of imposing your own assumptions by default. ”
Really, and here i thought i was pointing out the flaws in your posts. I don’t recall making assumptions about you or what you’re saying and constructing lofty arguments to counter those assumptions…
“Specifically, you are ducking the issue of needing to assess ‘Worldviews’ on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, logical coherence and explanatory power.”
Specifically, you are ducking the topic of homosexuality…
“In effect, Praetorious, much of what you are doing is a ‘bluff’ and a distraction, to side track the thread into polarization!”
Really, how am i doing this. I have not used charged arguments of a divisive nature, such as the religious one you put forth. I have not made an argument which seeks to put things in plain black and white so as to polarise the responses. I have not asked anyone for help or to respond in a particular way.
“In short, you are suffering from an acute bout of ‘Selective Hyperskepticism’ which I will show is in fact the case very soon.”
Again, a bunch of nothing. You haven’t answered anything.
Your post is just this long winded post-modernist language/grammar/syntax filled bag.
You have been arguing asides in this and previous posts, tackling marriage in the bible, logic, biblical accuracy and all sorts of things (related to defending the bible and such) yet have failed to deal directly with homosexuality.
As an aside:
Hey, if anyone wants to see text similar to Zoe’s, go to http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
It generates a wonderful postmodernist essay every time you log on.
Sigh.
Anonymous, I said I would post my answers to the questions you raised. I still intend to, just hang in there.
Lux // December 1, 2009 at 4:01 AM
@michael
You are right in that homosexuality would not have been beneficial, reproductively to early civilizations. People who strictly practiced homosexuality would bear no children, therefore would contribute neither their genes nor their behaviours to the next generation. Following the concept of natural selection, heterosexual behaviour would be selected for, because this would contribute offspring to the gene pool of the next generation.
However, we have little understanding of the intimate details of social life of those early civilizations, and all we can do is speculate from archaeological evidence. The fact is that even if they did have heterosexual behaviour (which obviously they must have or we wouldn’t be here) we can’t say that the same individuals committed homosexual acts as well. One of our genetically close relatives, the Bonobo, uses sex to relieve social tensions, whether it be hetero or homo. As far as I know it hasn’t been explicitly ruled out. One thing that is for certain is that people who were strictly homosexual would have produced no further lineages, and have not contributed genes to the human population, as any other human who has not had children.
I think that the words of religious texts teach people how to have thriving populations. It would be good for Moses or Jesus to advise their followers to be heterosexual, as this would give them an advantage to contributing more to the human gene pool, who would most likely become followers, and follow the other rules to live in Their designed society, which was meant to be peaceful, I believe.
I don’t think that homosexuality will become a norm anytime soon, so you shouldn’t worry that releasing homophobic hatred would cause that. In Toronto the gay rights movement has overstepped many boundaries, and people frown upon homophobic behaviour, but still the vast majority of the population is heterosexual. The vast majority of the media is driven towards promotion of the “guy-gets-girl” storyline. If you think about it, most people will have been raised by a heterosexual couple, therefore this is the family concept of most people, and much fewer gay people have children. Thus the concept of gay parenting is definitely far off from being a norm right now. And on this topic, the fact that we have developed so far as to allow homosexuals to be able to have children shows that it is not necessary to be heterosexual to prevent population decline. (Which if you look at the population bottleneck since the 1970’s actually does need to happen before we kill the planet but that’s another conversation).
I don’t believe that financial saturation causes homosexual behaviour. You allude to the fact that North America and Europe have more homosexual people. However this data may be more correlational. The fact that they are more affluent means that people have more resources to focus on civil rights activism and such, and these countries have had their share of this, so that perhaps more people are unashamed to be called gay. I’m sure that people in prison don’t commit homosexual acts because they are rich. Also homosexuality can be found in many tribal cultures, in Africa as well, who we wouldn’t call affluent financially. (BTW that comment way above by Negroman was the most disgusting, bigoted statement I have ever heard).
I worry for the young children in society that never learn how to love each other for who they really are. I hope that our young blossoming heterosexual relationships are based on love, trust, honesty, instead of looks, status, or being heavily based on the ability to provide. I hope that while Barbadians are teaching young men not to be with men, we also teach them how to be good to their woman, how to love a woman, and be a father. And the other way around as well. There is a great deal of ‘depraved’ behaviour all around.
It is interesting that you associate homosexuality so strongly to perversion that you think letting one exist will allow another common idea of perversion, prostitution, get in there. Whether there is any human of any gender selling sexual services in Barbadian hotels is another matter. I’m personally more concerned with the case of two men, or two women, who truly find each other amazing, and deeply love each other for who they are. Surely love is a beautiful thing? Even if they are strictly chaste, people will assume things, and the couple will feel the bite of people talking behind their backs and crossing their arms. They will hear the comments on the radio about how disgusting and nasty they are. They could feel like people won’t want their children around them. They might not even feel comfortable giving a peck on the cheek when cutting a birthday cake at a party. I’m just imagining here really, it would probably be better if someone in a homosexual relationship shared their story.
michael, I’m glad that you have no problem with people “keeping it to themselves”. I’d prefer if most people kept mention of their sexual activity to themselves, personally, except close friends. But the gay rights movement isn’t seeking to push homosexuality on everyone. It wants people who are homosexual to be able to feel comfortable in their own skin in the society. Could you imagine how the words we use frequently must hurt? When people may simply be trying to be honest with themselves.
Sorry if I’m arguing to emotion at the latter part, but to me those points are more in that sort of realm.
@Anonymous ( the most recent one)
Thanks for someone actually getting back to the topic at hand and clarifying some issues.
(b) why should anything between consensual partners of a mature enough age be wrong? That’s how they choose to express their love to each other. Should you also tell them, oh you can only write love poetry as sonnets? Perhaps false analogy, but it seems incredulous, and perhaps a bit 1984 to me for a government to restrict what u can agree to do or not in a bedroom. How are you going to find out about anal intercourse anyway? Obviously the people performing it like it, and are not going to want to get locked up, so are not going to tell. Why would you ever tell unless it was not consensual, and you wanted to press charges?
a) marriage is a topic about how society will agree to change a definition. If a civil union grants all rights as a marriage, and everything is the same except there are 2 of the same sex, then what’s the difference, except a word? However in Barbados I don’t think you get many rights of a union…wh
Would any heterosexual consensual activity among prisoners be condoned ( if it is possible)? Depends how far you want to punish people.
If there are so many children out there who need to be taken care of, should we not be grateful for any souls who would devote their time, love, resources, to a child? We should be most concerned with the child. Certainly every homosexual man does not desire to rape young boys, if that’s one of the concerns. Adoption agencies always do thorough background checks. Heterosexual couples can be just as dangerous, or more.
You are right, “persons of suspected homosexual identity are well tolerated”.
We aren’t that bad in Barbados compared to other countries. But there is still room for improvement in legal matters. For example, even though they may be tolerated in the workplace, there is no law to prohibit discrimination should anyone harass them about their sexual orientation.
My main concern is how homosexual people are viewed by the society. I was reading Dennis Jones’s article earlier
http://livinginbarbados.blogspot.com/2007/12/homosexuality-topic-of-fear.html ( I hope you don’t mind me linking it, Dennis). I might comment that even the phrase “persons of suspected homosexual identity…” can give the idea that people cannot be openly homosexual for fear of the reaction of society.
I hope people change their homophobic, prejudiced attitudes in Barbados. It’s not going to let depraved individuals over-run the country. Instead it could allow individuals live fully at peace with themselves within the society.
Lux // December 1, 2009 at 4:17 AM
Arg, I should fully read over before i hit submit. 2 corrections:
we can’t say that the same individuals 1.committed homosexual acts as well.
should be
we can’t say that the same individuals didn’t commit homosexual acts as well
2. (don’t know what happened here)
However in Barbados I don’t think you get many rights of a union…wh
should be
However in Barbados I don’t think you get many rights of a union…which isn’t fair for people who have been living with each other, and have cared about each other for so many years.
Sorry about that, how embarrassing.
Dictionary // December 1, 2009 at 4:17 AM
Onlookers:
This thread is interesting [though sadly telling], and inadvertently revealing on the process, rhetoric and results of radical, secular humanist secularisation and associated incoherent relativisation of both knowledge and values.
1] Original post:
It seems the issue is homosexuality in light of the global recent push by advocates of the homosexualist agenda and hesitancy of Bajan political leadership to take specific stances that would be viewed as hostile to the now institutionally dominant homosexualisation of our civilisation, as a part of the process of benumbing us to amorality and the imposition of the demand that we not only tolerate but officially approve of, protect and even promote this pattern of behaviour [think about Heather has two mommies, and Daddy's roommate, which were TEXTBOOKS for primary aged kids in NY in recent years . . .], in the name of rights and un-changeable personal identity and orientation that is widely asserted or assumed to be genetically induced and unalterable and almost inevitable in expression.
The contrast of J’ca where popular sentiment is forcing political leaders to take a relatively tough line — even in the teeth of the known costs of crossing the global homosexualist lobby, and while batting on the sticky wicket of a society in crisis in which there is significant vigilantism that targets homosexuals just as it targets goat thieves and others believed by mobs to be malefactors deserving of what is felt to be “rough justice” — is of course instructive. (Of course, vigilantism is wrong, period. And the real problem here is vigilantism, not specific prone-ness to violence against homosexuals; nor is there any officially backed pogrom. )
So, the question arises: is there any serious, principled opposition to homosexuality and the associated current international policy push to homosexualise that foundational community institution, marriage, or is it only vigilantes and bigots who object to such plain and obvious rights and needed reforms?
[In short, Praetorious (given your 12 pp essay of yesterday), is this a case of sophisticated setting up and knocking over a convenient strawman, complete with implicit dehumanisation and dismissal of objectors to an agenda that cannot otherwise stand on its own merits on comparative difficulties and assessment of the balance of social costs and benefits?]
2] Uganda
Similarly, the ill-advised (and in key respects indefensible) private members bill in Uganda — which, strictly speaking, targets behaviour not identity (and which reserves the death penalty for “aggravated” behaviour, e.g. drugging someone to commit homosexual acts or having such acts while . . . apparently knowingly . . . being infected with HIV, or imposing on one under one’s power, or inducing a minor into the act) — serves as a convenient point of reference.
What I found most interesting about the Guardian report — similar to what is emerging on the climate emails-gate scandal — is the all too predictably slanted way that it is being reported.
For instance, while the above article speaks in threatening tones of US-based evangelical groups who are saying that homosexuals are targetting schoolchildren — when, from the days of Plato’s titters on “love” for boys in his The Republic, that is a well-known pattern [one that parallels the tendency of unscrupulous men to prey upon young school-age girls . . . wasn't there a porno video scandal on this a few years back?] — it is significant that we find nowhere the declaration of Exodus International and other leading Evangelical groups in the US on the matter.
Exodus International, perhaps the leading Evangelically oriented movement of and ministry to ex- and recovering homosexuals, is on record in a Tuesday, 24 November 2009 Charisma magazine News article as follows:
I observe that the Guardian article is datelined Sunday 29 November 2009; i.e . the journalists and editors failed to do due diligence to fairness to those adversely implicated by an article.
As a direct result, the article ends up erecting and igniting an ad hominem laced strawman.
3] Strawman games vs comparative difficulties and inference to best explanation
Nowadays, too often, there is a pattern in rhetoric whereby a caricatured and artificially weakened version of a position on an issue is used to demonise and discredit a targetted side and its proponents, who are often inappropriately portrayed as idiots or as particularly evil. (I note that since we are all finite fallible and all too often willfully in the wrong, we all struggle to overcome evil, at our best — the point of the classic parable on planks and sawdust in eyes.)
This must stop, and instead we need to reckon seriously with the challenges to know, to ground knowledge, and to contrast that which is knowable from that which is provable beyond all doubt or possibility of error. And, we must understand that the criteria of warrant that we apply must be consistent, or we fall into the self- referentially incoherent delusions of selective hyperskepticism.
Very few cases of knowledge can be warranted to certainty [one of these is that error exists; which is undeniably true on pain of self contradiction], and in fact logical argument is no better than its assumed or asserted premises.
So, we need to recongise that we face inferences to best and inevitably provisional explanation and comparative difficulties of alternative views, as the DOMINANT issue in serious claims to have obtained well-warranted, credibly true beliefs; i.e. knowledge. I have long recommended the approach here. (And yes, this is a part of a course reader from a compulsory course in an Evangelical institution of higher education in the Caribbean. We should not make the mistake of thinking that half-remembered Sunday school lessons are representative of the full depth of Christian thought on such matters.)
4] A key test case on “circularity”:
Let us now observe P’s opening moves in his article on Zoe’s alleged fallacies:
a –> Immediately, we need to ask: why does Zoe (or other evangelicals) speak of a “self-authenticating Word”?
b –> For, it seems P has simply assumed as an implied premise that such is a patently absurd impossibility and/or obvious falsehood. But is that the case? [On pain of, yes: a circular argument by P.]
c –> but in fact if say we look at Clark Pinnock’s remarks in :
d –> In short just as a conversation with your mother is self-authenticating, those who have a live relationship with God in the face of Jesus — millions currently and across the ages (so it is not too hard to find out about this if you are serious on truth and fairness . . . ) — find the text of the Bible especially the promises in and around the gospel — cf. e.g. Isaiah 53 — to be a means of encounter with a living, self-authenticating person who transforms lives for the good.
e –> In short, such trust in God and his word as authenticated personally by life-transforming relationship, is not blind and ill-instructed intellectually indefensible faith, but a conforming to the reality that one experiences.
f –> And that, plainly, is not the fallacy of assuming what one should prove. (thus also, we see that P has fallen into the same intellectual error he would accuse Zoe of. And that is the typical sign of selective hyperskepticism in action. Not least, among modernist theologians and those who have fallen victim to their unfortunately selectively hyperskeptical views of the scriptures.)
g –> For those who need supporting arguments, from Ac 17 and 1 Cor 15 etc, the offer of warrant presented to the world by the Cristian faith is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth with 500 witnesses, leading to an unstoppable spiritual tsunami of blessing from the power of the cross. (You might want to start here.)
h –> In short, P’s chain of reasoning breaks at the very first link. (And at several following points, he proves himself out of date, e.g.t he Frazer golden Bough thesis that the Nt copies pagan legends and religious practices has long since passed its sell-by date. those interested in dealing with the current wave of attacks on the gospel in the wake of Dan brown and the Jesus Seminar etc,could begin from Lee Strobel’s recent interview book, The Case for the Real Jesus. (remember, Strobel is presenting the findings of a cluster of experts, by interview.)]
____________
G’day
Dictionary.
PS: Technician, your attempted discrediting by citing a hit piece — done while I was away visiting ailing parents in a remote location — has been answered here. You need to seriously consider what Mr Boyne was trying to support — inter alia dancehall vulgarity in the name of “freedom” — and the rhetorically improper tactics of immoral equivalency to terrorists he resorted to. I will not go into details on the violations of my person and privacy, and the legal implications of propagating a slander. I just point you to my critique published in the gleaner that the Gleaner had to publish as a brief corrective on, on Oct 29 2006 given just how far overboard Mr Boyne had gone.
PPS: On the homosexualist agenda. Zoe is essentially right in his post on the steps of homosexualisation, as Hunter and Marsden in the 1980s wrote a strategic action plan for the homosexualists in their After the Ball: (1) desensitise the culture to homosexualisation (often by appealing to “rights”), (2) jam the messages those who object (often by strawmanising and demonisising them), (3) convert people to the approval of in-your-face homosexuality. the play-out of this strategy is evident all around us.
kiki // December 1, 2009 at 4:21 AM
if man a god,
woman are satan
woman are woman
and man are man
Dictionary // December 1, 2009 at 4:32 AM
P
I have submitted a remark to the BU, in part on your article of yesterday.
I assume it awaits moderation.
Meanwhile here is the part on your first step in argument against Zoe:
+++++++++
4] A key test case on “circularity”:
Let us now observe P’s opening moves in his article on Zoe’s alleged fallacies:
a –> Immediately, we need to ask: why does Zoe (or other evangelicals) speak of a “self-authenticating Word”?
b –> For, it seems P has simply assumed as an implied premise that such is a patently absurd impossibility and/or obvious falsehood. But is that the case? [On pain of, yes: a circular argument by P.]
c –> but in fact if say we look at Clark Pinnock’s remarks in His The Scripture Principle :
d –> In short just as a conversation with your mother is self-authenticating, those who have a live relationship with God in the face of Jesus — millions currently and across the ages (so it is not too hard to find out about this if you are serious on truth and fairness . . . ) — find the text of the Bible especially the promises in and around the gospel — cf. e.g. Isaiah’>http://www.chaim.org/isaiah53.htm”>Isaiah 53 — to be a means of encounter with a living, self-authenticating person who transforms lives for the good.
e –> In short, such trust in God and his word as authenticated personally by life-transforming relationship, is not blind and ill-instructed intellectually indefensible faith, but a conforming to the reality that one experiences.
f –> And that, plainly, is not the fallacy of assuming what one should prove. (thus also, we see that P has fallen into the same intellectual error he would accuse Zoe of. And that is the typical sign of selective hyperskepticism in action. Not least, among modernist theologians and those who have fallen victim to their’>http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Intro_phil/Mod_Theol.htm”>their unfortunately selectively hyperskeptical views of the scriptures.)
g –> For those who need supporting arguments, from Ac 17 and 1 Cor 15 etc, the offer of warrant presented to the world by the Cristian faith is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth with 500 witnesses, leading to an unstoppable spiritual tsunami of blessing from the power of the cross. (You might want to start here’>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html”>here.)
h –> In short, P’s chain of reasoning breaks at the very first link. (And at several following points, he proves himself out of date, e.g.t he Frazer golden Bough thesis that the Nt copies pagan legends and religious practices has long since passed its sell-by date. those interested in dealing with the current wave of attacks on the gospel in the wake of Dan brown and the Jesus Seminar etc,could begin from Lee Strobel’s recent interview book, The’>http://www.amazon.com/Case-Real-Jesus-Journalist-Investigates/dp/031024210X”>The Case for the Real Jesus. (remember, Strobel is presenting the findings of a cluster of experts, by interview.)]
+++++++++++
In short, I think a revision of your basic approach is in order.
D
Dictionary // December 1, 2009 at 4:35 AM
PS: Something seems to have gone wrong with my links. Not sure why. Sorry.
Amused // December 1, 2009 at 5:56 AM
Anonymous // November 30, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Excellent. Well stated. One issue that I would ask you to look at, however, is the matter of partnerhip/union/marriage for gay people. My understanding is that this arises from the necessity of protecting the surviving member of such an arrangement. It is all very well to say that they should write a Will, but that will not prevent some people from trying to overthrow such a Will. Also, some people feel that the minute they make a Will, they will die, so they don’t make a Will and then, after they are dead, their families come in and push out the person with whom they have lived and who has probably had to take care of them, sometimes for over 50 years. Also, the moment they are judged incapable, if they are judged incapable, then the family has the right to push their partner out and, indeed, the hospital or other institution can elect to report to the family, rather than the person with whom they have shared their life. That seems to me to be the reasoning behind civil union legislation in other countries. Whether it is relevant in Barbados or not, is the subject for investigation and, if merited, action. My personal view is that it is all very well to say that gay people enjoy the same rights as others – but in light of what I have said above, do they? It seems to me that what you have said is that they should be satisfied with sufferance, rather than rights. If this is the case, maybe the question should be asked, “Would you be satisfied with sufferance rather than rights?”
@David. While very interesting, Uganda does not enjoy the tourist popularity of Barbados. We have to appeal to the European Community member countries (all of which sanction same-sex marriage/union) to Canada (which has amended its provincial marriages acts to allow marriage between same-sex parties) and to the Unites States which is now on a course to do the same. So, it is all very well to say to these, “Well only send us your heterosexuals.” But those heterosexuals probably have children or other relatives who are gay and they may take strong exception to visiting a country and spending those tourist dollars in a country that discriminates against their relatives/children.
You see, in those countries, to be gay or not is a non-event. It causes no ripples nor, indeed, any surprise or censure and there is hate crime legislation to take care of the rest. Barbados is not on the same page there, but seeks to entice these people to come and shell out their money in our country.
Just worth thinking about.
David // December 1, 2009 at 7:05 AM
@Amused
Agree with your argument partially. Forgive us if we appear to be naive and philosophical all at the same time. Your argument suggests that right and wrong as determined by societies is based on economic considerations only. Do you agree other considerations apply? Unfortunately the reality of the situation will dictate policy but generally should this be the case?
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 1, 2009 at 9:21 AM
@Amused // December 1, 2009 at 5:56 AM
“We have to appeal to the European Community member countries (all of which sanction same-sex marriage/union) to Canada (which has amended its provincial marriages acts to allow marriage between same-sex parties) and to the Unites States which is now on a course to do the same….You see, in those countries, to be gay or not is a non-event. It causes no ripples nor, indeed, any surprise or censure and there is hate crime legislation to take care of the rest. Barbados is not on the same page there,…” [It is NOT a non-event in the countries you cite, but an event that is put into a particular context. Many gay couples go through social and personal hell everyday, irrespective of what laws allow, because individuals and groups will still victimize or ostracize them. However, they do have some rights and protection.
Part of the difference is in putting up some walls that say 'go about your personal and private business'. That is not the same as having full national approval. It certainly gives no international approval. Another part is stopping a sort of public hyprocricy, which is often evident, when one type of sexual difference is treated as utterly 'untouchable' while others are passed over.
I would have more time for the various arguments against gays if I saw the same vigour against adultery or child beating or woman beating or stealing or other transgressions from the 10 Commandments. The religious 'cherry picking' is really hard to deal with.]
michael // December 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM
lux
Thus the concept of gay parenting is definitely far off from being a norm right now
The way the gay rights actives are pushing they agenda they want it to be seen as normal
The fact that they are more affluent means that people have more resources to focus on civil rights activism and such, and these countries have had
I think that these countries have used their affluence to indulge in things that are unnatural
I worry for the young children in society that never learn how to love each other for who they really are. I hope that our young blossoming heterosexual relationships are based on love, trust, honesty, instead of looks, status, or being heavily based on the ability to provide. I hope that while Barbadians are teaching young men not to be with men, we also teach them how to be good to their woman, how to love a woman, and be a father. And the other way around as well. There is a great deal of ‘depraved’ behaviour all around.
I am sure that we all would wish for this but we cant achieve it by supporting the homosexual agenda of the northern countries
“selling sexual services in Barbadian hotels is another matter”
Trust me i saw it happening
I’m personally more concerned with the case of two men, or two women, who truly find each other amazing
Yes lux I read what you have said
But yah know some ting I in wana here it, dah is dem business
I’d prefer if most people kept mention of their sexual activity to themselves, personally,
You must know that we culture like a hard joke now and then so how you expect this to stop I in know
Zoe // December 1, 2009 at 12:31 PM
@Praetorious, Nov 30, 09, @3:14 AM,
“No, no it’s not. There are many other texts which talk about how it all began, what went wrong, and how to fix it. The Bible is just another one. The New Testament is just a copy of other stories, like those of Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Krishna…How do you explain those stories which predate the Bible, but are essentially the same?”
“The onus is on you to assert that your particular fairytale is the right one. What if you are wrong?”
Praetorious, those other ‘fairytales’ i.e., Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Krishana, are just that, nothing but, ‘Myth’ no historic, logical, legal evidence of any kind whatsoever was/is presented, just mythological nonsense.
Whereas, the New Testament documents are the most attested from antiquity ever!
Christianity Is a FACTual Religion.
Christianity appeals to history, the *facts* of history, which P. Carnegie Simpson calls, ‘the most patent and accessible data.’ ‘He Jesus is a fact of history cognizable as any other.’
Christianity is based on indisputable facts!
Clark Pinnock defines this type of facts:
“The facts backing the Christian claim are not a special kind of religious fact. They are *cognitive* informational facts upon which all historical, legal, and ordinary decisions are based.”
“Faith in Christianity,” Paul Little writes, “Is based on *evidence*. It is reasonable faith. Faith in the Christian sense goes beyong reason, BUT, not against it. Faith is the assurance of the heart in the adequacy of the EVIDENCE.”
As John Montgomery asserts, that, “the inability to distinguish Jesus’ claims for Himself from the New Testament writer’s claim for Him should cause no dismay, since (1) the situation exactly parallels that for all historical personages who have not themselves chosen to write (e.g., Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Charlemagne). We would hardly claim that in these cases we can achieve no adequate historical portraits. Also, (2) the New Testament writers…record *eyewitness* testimony concerning Jesus, and can therefore be trusted to convey an accurate historical picture of Him.”
“Without an objective criterion,” says John Montgomery, “one is at a loss to make a meaningful choice among ‘a prioris.’ The Resurrection provides a basis in historical probability, not of certainty, but probability is the sole ground on which finite human beings can make any decisions. Only deductive logic and pure mathematics provide ‘apodictic certainty’ and that do so because they stem from self-evident formal axioms (e.g., the tautology, if A then A) involving no matter of fact. The moment we enter the realm of fact, we must depend on probality.”
The amazing collection of evidence, historical, legal, logical, circumstantial, positive, negative, etc, etc, the prepondence of which, overwhelmingly, support and confirm the historicity of the Person of Jesus Christ, both from internal sources, i.e., the Gospel accounts, and external sources, secular historians, can be denied, BUT, cannot be objectively, with any sense of intellectual honesty, refuted.
The rejection of Christ is often not so much of the ‘mind,’ but of the ‘will’; not so much ‘I can’t’ BUT, ‘I won’t.’
Most people reject Jesus Christ for one or more of the following reasons.
1. Ignorance – Romans 1:18-23 (often self-imposed), Matthew 22: 29.
2. Pride (ego) – John 5: 40-44.
3. Moral problem(s) – John 3: 19,20.
No, Praetorious, the ‘onus’ is on you, to refute the vast array of evidence and facts, many have tried and failed.
“The fallacy of ’selective hyperskepticism’ occurs when one exerts (perhaps inadvertently) a ‘double standard’ on the degree of warrant demanded for accepting matters of fact, matters which as Simon Greenleaf observed, can only be shown to be beyond reasonable doubt, i.e., to moral rather than demonstrative certainty. (This fallacy, unfortunately, is especially common in addressing matters relating to the underlying evidential basis for the Christian faith.) However, it can be relatively easily detected, and avoided. When one turns to the underlying root factors, one sees that there is a need to first address the self-referential inconsistencies in radical skepticism and associated evidentialism and narrow foundationalism. Once that is done, one may then proceed to a fairer examination of matters of fact in general and Christian evidences in particular.”
Praetorious, are you willing to do this?
If, as lawyers say, you come with ‘a willing mind’ to let the evidence and facts lead you, which you obviously have not done coherently up to this point, I can assure you, the ‘Light’ of the truth of the Glorious Gospel of Christ, will shine so brightly upon you, as He has done for literal multitudes across every nation, culture, every class of person, from the peasent to the scholar and intellectual, not a ‘religion’ with formalism and ritual, BUT, a Personal, Living, vibrant relationship with the Person of The Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has, and continues to transform lives across the nations of the world, from Communism in Russia, China, India, where millions are finding true purpose, peace, joy, and the *Gift* of eternal life, in, by, and through the only Saviour and Lord of mankind Jesus Christ.
All across Africa, South America, and even the Middle East, multiplied thousands upon thousands are being liberated from the bondage of ‘religion’ to freedom in Jesus. Many miracles are documented in Africa, India, et al countries, that are an amazing reality to what the Word of God declares can happen to those who put their trust, faith in Christ.
Facts are stubborn things, and only the stubborn refuse to accept them. (Martin Luther King, Jr).
michael // December 1, 2009 at 12:33 PM
@ dennis jones
it’s not that people like it, the gay lobby has invaded politics at every level ,pass laws to make people shut dhu mout,and so this is what you got now the world have to tow line like it or not ,don’t worry you soon will not be able to get the cloths you want you will have to ware what the gay men put in stores under the guise of fashion
Zoe // December 1, 2009 at 12:43 PM
@Dennis Jones, Yes, adultery, fornication, and other sins, have always been addressed, and are rampant througout all nations, BUT, are any of these other ’sinners’ as wrong as they are, seeking by a specific, well planned ‘agenda’ as clearly demonstrated by the Homosexualists activists, to transform societies into what they have openly stated IS their intention, to destroy our traditional foundation of ‘marriage’ between one man and one woman!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 1, 2009 at 6:16 PM
@ michael // December 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM
We may end up in a semantic debate. We can see each ‘normal’ as very different things. For instance, I see it as very normal for a black person to excel (coming from the Caribbean) yet live in a world where it is seen as an exception (eg living in the UK). Where we need to be careful is if the view that sees me as ‘abnormal’ puts me into a very inferior position as a result of that view: I am what I am, I would argue, and treat me with respect whatever you believe. It’s that kind of approach that has helped black people move from under the yoke of white people seeing them as ‘not fit’ to play key roles. If you do not know what that means, think of being clearly the best yet being treated as the worst.
Your “I hope…behavoiur all around” contain many of the sentiments that a good society needs. As I mention elsewhere, heterosexual relations built on hate and fear and abuse should feel the same harsh wind of criticism as any other relationship that people deem ‘unworthy’.
michael // December 1, 2009 at 12:33 PM “gay lobby has invaded politics at every level ,pass laws to make people shut dhu mout…” [Without wishing to be rude, this I find to be nonsense. If you believe that the 'gay lobby' has started to rule your life, then you have to explain who is voting this lobby in again and again. Your argument suggests that a minority group is being voted in repeatedly by a majority that opposes them. I cannot fathom that. If not then you're saying that the electorate and the population is just a bunch of idiots who have no clue what they are doing.]
Dictionary // December 1, 2009 at 8:32 PM
DJ:
A footnote, as I happened to pass back.
We live in a time where the very definition of marriage itself — thus of stable family (the foundation of stable people and societies . . . ) — is under ideological manipulation by radical and powerful homosexual-ISTS. People who have — for decades, back to at least the 60’s in sources I have seen — openly declared intent to undermine or even destroy the family itself in pursuit of creating a cultural comfort zone for sexual behaviour which is blatantly contrary to the plain and indeed obvious creational/ natural purpose of maleness and femaleness.
In turn, this is driven by the amoral, radical relativistic implications of evolutionary materialistic secular humanism; which thereby reveals its intellectual incoherence and moral bankruptcy.
For, if all knowledge is relative, there is no knowledge (including the “knowledge” that all is relative!); and if morality reduces to the interests of those who hold power in a culture, then it is well known (and has been known ever since Plato analysed Alcibiades’ community- destructive failings in The Laws, Book X) the resulting is-ought gap leads straight tot he terrible principle: might makes right.
By contrast, only when we have a foundational IS that is inherently moral can the IS solidly ground the OUGHT.
Historically — for good reason — in our civilisation, that IS has been understood to be the Lord God and Creator of the Bible; decisively answering the Euthyphro dilemma.
(As just one example of all this: in the case of UK overseas territories in the Caribbean, it has been subtly written into the draft constitutions passed to us by the FCO. Indeed, part of the subtext on the recent brouhaha on BBC regarding the accusation that the Cayman Islands adjusted draft establishes the Christian faith and values — cf the actual preamble here to see how the accusing UK MPs twisted the facts by distorting the clause they complained of and by suppressing the very next clause in their statements — was that in Clause 9, the Caymanians amended the FCO “right to marry” clause by inserting that adult persons have a right to marry a person of the OPPOSITE sex. No need to hold something so crude and unpredictable as a majority vote, just use positions of power and influence . . . media, courtrooms, financial intimidation, terms of getting aid projects and grants, etc, etc. And, to get an idea of how these folks play the public discussion game, cf this on another issue that is often headlined. Just substitute a few different terms, claimed “consensus” findings of science, use different buzz words and hijack the language of civil rights through questionable science and even more questionable redefintions.)
So, not only is the homosexual-IST agenda coming from very powerful quarters, but it is being pushed on us right here in the Caribbean.
And, the BBC — whose newsroom, according to knowledgeable eyewitness sources with whom I have conversed, is dominated by homosexual advocates [similar to the other major anglophone media trend-setter, the New York Times] — is a part of that process.
G’day
Dictionary
Dictionary // December 1, 2009 at 8:38 PM
PS: Reflect on the facet of Plato’s parable of the cave where manipulative shadow shows create a distortion and slavery that the denizens confuse for reality and freedom respectively. Simply update the technology to include ideologised education systems, mass media, Radio, TV and Internet-tied computers.
Or, as Jesus ever so aptly put it in the Sermon on the Mount:
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 1, 2009 at 8:49 PM
@ Dictionary // December 1, 2009 at 8:32 PM Some of your links are broken.
I am not much taken by conspiracy theories or notions of social lobbies trying to determine my life. I am taken by notions of large economically powerful lobbies trying to determine my life. As far as I can determine none of these has a sexual preference agenda.
If I put the various conspirers together, assuming that each bloc is valid, I wonder where they will meet. Just for one, where will the Jihadists and the so-called homosexual lobby find their point of intersection? Will non-Muslims all have been blown up before we can get a chance to be convinced about same sex marriages? Where should sane people turn?
Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 4:58 AM
DJ:
Your dismissive remark on “conspiracy theories” (in a context where we are dealing with a powerfully influential ideological movement not a behind- closed- doors conspiracy) in absence of engaging the specific examples I gave — e.g. attempted imposition of homosexualised marriage in the Caribbean through constitutional revision [e.g. clause 9 for Montserrat most emphatically does not have the "of the opposite sex" safety phrase] — is telling.
Here is clause 9 from Cayman:
[The Montserrat version, e.g., is identical in phrasing and numbering, but tellingly omits the highlighted phrase. "[R]ight” is also inappropriate in this context, as that implies that someone else has a duty to marry the person having that “right.” It would be more correct to say that one has the freedom to marry, but of course that cuts across the “same sex rights” movement’s catch-word. In short, this contrast between two Caribbean territories dealing with the UK government on this matter since the late 1990’s, reveals: [1] attempted imposition of homosexualisation of marriage IN THE CARIBBEAN, [2] that it is coming from the de-Christianised north, [3] that it is coming through use of position of influence, [3] that — as it uses the clever device of omitting a reasonable safety limitation and so takes effect by implication — it seeks to change law without open discussion of alternatives and implications costs and benefits, [3] it does so by hijacking the key — and emotionally loaded — concept of rights. Who can oppose a “right”? (But, is what we are dealing with, in light of the inherent nature of maleness and femaleness and the needs of children who take about 20 years to really reach maturity, is this a matter of right or of responsibility to provide a properly protective and sound family climate? And, I hold a similarly dim view of the tendency of concubinage and single parent families in our region.)
As to economic determinism/agendas and the like, I will simply cite that well known economist Lord Keynes, at the close of his epochal General Theory:
In short, policy is shaped by ideas, which may be held not only without being aware of them, but may be held through the classic error of perceiving them without critical assessment as “reality.” That is, the tyranny of unexamined metaphysics at the focus of the parable of Plato’s cave lurks yet again.
Down that road lies what Barbara Tuchman aptly described as The March of Folly.
But then, as Santayana warned, those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its worst chapters, AND by and large we refuse to learn those lessons.
Given the precedent of the manner of collapse of the Roman Republic and the onward course of the resulting Empire until the western portion fell apart utterly across C 5, I am extremely pessimistic on the prospects for not only our region but our civilisation; unless we wake up and seriously address the gravity of our situation before it is too late.
If, it is not already too late.
Dictionary
PS: FYI, the Caribbean is an emerging theatre of operations for the geostrategic, multidimensional contest — war has reverted to a complex of ideological, economic, social and military factors so that there are now no purely military strategies (if there ever were . . . per Clausewitz on war as the continuation of politics) — between the secularists, apostates and neopagans from the north, and the Islamists from the east. Both want us for cannon fodder. And we had better wake up to that pronto.
PPS: I have given a link on the Cayman draft constitution that SHOULD work. Failing that, google on that phrase, or try here for the download source page. If other links don’t work, let me know.
Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 5:31 AM
PPPS: Note too, Keynes’ suggested lag from ideas to power agendas on the ground: it is the ideas one meets in the years up to the second half of the third decade of life — the classic period in which BTW the great revolutionary Physicists formulated their epochal theories, e.g. Newton, Maxwell, Einstein — that take hold as policy when that generation rises to positions of power. That typically is in the 40’s – 50’s.
So we need to think back to the avant garde evolutionary materialist and secular humanist ideas of 15 – 25 years ago to predict which dead academics and what ideological agendas will most likely rule the immediate future.
For the Caribbean, that points to [1] repackaged marxism [hence private economic interests vs Government agendas presented as protecting environment or rights or sustainability of development needs, etc]. It also points to [2] the Hunter-Marsden 1980’s After the Ball agenda to exploit empathy for AIDS victims to promote homosexualisation of the culture. And, [3] it points to repackaging of other ideologies of global subjugation under the banner of resistance to real or imagined instances of Western oppression.
If that sounds uncomfortably close to our current global issues, it should.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 2, 2009 at 5:49 AM
@Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 4:58 AM You believe that “we are dealing with a powerfully influential ideological movement”. I do not.
I would not choose Montserrat and Cayman Islands as examples of ‘attempted imposition of homosexualised marriage in the Caribbean through constitutional revision’. Neither has self rule, so are very much at the behest of their ruler, the British Government.
Your quotation from Keynes, ‘ideas of economists and political philosophers..both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. ‘ is an opinion not a truth. I believe that both are powerful, but not all powerful. To believe otherwise would negate my Christian faith.
I could pull out some other Keynesian gems too. I could also point to many Keynesian theories that are totally wrong. So, make of his views what you will. But, I prefer to think it through for myself.
Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 6:09 AM
P4S: DJ, O/T — tidal wave 2 [TW2], from the East, not TW no 1, from the north — but important enough to footnote: Both Non-Muslims and non Jihadist muslims are being blown up — and otherwise massacred — by islamist radicals across the world on a routine basis, for decades. But if one is fixated on the West as the source of subjugation and oppression, one will be blind to the implications of the radical Islamist interpretations of Muslim traditions and history. For instance, one will not learn from the general media on the implications of the Black Flag army from the direction of Khorasan hadiths, which has been taken up by Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (Khorasan is E Iran and east thereof, with particular relevance to Afghanistan and Pakistan etc. Such armies are projected by the hadiths to be led by the mahdi, who will conquer the ME, massacre the Jews with the aid of Prophet Isa [an Islamic version on an eschatological Jesus] and subjugate the world. Once such armies emerge, muslims are urged in the relevant hadiths to join them even if they must crawl over ice and snow — highly relevant to the terrain just identified — to do so. Implications for the US’ ongoing engagement in that region, and for the ongoing Iranian push to get the nukes for the mahdi, are obvious. [And for those who still want to imagine that suitcase or backpack or footlocker nukes are a myth, kindly read here and here. Read here for a GUARDIAN article on IAEA concern over Iranian development of 2-point detonation, linear implosion nuke tech, the underlying basis for such nukes. The key tech issue is that critical mass is a shape-sensitive condition, so an implosion that pushes a previously sub-critical mass of fissile material into a more or less spherical shape can make it go supercritical. Guns and implosions are used for this, and a 2-point implosion design is the basis for the smallest nukes. NB: adding a fusion module would boost such a mini nuke to Hiroshima bomb power. City- buster power: read Manhattan and City of London etc here.)
But, we should not allow this TW 2 stuff to distract us from the core issue for this thread, a major aspect of TW 1.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 2, 2009 at 6:24 AM
@ Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 6:09 AM “But if one is fixated…” [I try to not be fixated. I've found that fixations means that I think I know what I see is all I need worry about and then something comes along to surprise me. I look around and am wary of many things, even those that seem benign.]
Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 6:39 AM
DJ:
Pardon, but you are being dismissive and strawmannish again.
I am citing specific cases where there is a sustained attempt since the late 1990’s to insert homosexual marriage into Constitutional law in the Anglophone, Commonwealth Caribbean, using leverage from inside institutions of power and influence, here the FCO of the UK.
You know or should know that legal precedent is powerful.
FYFI, Montserrat [where the imposition from the de-christianised north is closest to realisation . . . "duppy/jumbie know who fe frighten"] happens to be a founding — and historically influential — member of Caricom, and is also a member of the OECS.
Moreover, the underlying ideology of evolutionary materialist secular humanism and how it is imposed in the name of “rights” — which can have no stable grounding in such an inherently amoral and self-referentially incoherent system of thought — is what we need to recognise and address.
Starting from recognising as the Caymanians did, that marriage reflects an inherent creationally based natural complementarity of the opposite sexes.
A creational, natural complemetarity that the homosexualists would want us to forget. Exactly as Rom 1 warns.
G’day
Dictionary
PS: Most knowledge is “right opinion,” i.e. the mere fact that I have cited a statement by a major economist — whose ideas went on to shape a generation of global development thought [i.e. there is a measure of self-authenticating self-evidence in the point . . . ] — is not a sound basis for dismissing the point he had to make. The claim is unfortunately well warranted, and indeed, Keynes was hinting at e.g. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and co when he spoke of madmen in power distilling their ideas from scribblings of defunct politicians and ideologues. And in the context of the modern world, public policy is indeed strongly, decisively and predominantly shaped by lagged avant garde ideologies — as our own day demonstrates. [On the Christian view, from Ac 17, God uses the resulting chaos due to our willful sinful folly to bring our attention to the need to repent and seek reformation under Him. In short, this is Psalm 2 in action: the lords of the earth -- including the professoriat -- often rise up in rebellion and build systems in defiance of God, only to fall victim to confusion as at Babel. But, there is a better way if we are humble enough to learn that "the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom, so that it is fools who despise godly wisdom and instruction."]
Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 6:47 AM
PPS: DJ, the fixation I discussed is a generic challenge faced by many of our region’s intelligentsia today; and among many across our wider civilisation. It is of such longstanding prevalence that the marxists routinely exploited it through their “liberation movement” strategy for imposing Marxist dictatorship, and even Hitler used it when he rhetorically made Roosevelt look foolish to inquire on Germany’s expansionist intent across Europe and the ME in 1939. Roosevelt’s point was lost in the acid laugh over how Britain and France had carved up the colonised wider world, and on how Roosevelt sat on the bones of the dead Indians while pontificating on refraining from conquest. But after six years, 40 million dead and a devastated continent a harsh lesson had been taught on the importance of understanding that sometimes one has to side with the lesser of evils to resist a greater danger; while thereby building up credit points for demanding reformation of he lesser evil in the days to come. (It is no accident that there was a wave of independence post WW 2.)
Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 6:57 AM
Footnote: it should be clear that I am not advocating Keynesianism in general [while noting that his thought decisively reshaped economic thought so that all modern macro-thought is shaped by his insights]; just, noting a specific point where Lord Keynes was right — and was easily demonstrably right — on the influence of ideology as opposed to interests. So, the misleading strawman rhetorical stratagem of putting Keynesianism whole into my mouth to dismiss it and the specific claim at stake without having to address it on the merits, fails.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 2, 2009 at 8:29 AM
@Dictionary, my being ‘dismissive’ should not be a surprise: I disagree with your arguments so being ADmissive would seem contradictory.
I cannot accept as legal precedent something that should not apply. Montserrat and the Cayman Islands are NOT self-governing, so much of what they have to deal with is ‘imposed’ by their ruler, the British government. That does not set precendents for independent Caribbean/CARICOM countries. Being a member or Caricom etc does not change that basic governance issue.
The Caymanian view is just that…a view.
I’m glad that you are not advocating Keynesianism, as you would have many more battles to fight.
I would rather that, by remaining non-fixated, you will have time and energy and views to deal with the other pressing issues that are in front and around and behind us.
I see ’sexual abuse serious issue in the subregion’ as worthy for today. One of the study’s interesting findings is how people see it as ‘normal’ to have sex with minors.
Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 9:08 AM
DJ:
You know or should know that you need to engage issues on the merits: fact, logic, explanatory scope and power.
Dismissal without doing so is improper for a serious context. And that is what I objected to, explicitly. I do not appreciate the serial strawmannising of my remarks by snipping out bits and pieces to make up a simplistic version for a further dismissal rhetorical tack.
As to your idea that homosexualising constitutional law precedents in M’rat, Cayman TCI, BVI and I believe Anguilla too would have no influence in the Caribbean and wider Commonwealth, I simply suggest to you that the effort by the FCO’s mavens to put this through as a thin edge of the wedge speaks volumes to the opposite.
Besides, this is one of several current examples.
Just this morning the local AIDS committee coord read a UN statement from Mr Ban Ki Moon that spoke of protection of at-risk groups which is just as loaded with implications.
And, as Zoe has noted on above, the big push on Jamaica is EXPLICITLY towards targetting the whole Caricom region. As precedents show, once sodomy or buggery laws are off the books, the next push is to homosexualise marriage. (This was actually reported in the J’ca Star from a Canada based correspondent in 2008!)
D
Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 9:17 AM
PS: Sex abuse and physical abuse of those in one’s power are reprehensible, as is exploitation of minors — as I noted on already. But this should not be a distractor from other things that are important; as once Jesus rebuked his disciples for harshly criticising Mary of Bethany fro an extravagant act of worship and defiance of the authorities already plotting to kill Jesus — and her brother Lazarus. paraphrasing, the sex abusers and heterosexual pedophiles we have always with us, and can — and do [M'rat just had a major public consultation on the matter, duly sponsored by the Governor] — address them anytime. But, even failure to address that adequately does not then imply that we should be silent in the face of a global agenda of dechristianisation and one of its key points of effort, homosexualisation of our civlisation. Just, that we have yet another item to put on the national-regional agenda! “Both and,” not “either or but not both.” The red herring rhetorical tactic fails.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 2, 2009 at 9:26 AM
@ Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 9:08 AM “You know or should know that you need to engage issues on the merits: fact, logic, explanatory scope and power.” [I do and have, mentally. I certainly do not need to do that verbally, and given the nature of a blog, it seems to me inappropriate. I gave the essence of my views. I do not need to write a treatise or copy someone else's.]
I see no reason to change my view about the major difference between British Overseas Territories and independent countries. Your saying that it matters does not change the logic that I believe applies.
I have not heard the statement to which you refer, but am not surprised that it has ‘implications’. It would be meaningless otherwise. Whether it is loaded with them, or they are loaded, I cannot say. But in the larger scheme of things, I would not be too concerned with yet another UN statement.
‘As precedents show, once sodomy or buggery laws are off the books, the next push is to homosexualise marriage.’ [You really are pressing the pedal on air here. Nothing came of the action promised/threatened. Having an agenda and a plan of action is not a sin--it shows some sense of direction. That said, one group having it does not do anything to ensure that it makes progress. I like to give people credit that they will accept what they want to, not what is forced on them.]
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 2, 2009 at 9:36 AM
@Dictionary, what does ‘global agenda of dechristianisation’ mean in a world that is not predominantly Christian? Moreover, what could it mean when looked at historically for its relative newness as a religion. Have you decided to just do away with pre-Christian history?
I see plenty of red herrings, and grey mullets too.
Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM
DJ:
You have simply missed the point.
Again, the case ofcCayman etc showed that homosexualists are indeed pushing their agenda in the region, and are using institutional influences to do so; including pushing a precedent into Commonwealth Constitutional law.
As touchinghe implicaitons of removal of sodomy/buggery laws, you need to consider the very recent case of Lawrence in the US; which promptly led to the push for homosexualisation of marriage once an act of demonstrably unhealthy — cf comparative odds on getting HIV on being a participant in homosexual practices and on being a member of the population — perversion was twisted though law made from the bench into an acceptable practice of “love”, the first case being within six months.
And, the agenda in question is what was to be shown.
With several illustrative examples IN OUR REGION, it has.
And that is right on the money relative to the focus of the thread. And, so, that’s no red herring.
G’day
D
PS: You will note on global push of dechristianisation that the Christian faith and the civilisation that it has shaped over 2000 years is the most widespread in the world, and the most influential. The dechristianisation of our civilisation at the hands of secularists and neopagans with various types of apostates in support, has direct global consequences. And, some pretty serious implications once we see that radical relativist secular humanist evolutionary materialism — as has been known since the days of Plato’s the laws [as was linked already] is inherently amoral, setting out to undermine the basis for all values of consequence. Which is worse than simply immoral.
Zoe // December 2, 2009 at 12:35 PM
@Dennis Jones, Dictionary is undeviatingly and fittingly right in his appraisement of your attitude:
“Dismissal without doing so is improper for a serious context. And that is what I objected to, explicitly. I do not appreciate the serial *strawmannising* [that's all you've done DJ!] of my remarks by *snipping* out bits and pieces to make up versions for further dismissal [exactly so!] rhetorical attack.” emphasis added.
DJ, you simple cannot deal with the cogent, well-founded, well-gounded, telling points of argument, so coherently presented by Dictionary; you fail terribly in not engaging as he correctly points out, ‘….issue of the merit: facts, logic, explanatory scope and power.
You then seek cover and hide behind, “I do and have, mentally. I certainly do not need to do that, and given the nature of a blog [cop out, DJ!) it seems to me inappropriate [another Croak, DJ!] I do not need to write a treatise or copy someone’s else’s.”
You then go on to say, “I would rather that, by remaining non-fixated, you will have time and energy and views to deal with ‘other’ pressing issues that are in ‘front’ and ‘around’ and ‘behind’ us.”
DJ, the serious issues that Dictionary has presented, coupled with other’s that are pressing on with their agendas world wide, with the Caribbean region identified as another trageted arena for this immoral thrust of imposition, et al, are most certainly, to use your own words, ‘…that are in *front* and *around* and *behind* us.” emphasis added.
DJ, sorry man, but at this point, your ‘feet’ seem to be firmly planted in mid-air!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 2, 2009 at 12:58 PM
@Zoe, “DJ, you simple cannot deal with the cogent, well-founded, well-gounded, telling points of argument, so coherently presented” [If this is an example, I rest my case on the matter that little coherent material has been presented. A lot of words, often without too much real content. Thinking is what we are encourged to do as adults, not constantly needing to verbalise. Try to spend a few hours in a library and you'll find a lot of quiet and profound thought going on. I'm happy to think more and write less.]
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 2, 2009 at 1:01 PM
@ Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM “You will note on global push of dechristianisation that the Christian faith and the civilisation that it has shaped over 2000 years is the most widespread in the world, and the most influential.” [Utterly untrue, and if you want to cast aside the world that existed more than 2000 years ago, feel free. Many religions that had their bases 1000-3000 years before Christ are still going strong and are extremely influential. I suggest you widen your religious studies.]
Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 2:32 PM
DJ
Sigh.
You are again twisting my words, to the point where your seriousness or comprehension are in doubt.
You are sufficiently educated that you know, or should know better than you argue.
Surely, you can do better than this.
Onlookers, observe that DJ has simply failed to address the context, substance and implications of dechristianisation based on radical relativist evolutionary materialist secular humanism and associated movements in our civilisation.
That civilisation, in turn, is both beyond reasonable dispute the dominant force in our world today, and is strongly shaped by the Judaeo-Christian tradition. [Indeed Western Culture as we know it today was a synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome made by a certain tent-making rabbi from Tarsus in Cilicia.]
Moreover, the attack on the moral core for our civilisation that has historically been provided by Judaeo-Christian theism over much of the past 2,000 years, will if successful replace a worldview that grounds morality in the only IS that can ground oughts — cf. my above remarks and links on the Euthryphro dilemma and on evolutionary materialism [notice how studiously such substantial issues are being ducked in the attempt to play at points-scoring distractive and dismissive rhetoric] — with amorality.
That experiment was tried before, 2,400 years ago in Athens. The key individual concerned was a certain Alcibiades. Plato’s the laws, Book X, highlights the result; which was disastrous.
And so, we must understand the fire the homosexual-ISTS — note my emphasis on an “ISM” — are playing with as they seek to de-moralise our civilisation through distorting or destroying marriage, family and the undergirding historic underpinnings for such institutions; to create a comfort zone for their addictive — and unhealthy — sexual preferences and habits. (And, I hasten to add, that I here distinguish people who may have and may struggle with same sex attractions and behaviours, from those who have turned this into a worldview and associated, patently destructive socio-cultural and policy agenda.)
Of course this is but one prong among a great many in a broad-scale assault on the foundations of our civilisation; it is not even the most insidiously destructive prong.
(That “honour” is reserved for the wrenching of science through the injection of evolutionary materialism, which is the root of a radical secular humanist, utterly and inherently amoral agenda.)
But the homosexualist agenda is one of the prongs we must understand and take the measure of, and defend ourselves from, if our region is to be saved.
It is no secret that I think the issue is in doubt [if we are lucky . . . ], and that I am very pessimistic for our civilisation at large.
For our region, we just might have a chance.
Might . . .
But, will we take the strenuous and exceedingly painful and costly actions that will be required if we are to survive the rough ride ahead?
That, sirs, is the question.
On that, I have severe doubts, but not as severe as for the wider civilisation.
G’day again
Dictionary
PS: I will make this prediction. If our civilisation survives the next 50 years, China wins. But, it is a China that is Prester John II, i.e. by then it will have passed the critical 25% Christian threshold — it is already at about 10% and growing fast — and that will make it oddly the new standard bearer of “our” civilisation. My bet — and it is a hunch not a certainty — though, is that well within that time, we will see the culmination of the vision of the statue in Daniel 2 as the stone cut out without human hands strikes and shatters the proud image of man’s kingdoms, and becomes a mountain filling the whole earth. Psalm 2 will therefore hold with double force, so let us learn to kiss the Eternal Son of the Ancient of Days!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM
@Dictionary // December 2, 2009 at 2:32 PM “Surely, you can do better than this.” [I'm not sure. But what would it change if I did better? You do not give me the impression that I will change your views, and I can tell you clearly that your arguments wont change mine. That does not stop me pointing out flaws in what I see in your comments. It's not a debating contest from which one will be declared 'winner'. But I do find a need to not let what I see as a series of wrong or misleading statements just run. You obviously feel the same. So, we try to improve.]
I try to read carefully, so bear with me if I get lost. For example, you write: “I will make this prediction”. Then in the same paragraph you add “My bet — and it is a hunch not a certainty”. Predictions, bets, and hunches are not all the same thing. So, I really have no clear idea what you are telling me. If I were a betting person, I would not know how to wager with you.
I’ve no need for a reply.
Zoe // December 2, 2009 at 8:06 PM
@Dennis Jones, I can safely say, that regarding the posts of Dictionary, you obviously don’t have a ‘clue’ what is going on, (knowledge) wise, on all of the subject matter, that he has briefly but competently posted, which is just one side of the coin, the other, IS, that you don’t understand the meaning of what constitutes ‘coherence’ ‘congruence’ nor logic in a well presented, factual case.
The major problem with you, clearly, is that your are a ‘natural man’, [pseuchikos de anthropos] which the Word of God, states, (does not, rejects, refuses to accept) the things of the Spirit of God. Why is this so? Because, they are *foolishness* to him, nor can he know (understand) them, (Why not?) because they are spiritually discerned. (I Cor. 2:14).
The ‘forces’ behind all that Dictionary has so ably and capably articulated, are in opposition to the Kingdom of God, in Christ, through His Gospel, forces that utterly hate the Truth and Light of God’s Word, and will blind men, even the intelligentsia are woefully ignorant to what is, in reality, transpiring, who sneer at Christ and Christianity in their own blinded ignorance, because they cannot know (ou dunatai gnonai), they are not able to get knowledge. Their helpness condition calls for pity in place of impatience on our part (Christians) though such a one usually poses as a paragon of wisdom, and commiserates the deluded followers of Christ, men of intellectual gifts who are ignorant of the things of Christ, talk learnedly and pratronisingly about the things of which they are grossly ignorant.
The spiritually regenerated man, is on an entirely different level of knowledge, regarding these matters.
But, we are warned by our Saviour and Lord, Jesus Christ, where there are numerous references to the *enmity* *hostility* and *opposition* which the secular world displays towards Christ, believers, and the Church, Jesus said:
“The world…hates Me because I testify of it, that its works are EVIL” (John 7:7). He also made it clear that the world *hates* His disciples, because they are not of it (John 15: 18-19). The same theme is repeated in Jesus’ high-priestly prayer (John 17:14).
The reason for the different understandings, IS that different *spirits* are involved. To the Spiritually regenerated man we are told:
“Now we have not received the *spirit* of this world (system) BUT, the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand (comprehend, know) the gifts bestowed on us by God.” ( I Cor. 2:12)
The clear unmistakable message which God here gives to those who are His, through Christ Jesus, and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit, involves a mindset, a frame of reference, completely different, foriegn, from the world’s way of viewing and perceiving reality!
It is just not a battle of the intellect, it goes way beyond this, it is a war that rages on in the realm of the ’spirit’.
“For we wrestle NOT *against* flesh and blood, BUT *against* principalities, *against* powers, *against* rulers of the DARKNESS of this age, *against* spiritual hosts of *wickedness* in the heavenly places.” (Eph. 6: 12) emphasis added.
Note the preposition (pros) AGAINST these evil forces is used five times in this verse. ‘The world-rulers of this darkness (tous kosmokratoras tou kosmou toutou). This phrase occurs here alone. In John 13:30 Satan is called “the ruler of this world” (system) (ho archon tou kosmou toutou). In II Cor. 4:4 he is termed “the god of this age” (ho theos tou aionos toutou). These “world rulers” are limited to “this darkness” here on earth. “In heavenly places” (en tois epouraniois). Clearly so here. Our “wrestling” is with *foes* of evil natural and supernatural.
Naturally, the ‘natural’ man, will scoff at this, mock it, for he cannot discern, comprehend it!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 2, 2009 at 8:34 PM
@Zoe, I bow to your superiority in all things. I humbly hope that you will offer a course onto which I can enrol. I especially look forward to the course in concise writing, and hope that I can complete it painlessly. I would prefer if it were online to allow me to get on with my other activities. Looking forward to some proposed dates.
Dictionary // December 3, 2009 at 3:11 AM
Onlookers:
It is sadly clear that no reasonable dialogue with DJ will be possible under the terms he has now so plainly set out. This is sad, but is ever so typical of our civiilisation’s current unhealthy status, where rhetoric ever more supplants serious discussion on the merits of the facts and logic of issues; towards the truth.
We need to understand our times, and know what we of the Caribbean need to do.
So, with a particular eye to the homosexualist agenda and associated issues and concerns, I note on some points:
1 –> The rise of incidence and prominence of homosexuality and the associated homosexualist attempts to redefine marriage and family values are a part of a much broader de-moralisation and ongoing disintegration of our civilisation. in the broader context, this brings to mind the Apostle Paul’s warning tot he church in Ephesus:
2 –> In the narrower context, we must understand that the accelerating breakdown of morality, especially sexual morality in BOTH heterosexual and homosexual forms [and all sorts of other things are in train, e.g. bestiality . . . ] is a sign of how our culture has become morally benumbed and intellectually en-darkened.
3 –> In slightly broader terms, as the senses of ever so many have increasingly been benumbed by a progressively deadened conscience and ever more jaded appetites, there is a trend to addiction to ever more bizarre forms of sensualist behaviour, in part to compensate for that loss of sensitivity.
4 –> The result of such patterns is evident all around us, and is personally, familially, institutionally and socially destructive. So, we have to come to our senses and stop the madness before the march of folly utterly destroys our civilisation.
5 –> On the principle of planks and sawdust in eyes, that starts with each of us. Let us look honestly at ourselves, starting with Internet, TV, magazine etc viewing habits and associated indulgences in sexual fantasies & self-stimulation and hankering for novel and increasingly bizarre sex. (E.g., I gather pornography is the no 1 single use of the Internet; which directly feeds the lust addictions.)
6 –> Then, let us repent and seek counselling support, renewal of life and step by step reformation; with that empathy that understands what it is like to be trapped in sinful, addictive behaviours, and destructive habits.
7 –> Circles of trusted accountability and mutual honesty will help; as has now become a more or less standard practice for recovery groups.
8 –> Then, we can see how to work on reformation of the wider community, to slow down and if possible stop the rush over the cliff of amorality. We will also have built up considerable expertise and capacity to help the wider community.
9 –> That starts with recognising how even in families, sexual chaos is propagated.
10 –> For instance, years ago, I remember being near Collymore Rock and hearing a 12-YO girl explain why the porn magazine I had just confiscated from an 8 YO boy and destroyed was no big thing: “Some Fathers does make their sons watch to see how you does burse . . . mary jane.” [I got the distinct impression she was the girl who provided the hymen used for the "demonstration" in question. And, years later, when I spoke to a professional counsellor on the incident, he said that such behaviour was so out of the ordinary that it suggested that a real onward intent on the part of the man in question was to "do" the boys; having desensitised them to sexual behaviour (and to doing such things before an audience . . . could this be one of the sources for that rash of home-grown porno videos, including the "legendary" "snuff" ones? I shudder to think of what use was made of "anatomically correct" lollipops brought to my attention). God, have mercy on the victims of such abuse!]
11 –> In short, bizarre and abusive sexual behaviour tends to come in clusters, and to propagate though abuse and exploitation of those whom one has in his power or can draw in through morally desensitising materials and behaviour. (I think this issue is still primarily one of men.)
12 –> So, the key to the wider problem is to break the chain of propagation, starting with discouraging access to morally benumbing materials and helping those at risk. in this, our churches should become centres of compassion, refuge, renewal, liberation and rescue — which will be a natural result of dealing with the planks in our own eyes first. And, that includes those enmeshed in homosexual and other sexual sins and patterns of abuse.
+++++++++++
So, we all face a sobering challenge.
But, with a whole civilisation at risk, we have little choice but to rise to meet it.
Dictionary
PS: I note, too, that P has not come back to us on the issue of circularity in the context of how the reality of God and the experience of supernatural, transforming encounter with him in the face of Jesus on the promises in the Scriptures makes the said scriptures self-authenticating to those who will reach out to the Eternal Fount of blessing. Millions over the ages and today — including many leading lives in our civilisation — have thus met the Living, Loving, but Holy God in the face of Christ. thus the chain of alleged fallacies P put forth collapses, and indeed turns in on itself. [For, it is not hard to find many shining examples of such transformed lives through encounter with the living God in the face of Jesus here in the Caribbean.]
Dictionary // December 3, 2009 at 4:32 AM
PPS: On Predictions and expression. DJ, observe I made a conditional prediction IF . . . THEN . . . . After that, I put up where my thoughts are on the trend breaker; that is I am betting the trend will not hold long enough for China to emerge in that role. But, if the breaker does not happen, China will be the leading power in the world in 50 years, but will be significantly diverse from our popular images due to the strong growth of Christianity in China; hence Prester John II. And, providing one understands conditionality in logic, and the issue of trends and trend breakers, that should be clear enough.
PPPS: On the issue of “length” — hence the fallacious appeal to brevity as a criterion of implied soundness or being worthy of attention — complaints, I think we need to think about the issue of being long enough to be responsible in addressing an issue on the merits instead of emotional manipulation and ill-founded appeals to adherence to particular parties. One of the ironies of semi-popular discussions is that he soundest arguments are usually the least persuasive ones; because emotional appeals are both very persuasive and have no better warrant than the underlying logic and facts provide — which is precisely what is NOT being stressed in such an appeal. As Plato wrote in the laws, Book 10, on this, in the voice of Cleinas:
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 3, 2009 at 5:43 AM
@Zoe and Dictionary, I like to fuel good discussion, and as I said, I am not fixated. You may want to read the following articles and think about how, if at all, they may affect your thinking.
The NY Senate votes down legislation on same sex marriages, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/12/02/new.york.same.sex.marriage/index.html
Actress Meredith Baxter confirms she is a lesbian, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/02/meredith.baxter.lesbian.mom/index.html
What do we do about mice with 2 mothers? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18229-do-mice-with-two-mothers-spell-the-end-for-men.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
In general, I would appreciate it if you did not treat things that you do not like as fallacies. Brevity and clarity are important in bringing along more people in a debate. Not everyone can deal with extremely long and convoluted arguments. I can, but I think of the broader body of readers and commentators.
kiki // December 3, 2009 at 7:23 AM
My pooter seems to have a MIND OF IT’S OWN…
i get some weird biblical end of the world prophecy sayings it’s 11.55pm on the doomsday clock and we have 5 minutes left till the rapture and tribulation
• Will there be a one-world system or global economy? Yes.
• Will diseases increase such as AIDS & new ones appear? Yes.
• Will alternate life styles increase, prosper & become accepted? Yes
THE TRIBULATION is the worst time in history since man has been on the earth. Immediately following the Rapture, the man of sin (called the Antichrist) comes forth. It appears he assumes control of the EU. He can be expected to be very charismatic and brilliant. He confirms a treaty with Israel and others, which begins the Tribulation-ref. Dan 9:27.
Dictionary // December 3, 2009 at 7:26 AM
Mr Jones:
When I have had reason to identify a flawed argument as fallacious, I have in each case taken time to show why. [But then, when I have done that you now reverted to accusing me of failing to be brief. Heads DJ wins tails Dictionary loses, nuh?]
It is not merely a labelling of what I disagree with as a fallacy.
My addressing of the circularity of P’s first argument above, is a case in point. So have been several of my responses to claims you have made.
I would appreciate it if you would refrain form making further false accusations and strawmanised distortions.
Good day
D
michael // December 3, 2009 at 7:43 AM
@ dennis jones
“Your argument suggests that a minority group is being voted in repeatedly by a majority that opposes them. I cannot fathom that. If not then you’re saying that the electorate and the population is just a bunch of idiots who have no clue what they are doing.] ”
IDIOTS
when one is lazy and a person come to one and say I too share your concerns,I am running as a representative for,…what ever party….,will you vote for me? one say yes with out checking their back ground after these people are elected to government you find that they are also representative of another pressure group pushing an alternative agenda,
I could not put this as good as Dictionary has put it,what i will say,it looks to me that Dennis has missed the point on legal precedent in law no one country or jurisdiction is an island to it self what happens in Anguilla today will be in Barbados Jamaica or even Australia tomorrow, but most of the time these precedents come from the larger countries
Zoe // December 3, 2009 at 8:07 AM
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
-Plato
Dictionary // December 3, 2009 at 8:07 AM
A footnote:
DJ has indirectly — he linked a speculative article on how cloned mice with two mothers live longer and so NS leads with: “If you believe some reports, the future of humanity is a super race of genetically-engineered women who can reproduce without men.” — invited us to address the logical breakdown inviolved in trying to infer from ISES of animal behaviour to the OUGHTS of human behaviour.
To help us see the destructively amoral implications of the underlying logically incoherent and morally empty evolutionary materialist thought [and new Scientist is too often an advocacy rag for precisely this worldview, in the name of science], I will cite from Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Bk 1 Ch X:
In short, we cannot properly infer from the ises of hormonally imbalanced or otherwise defective or lab manipulated mice, to human moral standards of behaviour; for ises do not ground oughts, save in the case where the God of Creation is inherently good in character and creates a world which therefore reflects that moral principle.
As to citing how some misled American politicians are seeking to redefine marriage without understanding the consequences [or worse, in some cases perhaps BECAUSE they understand and desire some of the consequences . . . ], or citing how yet another Hollywood star turns out to be a homosexual, that only underscores the pattern of the surging tidal wave of dechristianisation and de-moralisation penetrating our region from the north. [That is why in part I now refuse to pay EC$ 100+ per month for Cable TV moral filth. And, I refuse to watch CNN news anymore. We should, BTW, be aware that he lead host of 360, Mr Cooper, is a homosexualist advocate.]
but, on the latter case on Ms Baxter, let us observe an point of contact with our region:
In short our tourist industry is one of he means by which our moral foundations are being corrupted from the North. (I recall a wave of threats of economic boycott, on cases such as in Nevis, where a shipload of 110 naked homosexual men were refused admission to port as a violation of public morality.)
In short, we see yet another set of illustrations of the underlying problem. So, let us look at ways we can address it, starting with taking the planks out of our own eyes. [Cf my earlier comment today as one suggestion for a way forward.]
D
Dictionary // December 3, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Footnote: response in moderation, perhaps because of a reference to herr Schicklegruber’s thought patterns.
Anonymous // December 3, 2009 at 9:49 AM
The battle of the egos here.
DJ vs Dictionary +Zoe
Bets anyone?
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 3, 2009 at 10:02 AM
@Anonymous // December 3, 2009 at 9:49 AM “Bets anyone?”[Take my name out. I have already bowed to Zoe, and looking at Dictionary's latest reply, I see that topsy can grow from anything. I merely suggested 'You may want to read the following articles and think about how, if at all, they may affect your thinking.' but got in response 'DJ has indirectly — he linked a speculative article on how cloned mice with two mothers live longer and so NS leads with: “If you believe some reports, the future of humanity is a super race of genetically-engineered women who can reproduce without men.” — invited us to address the logical breakdown inviolved in trying to infer from ISES of animal behaviour to the OUGHTS of human behaviour.'
I will watch the two person Zoe-Dictionary race to the end, if I am around.]
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM
@ Dictionary // December 3, 2009 at 8:07 AM Thanks for ‘A footnote:’ [I'm now truly speechless.]
Dictionary // December 3, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Onlookers:
Observe that the onward responses above do not address substance substantially; now, as — sadly — expected.
Motive mongering and strawmannish dismissive rhetoric, but no real addressing of issues on the merits.
On the subject chosen for the dismissive remarks above, perhaps we should observe that:
(i) what is — and can reasonably and freely be — done with MICE in a lab is not at all comparable to what ought to be done with people (unless some really serious moral questions have been seriously weighed and decisively answered).
(ii) The elimination of an entire sex of humanity — what the NS article speculates about when it opens: “If you believe some reports, the future of humanity is a super race of genetically-engineered women who can reproduce without men” — not only:
(a) raises the implication that the remainder of the race would of necessity be reduced to lesbianism [the other type of homosexuality], but
(b) also raises very troubling issues on a type of genocide (wiping out half of humanity); and,
(c) entails imposition of a ruthless tyranny to enforce it.
Thus, again we can see through the exchange in this thread the need for a very serious rethink on how evolutionary materialist secular humanism, often in a lab coat, undercuts, dismisses and sometimes is simply hopelessly blind to serious moral issues.
Which is also precisely the underlying issue on the ongoing attempt to homosexualise our civilisation, often under the false colours of the findings of “science.”
In other words, some very serious reflections on morality, science and public policy need to be done, if our region is to effectively respond tot he homosexualist prong of the deChristianising tidal wave from the north.
G’day
D
Dictionary // December 3, 2009 at 4:38 PM
PS: And that is before we address fairly serioustechnical issues on the validity of suggested findings for mice. E.g. :
“There were only 13 mice in each group, which were all relatively short-lived. In other experiments, females from the same strain have lived for an average of around 860 days – longer than both groups in the experiment. “This makes it trickier to interpret the claim that the bi-maternal mice are unusually long-lived,” says Richard Miller, who studies the genetics of ageing at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.”
[Junk science in pursuit of politically correct junk policy and duly propagated by the media spin machine, anyone? Sounds familiar? It should, indeed it should.]
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM
@Dictionary, when I mentioned fixation before you probably did not understand clearly what I meant…not least because we do not think the same. Fixation means that you tend to see what you are looking for in whatever you regard. To me, the danger is that you miss other things.
When I spoke about brevity my mind was reflecting on what research shows happens when people read material online. Jakob Nielsen, a web-usability expert, says that “the online medium lends itself to a more superficial processing of information”. People surf and do not get deep learning from long online text. Nielsen noted that our focus moves around the screen in an F pattern. We start scanning horizontally, but soon drop down to see what else is there. By the time we are half way down a web page, we are tuning out. This is worse for things like blog comment fields.
So, my point was simply that by offering very long expositions you were probably losing most of your readers, irrespective of what sense you felt you had to offer.
Nada mas.
Dictionary // December 3, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Mr Jones:
Whether or not many people skim rather than survey or even scan properly, the issues do need to be addressed responsibly on the merits.
For, only soundly based decisions are safe. (And, in the real world, that often boils down to making sure the decisions are robust – or at least minimising of regret — across optimistic, pessimistic and moderate scenarios.)
That is what I have set out to do.
I find your switch of subjects just now interesting, now that I came back and addressed the specific application of the is-ought issue I had in mind in more details, given your evident failure to see the connexions.
I trust we can get back to the substantial issue.
G’day
D
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 3, 2009 at 6:20 PM
@Dictionary, “only soundly based decisions are safe”? If you take only soundly based decisions you will be dead because they take too much time to process. Impulse and instinct are very important in ensuring safety and survival.
“I trust we can get back to the substantial issue.” You cannot define for anyone other than yourself what a substantial (sic) or substantive issue is. We argue as we see issues, and that is quite varied.
Time to figure out if there is another military coup in Guinea. That’s a substantive issue for me.
Zoe // December 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM
@Dennis Jones, Your last post continues to exemplify the depth of your shallowness, and trivial disregard for serious matters, such as Dictionary continues to address, which you have NOT ONCE being able to offer any reasonable, cogent, valid objective argument against, BUT, rather, continue, as Dictionary correctly points out:
“Motive mongering and *strawmannish* dismissive rhetoric, but no real addressing of issues on the merits.”
DJ, seriously, any child could make the empty, barren, voidless, rhetorical dismissive remarks that you make; for it takes no effort of intellect to be so inconsonant, incongruous!
And, this is again loudly confirmed by yet, another of your inept remarks.
To Dictionary’s “…only soundly based decisions are safe” Your empty rhetoric was, “If you take only soundly based decisions you will be dead because they take too much time to process. Impulse and instinct are very important in ensuring safety and survival.”
Man, this is precisely why so many are in such a state of delusion, deception, and folly, heading for the precipice of destruction, one way or the other, ignorant of so much that IS already on its way to overthrow their freedoms, in many areas of life that have been taken for granted.
The encyclopedic mind of Dictionary, a man tremendously blessed of God with an incredible reservoir of knowledge and accurate, valid information, that we in the Caribbean should be grateful for, one of our ‘brothers’ a scholar ‘par excellence’ not only in Physics, but in many other disciplines, i.e., History, Philosophy, Logic, Theology, among others, a man who DOES NOT speak off the top of his head, but knows, understands, grasp, and is able to articulate any of his subject points, with amazing logic, objectivity, coherence, congruence, and, instead of being thankful and greatful for such an intellectual giant among us, what do we find here on BU, nothing but utter disdain, scorn and contempt, from the likes of DJ and others, a shameful and disguisting lack of common sense, in not being able to perceive truth and facts when presented by one like Dictionary.
No wonder DJ et al, are unable to discern what really constitiutes *substantials* issues of our day, in light of what is so obviously well planned, for the social and family destruction of our civilization, and IS well under way, but, stupidly says:
“You cannot define for anyone other than yourself what is substantial (sic) or substantive issues. We argue as we see issues, and that is quite varied.”
Logic directs us how we ought to think, critically, pointing us away from faulty premises and erroneous conclusions.
History IS replete with this attitude of humanity toward critical, objective, analysis of facts, evidence, and truth.
Sadly, when most realize what IS in fact transpiring, IT will be too late to heed the warnings, that men like Dictionary , who are sounding the trumpet, are doing.
Just like it WAS in the days of Noah, they all laughed and scoffed at this man of God, who WARNED the masses, NO one heeded his call to repent….BUT, it was too late when they saw what was happening, ….. it was TOO LATE!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 3, 2009 at 8:29 PM
@Zoe, I already bowed your superiority. I am going to spend the evening trying to understand what ‘depth of your shallowness’ means.
I will then turn to understanding ‘empty, barren, voidless’, and if time allows try to tackle ‘it takes no effort of intellect to be so inconsonant, incongruous!’
I cannot understand how my ‘inept remarks’ generate so much by way of response.
But I will gladly sign up for teaching by ‘The encyclopedic mind of Dictionary’. I have time free coming so dates should not be a problem. I would prefer if I could do that in Barbados rather than have to travel to another island.
Crusoe // December 3, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Errr..should I say ‘Onlookers’?
Blogger Dictionary above refers to ‘For, only soundly based decisions are safe. (And, in the real world, that often boils down to making sure the decisions are robust – or at least minimising of regret — across optimistic, pessimistic and moderate scenarios.)’
But, then the same blogger uses as one basis of his argument, Hitler’s writings as ‘authority’?
Bizarre! Not only in source of authority but in the paragraph chosen, which in itself is rooted in subjective thought.
I am usually the last to use a criticism against the person, rather the argument, but must say, as a necessary exception, that here is surely one of those posts that exemplifies why the internet comes with a caveat, to filter what one reads because some of it (or much) comes from nutjobs.
Totally bizarre really.
Crusoe // December 3, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Above ‘ is under ideological manipulation by radical and powerful homosexual-ISTS. People who have — for decades, back to at least the 60’s in sources I have seen — openly declared intent to undermine or even destroy the family itself ‘
But, ‘marriage’ has never been that ‘big’ in Barbados per se, except for the Middle Class, surely?
How many families have brothers and sisters from various couplings?
Can we really rely on a statement that displays marriage as a cornerstone for the society when it never was?
Surely the real cornerstone of Barbadian society has been matriarchal i.e. the mother and her sisters bringing up the children, while the fathers bring in money, but the mothers effectively run the homes?
Bit of a devil’s adovate here, but surely this bears considering?
kiki // December 3, 2009 at 10:19 PM
sorry for not being totally p.c.
just wanted to kill this blog fe dead
Boom Bye Bye
Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 4:08 AM
Crusoe:
Pardon but you plainly have not read with due care and attention; to the point of utter twisting of what I had to say above on Herr H’s views.
And, since I made it utterly clear that I was citing Herr H as a case of what NOT to do, your rhetoric is at best inexcusably careless of truth and fairness; at worst, it is downright dishonest.
Cho man, do betta dan dat!
I think if you would take a moment to look back above you will see I cite herr Schicklegruber — and BTW, how do I know to use that particular “real” family name? — as an example to AVOID of what goes wrong if:
1 –> You adopt a mindset shaped by avant garde evolutionary materialist thought [ever since Alcibiades c 400 - 430 BC, if Plato is any guide!], including as packaged under the false colours of “science” and even if presented by credentialled scientists. (Cf the above linked cases on how some of the scientific, public relations and educational malpractices of today are beginning to unravel, e.g. the presently unfolding data cooking, journal publication rigging and IPCC manipulation scandal at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.)
2 –> Thus, even if repackaged in neo-pagan terms [in the case of Schicklegruber, Aryan Man mythology as championed by Madame Blavatsky and co, e.g. that is why a certain crooked broken cross -- guess who loves to play with broken crosses . . . ? -- was used . . . ], the amorality of the worldview of evolutionary materialism dominates, leading to nihilistic law-unto-oneself attitudes and behaviour
3 –> In particular, Schicklegruber claimed to be “scientifically” grounding his racism and aggression in observations of natural behaviour: animals kept their “races” pure and cats take no pity on mice, etc. (H G Wells actually gave a thinly veiled warning on this in the opening remarks in his War of the Worlds novel in 1897-8, as he saw the implications of such amoral evolutionary materialism only too well. Heine, at academic level, warned on what the implications for the world of Germany following avant garde thought and turning its back on the restraints of the Christian faith would be . . . in 1831 or so! We can hardly say we were not warned in public generations before events played out to a bloody end. )
4 –> Thus lies revealed the gross error of trying to infer to the ought of moral behaviour on the facts of animal behaviour or what can be done to animals as we breed them etc.
We all know the consequences, at the cost of 40 millions dead and a devastated continent.
This is the context in which I again point out that he only way to close the IS-OUGHT GAP is to recognise the reality of the grounding IS Who, as the loving, Holy Creator, made a cosmos that builds in principles of morality, mercy and justice.
Thus, applying back to the homosexuality debate, the notion that one is genetically programmed to be homosexual — thus has no real CHOICE — leads right to the sort of determinism that utterly undermines all moral responsibility and accountability. But of course, then, the rapist has no real choice, it is just his hormones and programming in action. the adulterer has an excuse for why he broke his marital vows. And, if she looks good and you can seduce her, why not tumble her into bed? You are just following the way of nature, right?
But of course, sound civilisation is based on moral restraint and associated principles of virtue and honour.
Break those down, and chaos follows as night follows day.
For that matter, the evolutionary materialist worldview disintegrates into self-contradiction, as we can see that if brains, hormones and onward behaviour are all genetically and/or socially determined in light of accidents of inheritance [including macro-evolution] and history, then that includes the behaviours we commonly think of as logical reasoning or scientific observation and theorising. In other words, evolutionary materialism undermines the very credibility of thought, reasoning and intelligent choice.
This lends itself admirably to irrational impulsiveness on making personal, institutional and social decisions. It alsogives a handy excuse/ rationalisation for those hidden manipulators who put up the shadow shows that would lead us where THEY would have us go.
Including of course, many homosexualists.
But in either case all that is revealed is the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the underlying worldview that now dominates the halls of influence and power in our wider civilisation.
Namely, evolutionary materialism.
So, we need to wake up, break out of the stocks, look around, see the apparatus of manipulation that has put up the shadow-shows that are leading us astray, and break free of the programming of the various manipulators.
Dictionary.
PS: Indeed, as a result of our sad — and as yet unfinished — social history, family stability is a major challenge in Barbados and the wider region. In former days, with a strong Christian consensus notwithstanding [!!!], and with a village based population where every adult was Uncle or Auntie [whether actual blood relative or simply neighbour . . . ] we had a de facto extended family pattern that held some of the destructive tendencies in check. But, with urbanisation, atomisation of the individual, evolutionary materialism dominated globalisation and associated radical relativist nihilism and cynical manipulation on the prowl, we can no longer hope to get away with that. regardless of what profs over at whatever campus is avant garde in your neighbourhood and others who soak in their views may imagine. (There is a BIG difference between immorality ["I know I should do better, but . . . "] and amorality ["A nuh nutten . . . " (a phrase I once heard as two youths walking just in front of me casually described how one of their friends "cut a gal throat . . . ")], a difference that has horrible potential consequences. We have been warned.)
Amused // December 4, 2009 at 4:26 AM
@David // December 1, 2009 at 7:05 AM. I have to agree with your principal in abstract terms. In this case, I, of course, have other views. As you say, economics will probably prevail and every so often economics and social justice do pull in the same direction. At least that is my view.
Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 4:45 AM
Footnote: I think the people at the Courage International apostolate have a lot to teach us on the dignity of sustained courageous moral choice in the teeth of destructive and distorted, objectively disordered attractions or feelings and inclinations — and not just those of same sex attractions or even of sexual impurity in general either . . . think: fraud, embezzlement, lying and misrepresentations, out of control anger leading to abuse in families, workplaces etc etc etc. I think their FAQs are a model of civil, carefully balanced thought on a major hot-button issue. (And, Zoe, yes, Courage is a Roman Catholic initiative. The Catholics — whatever problems one may have with the history and various points of theology etc — have a lot to teach us all.) I also strongly recommend a look at the NARTH web site [therapy approaches to restore better ordered sexual feelings and patterns of behaviour], and the Exodus International web site. Dr James Dobson’s article here is worth the read too. NARTH’s discussion on the APA shift to a bio- psycho- social model on homosexuality is also well worth a read.
Putting some informed perspectives into play . . .
Crusoe // December 4, 2009 at 4:46 AM
Dictionary,
Mea Culpa, that I did not read the thread fully, apologies then for that.
Sometimes we are in too much rush admittedly.
I take your point on boundaries i.e. rapist, adulterer etc.
But, everything is about balance.
While we look for shadows we miss the issue that reasonableness and tolerance still have a place.
Supposedly we have a girl, plainly from young liking other girls.
Are you really going to crucify her, because she grows up to live with, in all respects, another woman?
Sorry, I cannot live with that and I think that we have no such right, to hurt someone that way.
Such a contract to life is between that girl (example) and the Almighty.
Who are we to judge?
Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 4:50 AM
Further footnote: tracked down a linked summary of 100 years of experience and research on homosexuality, by NARTH. A sober and sobering corrective to many common ideas, assertions and claims.
Crusoe // December 4, 2009 at 4:53 AM
By the way, maybe I may seem too accepting to some of you, but in person to person contact over time, I have seen a few real hypocrites, who are certainly no angels themselves, criticising the ways of life of others.
Although such turns me off in a big way (I am intolerant of intolerance lol), I must thank such people for being a beacon of ‘what not to do’ as you say.
Sometimes seeing something abhorrent displayed in reality by a person is a great learning tool.
Ah well, we shall not solve the world’s problems in a day.
But, we can live as we believe is right.
That’s all.
555dubstreet // December 4, 2009 at 4:54 AM
The Gaysetters – One Look
Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 4:57 AM
Crusoe:
Apology accepted.
Please, read carefully the linked materials. I am NOT advocating for hatred towards those afflicted by homosexual temptation. When I look into my own heart, I see too much vulnerability to temptations to think that just because someone suffers that one, s/he is particularly evil and to be eradicated like an insect plague. We are all subject to the lure of evil, and too often give in.
We must deal with the planks in our eyes, then we will see clearly to help others with the sawdust in their eyes. (But this is no excuse for leaving sawdust and planks in eyes!)
And if you will look at my remarks yesterday at December 3, 2009 at 3:11 AM, you will see that that is precisely what I have argued for, in step by step details.
G’day.
D
Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 5:14 AM
PS: Further find: a symposium report of APA on religiously mediated changes in homosexuality. For instance the findings of the Jones and Yarhouse study bear pondering:
Note the sobering results, and how difficult it is to break through the patterns of habituation, thought, feelings and views one finds oneself in after engaging in this disordered, addictive form of sexuality.
Far better is it to avoid than to try to get out.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 4, 2009 at 5:41 AM
@ Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 5:14 AM, recalling what I wrote about fixation. Is not the conclusion of the study proof to the adage ‘old habits are hard to break’, rather than your pointed “how difficult it is to break through the patterns of habituation, thought, feelings and views one finds oneself in after engaging in this disordered, addictive form of sexuality.”?
Whatever form of habitual activity people engage in is hard to change. We’re all ‘guilty’ of that.
Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 6:50 AM
Mr Jones:
You may think the comparison is a mere matter of simplicity vs complexity of language.
It is not. In the case of the sexual practices in view, we are talking about seriously objectively disordered, life dominating decisions, habits and associated feelings. So, I identified a cluster of key components that are distinguished in the literature. e.g. cf the excerpt from the symposium cited above.
The challenge involved — though related to — is far more demanding and involved than trying to cure oneself of nail biting or thumb sucking or habitually mis-typing a word; hard though these annoying little bad habits sometimes are. (Just check the NARTH literature to see what I mean.)
The deeper point is, since such deliverance and liberation are possible, it has direct implications that homosexual involvement is — on repeated empirical demonstration, clinically or scientifically recorded for 100+ years — not irreversible or uncontrollable.
That is, it is subject to moral decision and control, with a major sustained effort, especially one guided by spiritual mentorship and supported by a group of mutual understanding and honest support.
That is good — though challenging –news for those enmeshed.
So also, it tells those of us subjected to the homosexualist claims and agenda on the nature of homosexual conduct, something about the need to correct such talking points and agendas.
D
Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 8:03 AM
In courts and classrooms in California . . .
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 4, 2009 at 8:07 AM
@ Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 6:50 AM You’re clearly doing a ton of background work. On the NARTH study, I find it odd that the report would look at what it regards as a deviant behaviour (pathologies to use a single term) and then cite comparisons with the general population. To my mind, one ought to look at like and like, ie how the sexually deviant stack up against other deviants, eg criminals, drug users, etc. We know they are far from normal so why refer back to the norm?
Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 8:12 AM
Mr Jones:
It should be clear that deviation is — per basic meaning of the term — relative to the norm.
D
Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 8:16 AM
PS: Perhaps, this from Courage, is helpful:
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 4, 2009 at 8:22 AM
@Dictionary, “It should be clear that deviation is — per basic meaning of the term — relative to the norm.” Precisely, so the report’s saying ‘There is significantly greater medical, psychological, and relational pathology in the homosexual population than the general population.’ is a tautology. It would be more profound if it said whether relative to see where the homosexual population rated relative to other deviant population. That might tell us that homosexuals are less or more pathological, and that is not trivial information in terms of our expectations of change.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 4, 2009 at 8:25 AM
@Dictionary CORRECTION ‘It would be more profound if it said where the homosexual population rated relative to other deviant population.’
Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Mr Jones:
Pardon, but this is sounding like another strawmanistic side track.
If homosexuality were simply a beneficial variation of sexuality [as many in the homosexualist movement and in the wider supportive community argue -- cf the judge in CA just linked and the curricula and textbooks being promoted through it], it would not have a key characteristic of delusional or disordered tendencies: they are disintegrative in impact on person, family and community.
There is a major, well documented, well researched issue on the table.
Let us deal with it, instead of sliding off on repeated side-tracks on minor issues and points that a moment’s serious reflection would suffice to correct.
There is a rampaging bull in the china shop.
Let’s deal with it.
D
Dictionary // December 4, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Footnote:
On the inherent, inescapable incoherence and radical relativist amorality of evolutionary materialism. (Recall, this is the underlying context that has given the framework in which homosexualism and other prongs of the dechristianising agenda can hide behind the false colours of “science.” So, if we are to soundly address this prong and the wider tidal wave, we have to deal with it solidly.)
This, from briefing notes in one form or another dating back over the past 20+ years:
___________
(i) Evolutionary materialism (which is often equated to “science,” especially on origins) — as the Nobel Prize-winner Jacques Monod famously argued in his 1970 Chance and Necessity — asserts or assumes that the observed cosmos is the product of undirected, chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws and blind forces of nature:
(ii) This, through cosmological, then planetary system, then chemical, then biological and finally socio-cultural evolution. That is, the decisive issues and chains of reasoning are origins science issues, with all the limitations on possible degree of warrant that are imposed by trying to reconstruct a remote, unobserved, unrecorded past.
(iii) Therefore, on this paradigm, all phenomena in the universe (without residue) are determined by the working of purposeless, undirected laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.
(iv) But human thought in its context of consciousness, reasoning and qualia — clearly, a cluster of phenomena in the universe — must now fit into this picture.
(v) Thus, what we subjectively experience, and especially what we hold to be “thoughts,” “reasonings” 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.
(vi) These forces are viewed as in effect ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].
(vii) But, an unexpected result follows. For, if materialism is true, the “thoughts” we have, then the “reasonings” we carry out and the “conclusions” we reach — without residue — are produced and controlled by forces that are (as Liebnitz’s mill illustrates) irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity.
(viii) Of course, the thinking-reasoning process, its underlying symbolic information and its conclusions 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.
(ix) And, if our materialists 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!
(x) Thus, as Plantinga has argued at length, it is hard to escape the conclusion that evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion.
(xi) 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? Crick, were he to actually preface his books with “my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules,” would very properly be simply laughed out of court. And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze?
(xii) In the end — though one may dismiss such an argument or baldly assert that per brute fact conscious rational minds “must” have emerged from brains by hitherto unknown evolutionary transformational processes – it is hard to escape the conclusion that evolutionary materialism is based on self-defeating, self-refuting premises. . .
(xiii) We may now consider Will Hawthorne’s remark:
>>Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there’s no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it’s not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal deontic logic.) We’ve conformed to standard principles and inference rules of logic and we’ve started out with assumptions that atheists have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion: therefore, for any action you care to pick, it’s permissible to perform that action. If you’d like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan ‘if atheism is true, all things are permitted’. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don’t like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.
Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can’t infer ‘ought’ from ‘is’. >>
(xiv) The first key premise here is the existence of an is-ought gap. In effect, from what merely is, one cannot derive what ought to be, unless — as Elizabeth Anscombe footnoted Hume — the “is” already embeds “oughtness” in its essence.
(xv) Thus, one’s concept of what is in our cosmic order is already implicitly freighted with moral import. And so, in a worldview that — as evolutionary materialism does — confines the is to the physical and its interactions, one has no inherent grounds for oughtness, the heart of morality.
_____________
Those who would impose evolutionary materialism in the name of “science” should be challenged to address the self referential incoherence and to address the lognstanding problem of amorality rooted in the is-ought gap. [And, as has already been addressed and linked on, they should not be allowed to get away with trying to use the Euthyphro dilemma as a way of suggesting that no-one else has a better answer.)
Remember, much of the homosexualist agenda gains force from the atmosphere of radical moral relativism that has been created through the dominance of evolutionary materialism in the academy and spreading from that to the educated classes.
So, we see here that the evolutionary materialist worldview (and associated scientific research programmes) and the neo-paganisms that have grown up as weeds in its shadow, face a major -- indeed, crippling and probably mortal -- difficulty.
And, we should realise too that the very fact that we find ourselves morally accountable and bound (and that his binding is linked to personal and community well-being) -- the very fact that we have rights directly entails this ["You unfair me!" we quarrel] — is in itself strong evidence pointing to a grounding IS for the cosmos that inherently provides the OUGHT.
That is, the moral order of creation points to the Creator of that order.
And, in that context, homosexual conduct is objectively disordered.
Without this foundation in a loving-Holy Creator who makes a morally ordered cosmos, we will have very little strength to resist the strong tidal wave of dechristinisation that is now pounding on our shores from the north.
And those who seek to promote such dechristianisation know that. That is why they are so desperate — as a rule on pretty poor substance — to deride and discredit the church, the Bible, the gospel, and Christians who dare to stand up on key issues like this.
Okay, more anon, DV.
michael // December 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Brother you have blown me away but i think i can see where you are coming from
Zoe // December 5, 2009 at 6:43 AM
@Dictionary Dec 4, @ 4:45AM,
“(And, Zoe, yes, Courage is a Roman Catholic initiative. The Catholics – whatever problem one may have with their history and various points of theology etc , have a lot to teach us all).”
Bro’ D, sorry man, but I strongly disagree with you here! Why so?
Well, I just had a look at this Catholic web site ‘Courage’ and I read the few testimonies posted there, so very typical of this Catholic jargon, yes, nice things said about Jesus and Father God, BUT, laced, as usual with, ‘Praying the Rosary’, going to ‘Confession’ and spending time before the so-called ‘real’ presence of Jesus in the so-called sacrament of His real body, ‘Transubstantiation’ all totally unbibical ‘false’ doctrine!
I WAS deeply involved with the Catholic church, I know them well, lovely people, so warm and caring, a very subtle veneer of what appears to be the ‘fruit’ of the Holy Spirit, extremely enticing and very seductive, NO lie is of the TRUTH, whenever you mix down right heresy with God’s Word, as Catholocism et al have done, the absolute truth of His Word is invalidated!
In Paul’s stinging polemic to the young Galatians, he could not have said it any plainer.
“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a *different* Gospel, which is NOT another, but some who trouble you and want to *pervert* the gospel of Christ” ( Gal. 1: 6,7).
To drive home the point Paul was making, he then emphasizes:
“But even if we, or an angel from heaven (purports to be an angel from heaven), preach ANY OF GOSPEL to you than WHAT WE HAVE PREACHED to you, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.” (v. 8) emphasis added.
I have seen this kind of testimony before from Catholics, it IS a deception fostered on them by none other than the ‘father’ of all lies, Satan.
What the arch-deceiver does, is to appearently give some degree of release from these men struggling with Homosexuality, all the while taking them deeper and deeper into the maze of Catholic false doctrine, very, very subtle.
Satan will get you one way or the other, unless one trust JESUS and Him alone, not Jesus + Mary + Confession + all the other heresy taught by Catholicism, one will never be free in Christ, for whom soever the Son sets FREE is free indeed!
Augustine, fell for this heretical nonsense, one of his prayers to Mary, “Take our prayers into the sanctuary of heaven and enable them to bring about our peace with God…may the sins we penitently bring before Almighty God *through* you (Mary) be pardoned…obtain pardon for what we fear, FOR YOU (Mary) ARE THE ONLY HOPE OF SINNERS. We hope to obtain the forgiveness of our sins THROUGH YOU, Blessed Lady, in you is our HOPE of reward.” (Saint Augustine (d. 430) Dictionary of Mary (Catholic Publishing Co.: New Jersey, 1997, 1985, p. 532) emphasis added.
The above is blatant false doctrine and heresy.
Hear God Word, not Catholicism:
“Jesus saith unto him. I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE, NO mam cometh unto the Father but by ME” ( John 14:6) emphasis added.
Hear God’s Word again:
“For there IS ONE GOD, and ONE mediator between (who and where? God (in heaven) and men (0n earth) the Man Christ Jesus” ( I Tim. 2:5) emphasis added.
“For through Him (Jesus) we both have ACCESS ( By how many spirits?) ONE Spirit (The Holy Spirit) unto the Father” ( Eph. 2:18) emphasis added.
“But He (Jesus) because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore, He is also able to (do what?) SAVE (to what extent?) TO THE UTTERMOST those who (first go to Mary, NO!) Who come to God (directly) through HIM, (Why?) since He (Jesus) always lives (to do what?) To make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:24) emphasis added.
These men struggling with Homosexuality find comfort in the warm, caring atmosphere of Catholicism, I understand this, and they deceptively feel that they are being helped, but only at a ’soulish’ level, for where there IS such admixture of ’some’ biblical truth, then laced with all of this false doctrine, takes them from one state of deception, into another state of even more deception.
Sorry, D, but this is not right, it IS not biblical!
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 7:11 AM
Michael:
Sorry to have presented in effect a college level lesson as a chunk. (I thought it necessary to draw a baseline for the further discussion of the topic.)
Before building on a baseline, here is a somewhat slower step by step take:
1 –> Evolutionary materialism usually sees itself as “science” and so tries to reserve to itself the status of being the only truly credible and “rational” view of the world [cf here!]
2 –> But, it is forced to reduce everything in our observed world to matter and energy that has somehow evolved into the things we see around us.
3 –> In particular, it is forced to try to reduce mind to brains, neurons and the electrochemical signals firing away across synapses, shaped by genetics, accidents of conditioning and the like.
4 –> But, nerve signals are in millivolts, not right and wrong, true and false, ground and logically correct consequent.
5 –> That is, there is a RADICAL difference between the electrical and chemical workings of nerves in brains and the essential features of conscious, logical mind in action.
6 –> So radical that if you try to reduce mind to evolving and “emerging” properties of matter, you end up in the problem Leibnitz identified when he discussed a mill in action: gears merely grind away at one another based on the organisation they happen to have and the forces that drive from the water wheel outside and from shaft to gear and gear to gear.
7 –> But at no point have we moved beyond blind, non-intentional forces so long as we look at the physical interaction only. (It is the designer who gives the mill the organisation that makes it work as a mill towards a purpose . . . by an intelligent intervention that is beyond the world of mere physical interaction.)
8 –> Just so, o if one insists on materialistic reduction of mind to brain that purposelessly evolved from blind forces of chance and necessity across the aeons, one cannot explain the organisation of the brain that allows it to credibly carry out purposeful acts of reasoning, knowing and deciding.
9 –> For, blind chance and necessity and mere voltages and ion flows in neurons etc are — just like the gears in the mill — in themselves irrelevant to purpose, truth and logical validity.
10 –> That is why a Freudian dismissing you on over-strict potty training is subject to being accused of over-loose potty training; it is why a Skinnerian calling you a jumped up lab rat in a maze looking for a food pellet is likewise just another rat in the maze, it is why a marxist dismissing your bourgeois class conditioning is just as much a prisoner of his own class conditioning; and it is why Crick, to be consistent, should have labelled his own writings as nothing but the fizzling off of neurons in networks in his central nervous system. For, in his 1994 The Astonishing Hypothesis, he had written:
11 –> As a result, the appeal to “emergence” of mind from something like self-programmed/ organised loops of networks in the brain (with a boost from “evolution”) boils down to “poof . . . magic . . . voila!” [For, since there are effectively an almost infinite range of possible organisations, the needle in a haystack search to find the just-right configuration to function is hopeless on the scope of our observed cosmos. BTW, this holds all the way back to the challenge of forming the DNA code for life in the first instance, and it holds onward to get tot he DNA coding of the regulation of the growth of the neuronal networks in the brain and CNS. Just 1,000 bits . . . 500 4-state DNA bases . . . worth of information would implicate over ten times the square of the possible number of configurations the ~ 10^80 atoms of the observed cosmos can take up over its lifespan. Our DNA is about 3 BILLION bases long, i.e. 3 million times that threshold.)
12 --> In short, we have good reason to infer that intelligent, conscious, reasoning, purposeful mind -- the central fact of our existence, experience and observation, through which we access all other facts, experiences and observations -- is a distinct order of being from atoms in action in brains or otherwise.
13 --> We have further reason to believe that our minds and bodies -- once the role of DNA and associated digital processing machinery is appreciated from the first living cells on -- are (like the mill) the product of mind, and are thus not simply reducible to blind chance and necessity acting on patterns of atoms that just happen to be there in a configuration that could just as easily have been otherwise.
14 --> Similarly, we observe that atoms, energy, neurons and action potentials have utterly no inherent correlation to right and wrong.
15 --> That is, materialism runs straight into the infamous IS-OUGHT gap, and so radically relativises morality to the result of accidents and power plays across time; ending up as an a-moral system that struggles at best to avoid falling into the nihilism of "might makes right." (This is of course precisely the premise of men like herr Schicklegruber, Stalin and Mao.)
[ . . . ]
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 7:12 AM
16 –> This is not news. In Plato’s The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, he wrote about the avant garde materialist philosophers of his day and their students (Alcibiades being chief) thusly:
17 –> Plato, of course, wrote in the decades after Athens’ collapse as a power after a major series of civil wars among the Greeks known as the Peloponnesian war, and sought to understand the factors that drove that collapse.
18 –> One of those factors, plainly, was the emergence of avant garde philosophies and teachers, who taught the young to despise justice as a cook-up of men who set up laws and myths of gods to suit themselves. (NB: At the beginning of the discussion, Plato makes sure to gently state his own doubts on the Greek pagan myths, and proceeds to distinguish such from the evidence that points to a Moral, Good Soul whose handiwork the cosmos is, and which reflects principles of morality as in-built aspects of its being.)
19 –> Resemblances to the century just past, and to current trends with e.g. the New Atheists in our civilisation at large are NOT coincidental.
19 –> In short, evolutionary materialism relativises and undermines morality, directly implying that moral principle is in effect a delusion, that at best in some cases is programmed into us by forces of natural and sexual selection etc, for collective survival on the plains of Africa’s Savannahs hundreds of thousands of years ago or more.
20 –> So, once a principle cuts agross the agenda of the avant garde, e.g. traditional family values and marriage law, it should be abandoned, once the masses can be induced to go along with “progress.”
21 –> And so the propaganda organs in the college lecture theatres, editorial rooms of textbook publishers, newsrooms and Hollywood studios dutifully go to work to set up the appropriate shadow-shows to so persuade the masses, and to get them to be angrily hostile to those who would object.
22 –> But, all along we have been distracted from the basic — decisive — point: on evolutionary materialistic premises, neither mind nor morality is credible. So, all is a matter of power and propaganda.
23 –> But also, if “all” thought and conscience-guided morality are wholly produced and controlled by blind chance and necessity through evolution and social conditioning, then the sword must cut both ways.
24 –> That is, evolutionary materialism is produced by the same dubious, chance and necessity wired brains, so we have no good grounds to trust the deliverances of the scientists and philosophers who shape materialistic worldviews either.
25 –> In short, evolutionary materialism has reduced itself to logical self-contradiction [thus, to logically necessary falsehood] and to the amorality of might makes right.
So, we have been warned.
What will we do about it, then: in Barbados and across the wider Caribbean, including on the topic of the homosexualist agenda?
D
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 7:13 AM
completion part is in moderation . . .
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 7:26 AM
Hi Zoe:
Notice how I have just now said how Plato has a lot to teach us — once the stuff in the mod pile comes out of moderation.
I think his gentle distancing of himself from the pagan mythology of Athens is a masterpiece that we can all learn from; including the atheists among us. One does not have to be raucous and arrogantly dismissive to reject a system as a whole while extracting from it the key point where it is right:
We do not have to agree down the line with any particular view or system to learn a lot from it.
In the case of Courage, I think they have hit on the solid point that the key challenge to overcoming life-dominating sins is the grace and courage to be virtuous, whatever one’s feelings may pull one to.
I am not endorsing any one religious system or other, beyond salvation by grace through faith in the crucified and risen Christ, not by works but UNTO good works laid out in advance for us to do; works that we are encouraged to meet together regularly to encourage one another in. Indeed, Heb puts it in terms that we must not neglect assembling ourselves together regularly, so that we may spur one another on to love and good works.
God’s richest to all
D
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 7:56 AM
Thanks David.
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 8:46 AM
Footnote: where textbooks and learning resources may be heading if the trend is unchecked. (WARNING, highly disturbing content.)
David // December 5, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Interesting comment by Minister Sinckler in the context of disestablishment.
Zoe // December 5, 2009 at 9:27 AM
@Dictionary, I beg to differ still, as Plato was not a religious figure head, wheras Roman Catholicism even claims to be the only ‘true’ church that Jesus instituted, outside of which there IS no salvation!
I knew personally a deceased alcoholic, a bright but troubled man, the Catholics got hold of him, to help him overcome this dreaded addiction. The appeal of their warm, community oriented way of operating, he said to me, was so nice, gave him a sense of belonging, when I asked him what the format was like at their prayer meetings, he took out a ‘Rosery’ that was the first thing they gave him, teaching how to say ‘Hail Mary’s’ among other Catholic false doctrine; when I sat with him and the Bible, showing him the absolute sufficiency of Jesus as sole Mediator, Advocate and High Priest, before the Father, he quickly retorted, and flung the ‘Rosery’ in the trash can!
He is just one of a few others that I had personal contact with in this regard.
I personally prior to my being ‘Saved’ was also deceived by this ever so subtle facade of what appears so lovely, gentle, and true in Catholicism.
Just because a system does have some good points that we can learn from, does not mean we should advertise that ’system’ publically, not knowing who in their innocent ‘ignorance’ might just go there, and end up being trapped in all of the other dangerous false doctrine, that might cause them to never know Jesus a personal Saviour and Lord.
Mother Theresa, consecrated her life to Mary! She held many a Hindu in her arms while they were dying, you know what it is recorded she would say to them in their final moments on earth.
‘Believe in your ‘god’…’ Is this what someone who really knows Christ as the only Saviour of mankind says to a dying Hindu? Hardly!
No wonder that after her death, her private papers, revealed that she said, for 50 years she never sensed the presence of God in her life!
Enough said!
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 9:38 AM
David:
Bottomline: we need fathers, committed to stable marriages to the women who mother their children, and nurturing the children.
D
PS: Zoe, Plato was a pagan philosopher arguing about the basis for law in community, and in the excerpt from the Laws, modelled how we can learn from that with which we do not agree down the line with.
V O Reason // December 5, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Stop hating, Zoe! You sound typical of your kind!! What do you mean by “Catholic false doctrines”. How dare you!!! I am a Catholic and believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church; the Rosary and all.
So you have been “SAVED”, good for you!!! Stop bad-mouthing the way others choose to worship; that is the Christian thing to do.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM
@Dictionary,
Minster Sinckler said “that the female-headed households had become a dominant feature in the Caribbean and the role of males in many families had become marginalised”. This has been correct for a long time. The notion that you express, “we need fathers, committed to stable marriages to the women who mother their children, and nurturing the children” run counter to a large portion of Caribbean history and culture (having its origin in many aspects of life since slavery). It has long been commonplace in the Caribbean (not necessarily the dominant feature) for men to have children with several women, and also for women to have childeren with several men. Societies have functioned well and stably with this ‘uncoventional’ form of life. So, why should your notion be what the region seeks? It can easily be argued to not really represent what has been accepted as an essential part of our culture to have had this monogomy as our guiding principle, no matter how other societies have been ordered.
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Mr Jones:
Kindly observe: I have never ever said or implied that what is is thus what ought to be.
(In more fancy terms, the statistically typical is not the normative; an error that the radical relativism rooted in the dominance of evolutionary materialism in our intellectual culture makes us prone to.)
And, we can see that the typical is in too much of our region is not particularly good, especially for boys; indeed want of solid fathering is at the root of many of the ills of young black men all across the African diaspora. (Ever wondered why minorities among us that have stabler family life patterns seem to disproportionately do so well?)
For that matter, it is not good for girls, and it is certainly not good for the “baby mothers” who are struggling to be both mother and father-substitute. (How often have I heard the saddening excuse that if you don’t have the leverage of an easy walk-out on a woman, she will not be sufficiently “pliable,” etc! [If a woman is good enough to be the mother of your kids, she is good enough to be your wife. And if she is not good enough to be your wife, she should not be the mother of your kids. {I won't even bother to rebut the idea that the woman is just the necessary rest of the package to the fun toy you want to play with for a half hour or so, regardless of consequences. And the idea that the sex game is about racking up a "score" is even less excusable. Do you appreciate that one of the forces behind lesbianism is anger at men?}])
Thus, we see a key point where we need to repent and seek reformation as a region.
A point where the homosexualist agenda is hitting our societies at a particularly weak point: family life patterns that leave a lot to be desired.
D
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 1:14 PM
VOR:
I think Z’s point — albeit his expression was perhaps overly vigorous and sharp — is more a matter of being deeply concerned over the spiritual consequences of some troubling teachings, practices, rituals and tendencies that have grown up over the centuries in various churches, which have little or no biblical, C1 foundation.
If the teachings, leadership and tendencies you have followed have led you to repentant faith in Christ, thence a genuine conversion and spiritual rebirth and onward to solid, biblical discipleship in a mutually supportive and encouraging environment, there is no reason to quarrel; especially when there is a major issue on the table already.
But, if you find yourself depending on the good works you have done to get brownie points with God [Eph 2:8 - 10 speaks of salvation by grace through faith leading to good deeds as a result], or on the power of rituals to set you to rights with God, or the obedience to leadership [under whatever labels], then there is trouble.
The same trouble all too many Jews in C1 were facing when Paul — who knew the problem from the inside, so to speak — rebuked his former life and the patterns of error embedded in it thusly:
>>Rom 2:17 . . . if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law36 and boast of your relationship to God37 2:18 and know his will38 and approve the superior things because you receive instruction from the law,39 2:19 and if you are convinced40 that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 2:20 an educator of the senseless, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the essential features of knowledge and of the truth – 2:21 therefore41 you who teach someone else, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 2:22 You who tell others not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? [Which, recall, in Jesus' teaching includes the attitude of lust] You who abhor42 idols, do you rob temples? [the temples were the banks of the day . . . ] 2:23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by transgressing the law! 2:24 For just as it is written, “the name of God is being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”>>
So, we all have some serious soul-searching to do, Jew and Gentile, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.
G’day again
D
michael // December 5, 2009 at 2:18 PM
zoe
i too have been saved by grace and it is good to know that the word is still being preached in season and out of season ,i see that you have had dissenters of the true teachings of the Bible GOD’S word. At the great white throne what will they say? as you can see V O Reason ” How dare you!!! I am a Catholic and believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church; the Rosary and all.”
Not the BIBLE and GOD’S word
Dictionary
thanks for your discourse it was worth reading a lot to ponder.
how the northern countries are teaching the next generation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8391199.stm
Zoe // December 5, 2009 at 5:55 PM
@ V O Reason, “Stop hating Zoe!
VO, I don’t hate Cathlolics, my children are all Catholics, my point is, that after I was nearly trapped in Catholicism, the grace of God allowed me to study earnestly and diligently for the past 25 years His Word, the Bible, and one of my pet subjects is Roman Catholicism.
Roman Catholicism over a period of 1600 years has done a terrible disservice to the cause of Jesus Christ and His Word. The vast array of doctrine within the Catholic church IS NOT based on the Word of God, BUT, the spurious mand-made so-called -sacred-tradition, which contradicts the authority of Scripture.
Baby baptism, Confirmation, First Communion, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Confession, Purgatory, the sacerdotal Priestcraft, praying to Mary, etc, etc, has no basis in New Testament Scripture at all.
The Catholic church venerates its ’sacred tradition’ on par with the Word of God, the Scriptures, in ‘The Documents of Vatican II, states:
“…it is not from scared Scripture alone that the church draws her certainty about every thing which has been revealed. Therefore BOTH sacred tradition AND sacred Scripture are to be ACCEPTED and VENERATED with the SAME sense of devotion and reverence.” (p.117) emphasis added.
VO, I don’t for a moment doubt your sincereity, but, you have been deceived, like multitudes of other Catholics over the centuries, with this utter maze of ‘false’ doctrine.
I can take you through, step by step, and show you from God’s Word, the Bible, the contradiction between what the Catholic church teaches, contrasted to the authority of God’s Word, which we are warned NOT to either ADD nor TAKE AWAY from.
Just as the Jews did, so has the Catholic church done. Listen to Jesus:
“Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the ‘traditions’ of men…ye REJECT the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition…making void the Word of God by your tradition.” (Mark 7: 8,9, 13) emphasis added.
I know this will anger you, and I understand this, but, are you willing to listen and hear God’s Word only? Which must be the sole basis for doctrine, and not whatever man feels like adding or taking away from!
Christopher Halsall // December 5, 2009 at 6:30 PM
@Zoe…
Could you please tell us all from *exactly* what book(s) you rely on and quote from (to the page number, I note)?
Zoe // December 5, 2009 at 7:03 PM
@CH, Paragraph 4, ‘…in ‘The Documents of Vatican II, is the book quoted in paragraph 5, (p.117).
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Zoe et al:
Pardon, but an exchange on Catholicism etc — interesting and even important as that may be in its place — is somewhat tangential to a pretty serious issue.
To see an example of just how serious, follow up here and — if you can stomach it — here for actual book excerpts [with page pictures].
THAT is what GLSEN wants to expose Grade 7 – 12 school kids to.
(I would count this sort of grossly corrupt and corrupting materials — remember, intended for kids in schools and their teachers — as moral de-sensitisation intended to lead to radical relativism-riddled de-moralisation and outright recruitment [the picture with two boy scouts in uniform is itself a sickening picture that tells more than 1,000 words . . . ], capturing educational institutions to the homosexualist cause. Of course, objectors would be accused of bigotry, intolerance, and making schools unsafe for the promoted groups.)
And, the just past (founding) head of that organisation is “Kevin Jennings, now head of the U.S. Office of Safe Schools for the Obama administration.”
We need to see that behind this kind of push, lies the radical relativism and amorality that — as was known ever since Plato in The Laws, as already shown — are inherent to the evolutionary materialism that dominates the west’s intellectual culture. For, this worldview is a capital example of the is-ought gap in action. [Just to remind: OUGHT has no basis in IS, save if there is a foundational Creator whose goodness of character is innate and is expressed in a cosmos that reflects that character. And, the core of Judaeo-Christian Theism is just such a view of God. So -- not least on the history of such radical secularist views over the past century -- we need to think twice, three times, four times before brushing this aside in favour of an inherently amoral system, or bending it in abject accommodation to such systems of thought projected in the name of "science" or "reason" and "liberation" or "progress" or even "reform" or "sustainability etc. For instance, oughtness is the foundation of rights: your right to life, liberty and respect of reputation, property etc imply that I have a binding duty to respect these.]
We here in the Caribbean therefore need to think very very carefully indeed about what agendas and underlying worldviews will dominate our future; and, we need to do our homework to understand the forces in play and our alternatives.
In short, the hot-button issue of homosexualisation is just the tip of a very large and jagged iceberg.
G’day again
D
PS: Objectors, kindly note that I have laid out and linked on more details on these points above, showing why I am saying what I just noted in summary.
Christopher Halsall // December 5, 2009 at 7:32 PM
@Zoe…
Just so we all can follow along with what you quote…
Is “The Documents of Vatican II” available to all at http://www.vatican.va?
Because what you quoted “Therefore BOTH sacred tradition AND sacred Scripture are to be ACCEPTED and VENERATED with the SAME sense of devotion and reverence.” was not actually there.
Instead, “Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.
A single word’s difference, I’ll admit. But sometimes a single word can make a world’s difference…
Please Zoe… Tell us all…
Where can we *all* find and access the language you’re working from.
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Zoe, you are now being “invited” to go down an off-topic side-track . . .
Christopher Halsall // December 5, 2009 at 8:05 PM
@Dictionary…
Really? I’m inviting Zoe to go off-topic by asking him from what canonical language he’s working from?
Is it an unreasonable (and off-topic) question to ask?
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 8:06 PM
To help keep things on track, bearing in mind that the original language of the expressed thought was probably not English:
>>Am H Dict: loy·al·ty (loil-t)
n. pl. loy·al·ties
1. The state or quality of being loyal. See Synonyms at fidelity.
2. A feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection. >>
Dictionary // December 5, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Mr Halshall:
Kindly examine the topic in the main, in light of its implications and significance, and where the side questions on Catholicism came from, relative to the citation of the movement known as Courage.
D
Christopher Halsall // December 5, 2009 at 8:26 PM
@Dictionary…
LOL…
You and yours are so fixated on the Language…
And then when I ask for the Canonical, you get all uptight…
What gives?
Are you and yours not comfortable working from definitive language?
Or is it that such doesn’t actually exist?
(This is a rhetorical question, as everybody knows that definitive Biblical language doesn’t exist; certainly not in the English, anyway…)
Anonymous // December 6, 2009 at 12:56 AM
While some of us debate … a section of the Anglican Church in the USA (aka the Episcopal Church) has elected a lesbian to be an assistant bishop. This is the second openly acknowledged homosexual to be appointed to a position of leadership in the church. What do they know that Zoe, Dictionary and Michael do not?
Dictionary // December 6, 2009 at 3:20 AM
Onlookers:
Sigh . . .
Observe the now plain intent to divert the thread from its focus, and the way in which such distractors “naturally” lead on to strawman mischaracterisations laced with attempted subtle or blatant ad hominems.
That said, it is worth noting that the Episcopal church of the USA and other similar organisations have simply chosen to go along with the evolutionary materialism-driven relativisation of morality, and have explicitly chosen to ignore or find artful devices to deflect the plain meaning of relevant scriptures, such as Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6:9 – 11. (Not to mention the qualifications for church leadership in the pastorals, which are quite stringent. E.g. cf. 1 Tim 3.)
In the sad case of Mr Gene Robinson, a man who abandoned wife and 7 YO daughter to take up an adulterous relationship, which continued, would never have been a serious candidate for Bishop if the relationship had been heterosexual.
Similarly, to point out that the words “loyalty” and “devotion” are demonstrably closely related and so are not to be cast into opposition one to the other is a correction of Mr Halshall’s attempt to do just that.
It is even more important to observe that here has been no serious attempt to respond on the main line of argument and evidence.
That should tell us something about the balance of the case on the merits.
D
Dictionary // December 6, 2009 at 3:30 AM
PS: Onlookers, it should be well known that substantially accurate translations of the Bible into English are well known, and that the meaning is plain enough in any competent translation; with sound technical exegesis being easily enough accessible. I suggest a download of the e-SWORD pack, with original language tools to help, if one is serious. On the matters in question in this thread, the relevant biblical passages as just linked are quite plain. And, contrary to common Internet rumours, popular books like Dan brown et al, and the sort of overblown claims made by Mr Ehrman a few years back, there is high confidence that we have a substantially accurate text of both OT and NT. I recommend Strobel’s recent interview book with a cluster of experts, on The Case for the Real Jesus, on such issues as a good first read for those confused by the wave of cable tv presentations, Internet claims, books etc. [Grace et al over at CLC, I trust you have the Strobel series in stock!]
Dictionary // December 6, 2009 at 4:15 AM
Back on the main issue:
So far, we have documented and/or linked the kinds of agendas, tactics, desensitising and recruiting materials and objectives used by the homosexualists — NB: not at all to be equated to people who have or may struggle with same-sex attractions — in the region and beyond.
Going beyond that, we have explored — starting from Plato (i.e. this challenge came up before, and on being so thoroughly exposed by Plato and those who followed him [starting from the example of Alcibiades and the spectacular break-down, march of folly and ultimate defeat of Athens], was broken) — the underlying challenge of the radical relativism and amorality anchored in secular humanist evolutionary materialism that has set the opinions climate in which such agendas thrive.
We have already outlined some ways that the challenge can be met at personal level, through the spiritual principles of movements like Exodus International or Courage, and through the psychological research and counselling work of professional psychologists such as those affiliated to NARTH.
A logical further issue is the spiritual root of such things.
For that, Paul’s counsel to the Ephesians in Eph 4:17 – 24, is highly relevant.
Using the open-source NET Bible (which you can easily compare with any other version of your interest here, or use e-SWORD’s original language tools to explore in depth on:
Here we see God’s response to the chaos and harm caused by sinful rebellion:
1 –> he sent Christ, who came descending, loving, demonstrating the liberating power of the gospel, dying for sins, triumphantly rising from the dead [with 500+ eyewitnesses who could not be broken], and ascending in order to fill all things.
2 –> In operationalising this filling process, Jesus has sent several types of gifted leaders to the church and world, who call out and equip God’s people for works of service so that we may encourage one another and grow together into the image of the fullness of Christ. [think about what any particular situation looks like now in bondage to sin; consider how it would be transformed if filled with Christ through the truth in love, purity and resurrection power. That blessing process is the church's mission to that thing.]
3 –> As we receive the ministry and grow, we will be resistant to deception and destructive delusions blowing and moving about through the cunning and craftiness of deceitfully scheming men.
4 –> Instead, truthing it in love, we will grow up into our head, Christ.
5 –> In particular, we are to beware of the en-darkened Plato’s cave mindset that is benumbed in conscience and insensitive to moral truth and pricking, even while imagining it is enlightened through the convenient shadow-shows presented by the behind the scenes powers.
6 –> Those enmeshed in that mindset have a hardened heart/conscience and an en-darkened mind, imagining that the darkness and shadow shows they have seen are light and truth.
7 –> Of such, Jesus warned in the Sermon on the Mount:
8 –> Instead, we have come to learn a different, new, transforming cultural pattern: truthing it in love, in the purity and power of God in the face of Christ and by his poured out Spirit.
9 –> As we do so — and plainly we speak here of a challenge that can only be achieved by the power and grace of God — we will contribute to the blessing and reformation of the nations of the Caribbean and beyond.
10 –> And, the renewal of the mind in light of the Word of God in the face of the Christ is a particularly important part of that process:
And so, we have much to repent of, much to examine and correct through the light of the truth in love, and much to work towards the godly transformation of.
Addressing and correcting the homosexualist agenda through the ever-challentging balance of the truth in love is just one component of that in our place and time, but this too must be done.
God bless all
D
Dictionary // December 6, 2009 at 4:28 AM
PS: An enlightening read-up on Alcibiades is here, courtesy Google Books. The introduction, from p. 2, is quite illuminating.
Dictionary // December 6, 2009 at 4:31 AM
OOPS: Col 3:16 – 17
Amused // December 6, 2009 at 4:59 AM
What is it about a debate about homosexuality in Barbados that brings every priest and classical wannabe out of their woodwork to propound the theories that no one has given them an audience for (and still don’t)?
Our ancestors in the far, dim reaches of time used their own knowledge and experience to address issues of their time in their societies and we have to do the same, but with our experience. If we brought those seers whom all and sundry are quoting as the authorities that we in today’s world should blindly follow, into the world today, they simply could not cope.
What was in the past, is past and will never be again. So let us get on with it and solve the issues of our times and stop trying to rely on times gone past as interpreted by us by people stuck in the past whose qualifications to interpret in the first place may be self-conferred.
Sure, properly translated and interpreted, these ‘blasts from the past’ can offer some insight, but that insight is based on a long-dead society that will never exist again.
Ancient Greece was the cradle of democracy, we are told, and lauded for that reason. Yet in the armies of Ancient Greece, soldiers were encouraged to form homosexual relationships akin to marriage and then paired to fight against other armies together on the basis that they would fight harder to protect each other. History does not record what happened in the event that any couple was having a ‘Mr and Mrs’ on any given day.
So what are we to do now? Are these lovers of everything past and obsolete now suggesting that the Barbados Defense Force be encouraged to form homosexual relations between themselves?
You cannot just pick and choose you know. Either you are applying everything from the past (with your own subjective interpretation/translation) or you ought to join the rest of us in the real world of today and address those problems.
Time to live in the here and now.
Dictionary // December 6, 2009 at 5:04 AM
PPS: Following up, I note that a good, peer-review article exegesis on a key term from 1 Cor 6:9 – 11 — arsenokoitai — is here, which should help us understand the care with which the words in competent translations are chosen. Young’s discussion of Plato’s and Paul’s concepts in the Symposium and the NT respectively, pp. 205 – 208 in the linked, is particularly relevant. [I see too that I somehow forgot to give books at the above: Sermon on Mt 6, and the other cite is to Col 3, as noted already. the first cite is from Eph 4 as indicated.]
Dictionary // December 6, 2009 at 5:15 AM
Amused:
You have chosen not to engage on the merits the discussion on the import of evolutionary materialism as a worldview alternative documented since 360 BC, and the resulting is-ought gap and radical relativisation of morals. You have ignored the discussion of clinical and research findings over a century and more. You have failed to address the issue of the documented “push” of desensitizing materials and tactics. And more.
Instead, you have set up and labelled a strawman: priests and wannabes, also falling into the error of dismissing issues by reference to the clock. (We tell time by the clock [if it is correct], not truth.)
That rhetorical, selectively hyperskeptical, mind-closing and poisoning tactic of distraction and dismissal through the namecalling attack to the man rather than substantial response to the issues at stake is telling on the true balance of the issues on the merits.
Onlookers, let us not allow ourselves to be distracted and polarised through such past sell-by date, shopworn talking point tactics often used by village atheists and fellow travellers. (See how such tactics feel when you are on the receiving end, Amused? Kindly refrain from such in future. For they serve no good end.)
The issues on the table and the underlying questions of the foundations of ethics and credibility of minds to think about serious matters are too serious for such.
D
Amused // December 6, 2009 at 5:59 AM
Dictionary // December 6, 2009 at 5:15 AM . Get a life and stop boring us all to death. Idiot.
Anonymous(2) // December 6, 2009 at 8:35 AM
Amused, I second that (gavel comes down hard)!
Dictionary // December 6, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Ad hominem.
Dictionary // December 6, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Abusive . . . i.e. the classically fallacious form. [Link]
Zoe // December 6, 2009 at 9:47 AM
@ Halsall…, You seem to forget what the Duppy said to you……BOO…BOO…BOO!!!
And I say it with, *Devotion* and *Loyality* Ya Duppy!!!
Anonymous // December 6, 2009 at 11:17 AM
I was loath to get into any debate with these narcissistic commentators and have to endure the view of their intellectual masturbation but let me again put a question to the blog.
Why should a secular, democratic society not amend the marriage act so as to recognise the state of marriage between two persons of the same gender?
Answers making substantial reference to religious authority are obviously unacceptable (re secular society). The purpose of civil law as I understand it is to uphold the private rights and duties of citizen. These rights presumably justify the existence of the society in the first place and so encourage a mutually beneficial interaction among citizens. I therefore suggest that the resolution of questions about “gay” marriage can be more efficiently addressed by reference to the concepts of private rights and duties that are mutually beneficial to all citizens.
Amused // December 6, 2009 at 11:27 AM
@Anonymous // December 6, 2009 at 11:17 AM. Well (and economically) said!!!! That totally sums it up for me.
Amused // December 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM
@Christopher Halsall // December 5, 2009 at 8:26 PM. As always, a pleasure to read your input. You have a genius for twisting the tail of the donkey (or is that the jackass) that I, for one, find commendable – and HILLARIOUS!!! An old Northern UK (Tyneside) saying that you must constantly be pondering on (or paraphrasing) springs, almost unbidden, to mind. “Don’t you meet ‘em when you haven’t got your gun.”
Anon // December 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Today, from Sky News, comes this sad story.
There is nothing in it to say how this man got HIV. It might have been as simple as a blood transfusion in another country and have nothing to do with sexual transmission.
While his behavour is inexusable, the reasons for it are sad. His excuse was the preservation of his marriage – i.e. his family. It clearly meant a lot to him.
“In sickness and in health…..” Interesting to see what the Bible-thumpers make of that one. Will they subscribe to the views of their poster-boy, Leviticus, in taking the view that the wife was the husband’s chattel and therefore he was entitled to do what he wanted to her? Or maybe they will eschew (conveniently) the teachings of their idol and demand an eye for an eye – but hey, he already has HIV, so that won’t make a difference.
Go ahead, Zoe and Dictionary (who should be renamed “Plagerise Wikipedia”), deliver to us the ancient wisdom of 360BC by which you expect us in almost 2010 to govern our lives.
Here is the report.
“HIV Man Injects Sleeping Wife With Own Blood
Sky News 2009
An HIV-positive man has confessed to injecting his blood into his sleeping wife and infecting her with the virus that can cause Aids, reports have said.
It is believed the man wanted to give her the disease so she would start having sex with him again, New Zealand’s Sunday Star-Times said.
Court documents detailed how the man, 35, twice pricked his 33-year-old wife with a sewing needle laced with his infected blood.
The husband discovered he was HIV-positive – but his partner and children were not – during health checks imposed on them when the family arrived in New Zealand in 2004.
The woman had said she wanted to maintain the relationship for the sake of the children.
But she refused to have sex with her husband for fear of contracting the disease.
In the documents, the wife described how, in May, 2008, she found a sting-like mark on her left thigh and two days later awoke to a stinging feeling in her leg.
She said: “I got up… and I flicked the blankets… I looked at (the husband) and he was wide awake.”
The wife asked him if he had pricked her and he said, ‘No’. But she later found evidence of “blood sprinkles” on their duvet, which she said her husband tried to hide from her.
During a routine check-up four months later, doctors revealed she was HIV-positive.
The woman confronted her husband, who admitted dipping a needle in his blood and pricking her with it.
“All he said (was) he was sorry. He said, ‘I used needles on you because I wanted you to be the same as me so that you can live with me and you won’t leave me’,” she said.
The husband has admitted wilfully infecting another with a disease and faces up to 14 years in jail when he is sentenced at Auckland High Court next year.”
Zoe // December 6, 2009 at 5:40 PM
@Amused, No one can bore a ‘dead’ man to death, you’re already dead, ya Duppy!!!
And your side-kick Halsall, as you for once said a truth, “You have a genuis for twisting the tail of the donkey, (Jackass! Sic!) certainly, for that’s what Kindergarten (pre-schooler’s) DO yu DUPPY, play around that area of Donkey!!!
Kindergarten ‘mentalities’ usually play around Jackass’s tails. True to form!!!
Amused // December 7, 2009 at 4:58 AM
Poor old Zoe. His/her/its claim to Christianity has been shown as a complete sham…and it vexed as hell. Poor soul. Needs medicating – and educating. The first can be arranged – but the second requires a brain and understanding and medical science is not as advanced as that yet.
Dictionary // December 7, 2009 at 6:56 AM
Onlookers:
Observe the sadly revealing further pattern of ad hominem abusives, including a false accusation of the intellectual crime of plagiarism. (FYI, Anon, as a practicing intellectual, I habitually acknowledge my intellectual debts. That, for instance, is why I consistently name key sources and their authors, and provide links or other references. In terms of Wikipedia, I take it as a useful summary of typical, College 101 or maybe 202 level secularist-leaning, leftish conventional wisdom [which, sadly, too often slanders and/or strawmanises views and people it does not like], with no commitment to its being a benchmark of the truth. I do hold that if one’s position in today’s world of instant access to that online source cannot address the Wikipedia position, it is hopelessly inadequately informed. Notwithstanding, on many topics it is the handiest quick reference one can get for a basic FYI. )
In the remarks overnight, the most substantial point comes from Anonymous, and a few remarks on it will be important:
>>Why should a secular, democratic society not amend the marriage act so as to recognise the state of marriage between two persons of the same gender?
Answers making substantial reference to religious authority are obviously unacceptable (re secular society). The purpose of civil law as I understand it is to uphold the private rights and duties of citizen. These rights presumably justify the existence of the society in the first place and so encourage a mutually beneficial interaction among citizens.>>
a –> Secular[ist] democratic society, of course, came about by a specific history, i.e. it has an unacknowledged major historical debt [and you simply will not find most of the materials used in the onward linked in typical Wiki articles etc . . . ] to the many roots of modern liberty and democracy that lie in the results of placing the translated Bible in the hands of the ordinary man, and the resulting demand first for freedom of conscience, and then for political and wider freedoms; leading to a continuing wave of liberation struggles over the past 400+ years.
b –> So, the first problem is that by starting with secularised, radicvally relativist democracy, the key questions have been begged and the challenge that secular humanist evolutionary materialism has no warranting basis for ought in the material ises it promotes is ducked.
c –> So, for instance, since a RIGHT is in the end a MORAL claim on others for respect for the equality of even the weakest, poorest and most inarticulate, such evolutionary materialism dominated thought is living off the Judaeo Christian heritage it despises even while it cuts itself off from the vital roots that feed legitimate rights.
d –> The effect of that is, across time, to turn rights into the opposite: privileges and political entitlements won by the powerful and clever at the expense of those they best in the political struggles across time. (This for instance is why in the teeth of the obvious facts on the humanity of unborn babies, they are being slaughtered by the millions per year on excuses that do not bear the simplest serious scrutiny in light of the priority of the right to life. Down that road — as the history of the Century just past tells us — lies a devaluation of the respect for life, thence the cheapening of life that leads to infanticide, euthanasia and finally opens the door to ruthless elimination of those deemed unfit by the power-wielders in the society.)
e –> Thus, we see an inadvertently telling case in point of how secular humanist radical relativism based on the amoral worldview of evolutionary materialism has sought to rhetorically subvert moral thought in our civilisation and region, and how once it seizes control of the public square it pretends that it is a consensus that must be ceded the decisive voice on public policy. (Notice how the whole issue of the logical incoherence and moral bankruptcy of an inherently amoral worldview that has a major is-ought gap problem have been simply ignored by A.)
f –> Instead, we need to insist that all worldviews put their cards on the table of comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, logical coherence and explanatory power; equally insisting on our right to hear and assess the key warranting arguments for each one. In the case of evolutionary materialism, as I showed on Saturday above, that includes assessing the strengths and limitations of its origins science claims and the implications for the credibility of mind and morality. In the case of the major alternative in our region, that includes the historical evidence for the underpinnings of the Christian message in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth with 500+ unstoppable witnesses and the resulting impact across 20 centuries.
g –> In that context, it should be plain that an evidently amoral system of thought has no right to appeal to rights, unless it first grounds them within the systrem; for the tendency to use power to undermine rights of the marginalised is a clear issue. So is the point that the claim to rights is the strongest tool in the arsenal of those seeking liberation. So, the grounding of rights in our core nature as human beings is a question that should not be begged.
h –> As we turn to the question A put, the significance of the above at once jumps out: A is in effect radically relativising and holding marriage hostage to the homosexualist political and policy games that s/he intends to play. [That is the homosexualists are assuming they hold the power and privilege to redefine marriage to suit their preferences, in the name of "rights" -- and without being first forced to ground rights in the system of thought they would thus advance..]
i –> But, rights are rooted in human nature, and in the resulting duty to respect that nature. A nature that clearly comes in male and female forms, naturally leading to the birth and nurture of children over about 20 years, which is the first duty of a generation to its posterity.
[ . . . ]
Dictionary // December 7, 2009 at 7:06 AM
j –> Marriage — until the evolutionary materialist, secular humanist amoral radical relativists came along with the latest wave of de-Christianising agendas — was understood to be grounded in that nature and in that first duty to the future.
k –> So, the law hitherto respected and enshrined the immemorial institution of the covenantal union of man and woman under God, and provided support for the task of nurturing the next generation that results form procreation.
l –> But now, we see avant garde heirs of Alcibiades coming along with clever rhetoric and radical relativist agendas, proclaiming that “secular democracy” has the power in effect to decree that a man is a woman and a woman a man. So, marriage can be wrenched into a homosexualist counterfeit, once these advocates can seize enough power to push through their agenda.
m –> Maybe, the case of the UK overseas territories is a good specific point to examine here (as clearly A intends to promote the precedent that would be set in such proposed constitutions); e.g. clause 9 of the Montserrat draft constitution since the late 1990’s as written in the UK FCO and foisted on several successive parliamentary committees here:
n –> First, no-one owes another person a duty to marry, so marriage is not properly a RIGHT. There is a freedom to marry per mutual agreement, and a freedom not to marry; and that in light of the way marriage reflects the natural complementarity of the sexes. E.g., Webster’s classic dictionary, 1913:
o –> The very injection of clause 9 above on what is not otherwise an issue for Constitutional law is telling on an underlying agenda.
p –> Next, observe the clever wording sent by the FCO and Cayman’s apt amendment. Marriage reflects the inherent complementarity of the sexes and the natural procreation that results in children and the nurturing task of families.
q –> By contrast, the FCO draft would subtly impose homosexualisation of marriage and would directly thereafter imply that vulnerable children would be put into an unhealthy and — on too many cases to dispute, manipulative, confusing and likely sexually abusive and unstable — environment by means of adoption.
r –> What a refreshing contrast do we find in the following Dominical words in reply to a testing question on Divorce:
s –> In other words, our very human nature reflects the order of creation, including our maleness and femaleness, leading to the covenantal union of man and woman under God; with which we should not trifle or manipulate. And if the easy divorce and remarriage game is objectionable ["I hate Divorce says the Lord," Mal 2:16], how much moreso the twisting of marriage into an unnatural and unhealthy, objectively disordered form?
t –> Thus, we may read from the apostle who had to deal with this twisting of the natural order of sexuality most directly:
____________
In short, A has inadvertently managed to document just how close to home is the issue of the reality of the homosexualist agenda prong of the dechristiansing tidal wave from the north in our region.
And, the key gaps in its reasoning.
G’day
D
PS: Zoe, you have slipped off the wagon man.
Dictionary // December 7, 2009 at 7:26 AM
PPS: Anon, shame on you! Your selected “example” on marriage is so shockingly twisted that it is beyond mere strawman tactics — it is a positive insult to millions who have shown over many generations what marriage at its best truly is. And, FYI, the full biblical counsel on marriage — as you may easily see from the Dominical words above [which pivot on a fundamental equality of nature as being made jointly in the image of God] — is far from “marriage = enslavement and dehumanisation of women” [and your wrenching of Leviticus is telling, especially in a context where on any topic we should seek the whole counsel of scripture . . . ]. That too reflects a manipulative rhetorical agenda of strawmanising distortion and demonisation leading to dismissal. For shame!
Dictionary // December 7, 2009 at 7:37 AM
PPPS: Onlookers: do you see the inadvertently revealed, deep-rooted hostility to marriage that lies behind such a sick “example”?
Anon // December 7, 2009 at 8:43 AM
@Chris Halsall and @ Praetorius and @Anonymous(2). Do you feel like having a go at this idiot who calls himself “Dictionary”? I real busy right now. You probably are too and frankly it doesn’t matter. But if you want to add to what I have to say, I will enjoy the read.
@Dictionary aka Plagerise Wikipedia. Here is a story of a family – husband, wife and children. They decide to immigrate of New Zealand. All are in perfect health and there is no reason to believe that any of them have any illness whatsoever.
New Zealand accepts them as immigrants, irrespective of any fatal or potentially fatal illnesses they might have. However, being an enlightened country not under the sway of an aggressive and bigoted political church lobby, they test immigrants whom they have accepted in order to ensure the protection medically of all their citizens.
The husband turns out to be HIV+. We are not told how he contracted this virus – it may be that the family was from Africa where it is an epidemic and where medication and medical hygene to prevent the spread can and often is absent. We do not know.
So, this theretofore happy and loving family arrives in New Zealand and there it learns that its medical-problem-free existence has been compromised. But only the husband is compromised and the wife (terrified and with the welfare of her children no doubt first and foremost in her mind) cuts the husband off sexually (we are not told whether she will accept the use of condoms or not) but, as seems proved, continues to share a bed with him – since 2004 when this first happened. Who can blame her? And who can blame him for wanting it otherwise?
There is no evidence that they chose then to go their own sexual ways. In fact, the evidence would seem to me to indicate the opposite.
The husband wants things to be as they were and he sticks his wife with a contaminated needle. But she is not sure he has done this and there is actually no proof that he has. He could have denied it as so many married men do when confronted by their wives on many issues.
But, this man admits it. Remember, there was no need for him to do this and no way of proving what he had done it. Obviously, the man and his wife enjoyed a frank and honest relationship and he could not and would not lie to her.
That, to me, is an extremely sad story and there are many others like it.
Scholorship can only exist in a case where what is read is actually understood by the reader. It does not exist where there is no understanding, but only manipulation.
You, Dictionary, are not a scholar, since you do not understand what you read. You are a pedantic jackass.
Worse, humanity is determined by our ability to feel for and empathise with the plights of others. And from your response, you are very short of being human.
So, as you have eschewed humanity, does this make you immortal?
No, it makes you into less than an animal. It makes you a machine masquerading as a man – an android, programmed by Wikipedia, but without the spirituality to put it into human and divine terms.
The fact that your programming is obsolete means that you are obsolete and, like my old laptop, it is time you were consigned to the scrap heap, but in your case, one needs to throw the hard drive out as well.
I do hope that there are not any more like you spewing your message of indifference, hate and pseudo-intellectualism to contaminate our children in Barbados.
Dictionary // December 7, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Footnote: Wherehomosexualist civil unions may well take child custody disputes. (Notice the clear hostility to a Christian family environment, and questionable practices by the former lesbian partner seeking custody of the child of the OTHER woman.)
Dictionary // December 7, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Onlookers:
Anon continues his abusive ad hominems, slanderous misrepresentation of my argumentation and sources, and insists on using an extereme example of a clearly sick and evil man as thought hat adequately characterises what marriage and family are about.
Also, observe how he now projects his clearly evident hostility into asserted hatefulness on my part. This is of course the rhetoric of the turnabout, slanderous, atmosphere- poisoning false accusation. (And that in the teeth of further refusal to address a serious issue with serious arguments on the merits.)
It seems to me that if you are in a hole, Anon, and want to get out, the trick to getting out is stop digging in deeper.
D
Anon // December 7, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Oh man, Dictionary really doesn’t get it, does he. The machine mentality….everyone has to be exactly the same as him – after he, not us, is created by the Creator. He, not Adam, is the protoype and he is also the standard against which everyone else must measure themselves or be found wanting. No wriggle room or any effort to look for reasons or, if found, to understand and empathise. Dictionary is our judge, arbiter and standard. Or so he would like to think.
Suddenly, Dictionary, I feel sorry for you.
By the way, I would be careful to put forward my own ideas and not to quote Wikipedia quite so freely. You might get into trouble. See below.
“Actor sues Wikipedia
Mon 07 Dec 8:08 AM
Buzz Up!
Ron Livingstone is suing Wikipedia after the page about him wrongly claimed he was gay.
The encyclopedia site, which relies on users to create and update online content, is being sued by the star after his page on the site claims he is in a relationship with a man named Lee Dennison, reports TMZ.com.
The Hollywood actor is best known for his film roles in Swingers and Office Space and TV series, Sex and the City and Band of Brothers.
Livingston, who married Rosemarie DeWitt in November, is accusing the site of libel and invasion of privacy.
He is seeking unspecified damages.”
I have to wonder how many boring, and likely unread, pages of Wikipedia have been created by Dictionary. A most distressing thought.
michael // December 7, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Anon
“While his behavour is inexusable, the reasons for it are sad. His excuse was the preservation of his marriage – i.e. his family. It clearly meant a lot to him.”
false conclusion
Love is selfless not selfish
Obviously you don’t understand this concept .Were you able to under stand the bible or it’s author you could not think or would not think the way you do, you are like pol pot he wanted to start the Cambodian world at year zero(1975) in your case this would mean that the world start tomorrow and homosexuality would be classified normal bestiality adultery murder stealing and the list go on, in the article you put above no where have you said that the man in that marriage said he was a christian,can you please tell what rule you are using to judge what is good and what is bad
Anon // December 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM
michael // December 7, 2009 at 10:51 AM. And here we have Barbados’ own agony aunt, Michael. The self-professed expert on love and on relationships. The lesson is – keep it VERY simple so Michael doesn’t get confused with the MANY emotions that go into love – or any other human feeling. After all, far from understanding and empathy being laudable (as Christ demonstrated and preached) they are too much for Michael to grasp and, since Michael is far more worthy and important than any of us poor sinners, we have to come down to his level, because he sure isn’t going to come up to ours, even if he had the capacity and brain, which he clearly has not.
Instead, we will just have to subscribe to whatever platitude Michael chooses to hurl at us at any given time and to deny our Christianity, because he, Michael, is now Christ’s replacement. Of course, he may be purporting to be the Archangel himself, incarnate, of course.
Michael opins, “Were you able to under stand the bible or it’s author you could not think or would not think the way you do….” I thank him for his instruction and clarification, for I had always thought that the Bible had more than one author, in fact MANY authors. But I must now bow to the insight of the Lord’s annointed, Michael, and I know that the “Rules” of Heaven have now changed (at Michael’s behest and instruction) and it is fresh out of things like understanding, mercy, empathy, Christianity and love -and, if Michael has his say, Heaven has no intention of restocking these items in its inventory. In light of this insight of Michael’s, I hope I live forever so that I never have to forego these items no longer stocked by Heaven, but still available here on Earth.
michael // December 7, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Anon, sir/madam
I am not as wise as you but you have not yet told us what rule you are using
michael // December 7, 2009 at 1:48 PM
“we have to come down to his level, because he sure isn’t going to come up to ours, even if he had the capacity and brain, which he clearly has not.”
To have too come up to your understanding i would have to accept that homosexuality is normal,never going to happen
After all, far from understanding and empathy being laudable (as Christ demonstrated and preached)
I am surprised that you quote Jesus Christ here because i thought that you want to live by man’s rules which are please your self what ever you do
“for I had always thought that the Bible had more than one author, in fact MANY authors. But I must now bow to the insight of the Lord’s annointed,”sorry for my ignorance but i thought that God was the creator of his written word
john1 v1
Heaven have now changed (at Michael’s behest and instruction) and it is fresh out of things like understanding, mercy, empathy, Christianity and love
I know that Jesus Christ died for my sins on the cross i never knew that empathise with my sins had God empathise with sin Christ would have not need to die
i would like to draw your attention to fact that i do not need to call on others to think for me the little wisdom that God has given me i try to use it to it’s fullest
Did you know that murders rapist thieves, and the like empathise with each other so i would not use that yard stick to judge any thing
Anon // December 7, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Michael, poor you.
Alex Fergusson // December 7, 2009 at 2:44 PM
What the DLP is doing to the people is akin to the raw form of homsexuality, with KY or grease.
Diesel tax increase, land tax increase, gasoline increase, cost of living increase.
Now here is the worst news: Solar Dynamics will lay off in January, so too the Post Office, Launderies and Cave Shepherd.
Here is when you know and economic war is brewing:
It would appear that Simpson has pulled the plug on COW over a $2 million unpaid bill for the supply of fuel.
Now, if COW cannot pay $2m then we are in deeper deep doo doo .
This might actually smell good to some – I mean doo doo — you know!!!!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 7, 2009 at 2:57 PM
@ Alex Fergusson // December 7, 2009 at 2:44 PM “What the DLP is doing to the people is akin to the raw form of homsexuality, with KY or grease.” [Of course, your argument could easily have been made with equal effect by simply saying 'rape' (hetero-, or homo- sexual). It seems that you are talking about 'violation' of the person. Have I missed something?]
Alex Fergusson // December 7, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Ok!
Not only is the DLP raping the people of this country, but it is confiscating their wealth through high and unnecessary taxation.
This is akin to economic and political domestic violence and force sex — the type where the aggressor gets pleasure by subjecting the victim to pain and discomfort..
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 7, 2009 at 3:08 PM
@ Alex Fergusson // December 7, 2009 at 3:02 PM “…akin to economic and political domestic violence and force sex…” [I'm not going to get on your case about passionate political argument, but would just beg a little care for those who are actually subjected to domestic violence and forced sex, lest they feel that you are trivializing their plight. You could just say that 'the government is acting in a sadistic manner...']
Alex Fergusson // December 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM
I agree!!! Your sound advice is noted. I am guided accordingly.
Thank you.
Pat // December 7, 2009 at 3:15 PM
@Anon
The way to be rid of this pest Dictionary is to ignore him.
Someone chastised me for contradicting him. The person used the “Anon” handle and I asked which of the “Anons” they were. I pointed out that someone who issues no arguments based on sound analysis but always quoting others and linking to this and that, is not knowledgeable, educated and intellectual, as that particular “Anon” wanted to convince me Dictionary was. I think he is just an old geezer with time on his hands.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 7, 2009 at 3:19 PM
@Alex Fergusson // December 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM Thanks. If only political issues could be so easily handled. I wait for the next salvos. :-)
Anon // December 7, 2009 at 4:11 PM
@Pat. As always, right on the money.
Dictionary // December 7, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Onlookers
It is quite clear that the homosexualists and fellow travellers have nothing substantial to say, or they would have said it.
Instead we find at best contemptuous dismissals, at worst attacks to the man by slander, false accusation and in a few cases — as the contrary facts are right there in front of them — outright bold-face lies.
And now, the decided strategy is that if one cannot refute one can insult, dismiss and ignore as though that is an adequate answer to serious matters.
Old Canon Jones would be shaking his head in General Studies class! And, old Fr Ryan of Boston and Jamaica would join him, too. Not to mention good old Prof [by now?] Wiggins laughing uproariously! (Tell him his unofficial student sends greetings; if you run into him, for me.)
So, the take home lesson is that he homosexualist push is critically dependent on the triumph of relativism based on evolutionary materialist domination of our region’s intellectual culture.
But, once evolutionary materialism has had to answer at the bar of comparative difficulties it cameup short. this, because it undermines the credibility of reason itself and also has no proper base for morality [it is amoral not merely immoral]. So, there is no strength left in the intellectual stronghold that lent its apparent power to the agenda.
Let us not forget that.
G’day
D
PS: On the Wikipedia strawman, it shopuld have long been clear that I am actually a critic of that encyclopedia. But, I acknowledge where it does have a use. As to the notion that a Francis-Schaeffer stimulated worldview level analysis with inputs from men like Hasker and Evans, Trueblood and Plantinga etc (as well as points from the likes of Plato) has its roots in an unacknowledged use of Wikipedia, that is laughable — or it would be if it were not so sad to see Anon flailing about insultingly to try to besmirch what he plainly cannot rebut on the merits. But, even these men are not being cited as in effect Masters speaking infallibly from a papal throne or the modern academic equivalent. The analysis above stands on comparative difficulties analysis, across factual adequacy, logical coherence and explanatory power [in light of Pierce's Abduction concept].
Anonymous // December 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Dictionary
Can you simply (try really hard) explain how my heterosexual marriage will be threatened by gay marriage. How society will be undermined if two sane, consenting adults of the same gender wish to enter into a relationship that is publicly acknowledged and subject to the same intentions to love, honour and respect in fidelity till death do they part as I did and continue to do when I got married to over twenty years ago?
Please quote no one, no philosopher, make no reference to religious text just simply write in language my fourteen year old (and I) can reasonably understand.
By the way, you make ad hominem attacks as well you know. I am NOT a homosexualist supporter of evolutionary materialism preaching moral relativism (borrowing your words). I don’t know what these mean anyway. What I do try is to do is to “do to others as I would wish done to me” and follow as best I can the precepts of George Washinton Carver in particular “take your share of the world and let others take theirs.”
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 2:17 AM
Anonymous,
Kindly look above, as this was already done.
Start here and here.
In essence, the long planned and intended homosexualisation of marriage [cf also here [simple, 10 bullet points], here [focuses on the "you're bigoted objection], here, here, here, and here (focus on state interests) ] is a part of — and is inextricably tied to — a wider agenda of radical relativism driven by the increasing dominance of amoral, evolutionary materialistic thought in our civilisation’s intellectual culture.
Evo mat, however, faces a major gap between the ISes that it accepts [matter, energy, chance and forces of blind, mechanical necessity], and the creation/human nature based OUGHTS that are foundational to rights.
It is thus worth pausing to cite the words of Richard Hooker in his 1594 Ecclesiastical Polity that John Locke used at the pivotal point in his 2nd essay on civil govt, in Ch 2 Sect 5, when he sought to found the core principles of what has become modern democracy:
No other coherent and factually well-anchored foundation for rights has ever been developed.
The breakdown of morality through the encroachment of an amoral, evolutionary materialistic view that leads to radical relativisation of values has been known since the days of Plato [cf his remarks in The Laws Bk X as cited above] to be a precursor for the breakdown of justice/rights and the rise of political strong men posing as saviours in the face of chaos; but these would be political messiahs as a rule are in fact precisely the most extreme examples of amorality in action, starting from Alcibiades and on to far more recent cases in point.
In the cases in the last century, over 100 millions paid with their lives for the experiments with such radically secularist and/or associated neo-pagan ideologies. (And, that does not count the ongoing abortion holocaust; which in the USA alone is totting up at about a million a year, and now approaches 50 millions since 1973.)
In short, the first and in many ways deepest concern is the inextricably connected thrust of radical relativist, secularist evolutionary materialism and the implications of the associated undermining of the moral foundations of respect for rights.
The specific homosexualisation prong of this thrust is first intended to hypersexualise our young; opening them up for homosexualisation through systematically seeking to confuse their sexual identity and desensitise them to all sorts of sexual behaviour from a very early age.
So, once homosexual marriage is on the books, homosexualisty will be pushed into education as “normal” behaviour (probably on terms such as GLSEN is already doing in the US, as discussed above, here . . . warning disturbing contents, and the onward link is stomach-churningly explicit; with line drawings from some of the books in question). And, since it is “normal,” and a “right,” those who adhere to traditional views and values will be denigrated, slandered, demonised and disrespected as “bigots,” having their rights and freedom of conscience violated under false colours of law; as this case already linked above — currently ongoing in the US — shows. (The attitude by homosexualist and/or radical relativist and/or materialist advocates in the thread above should be a pointer to the sort of pattern I am here noting on.)
Finally, the basic point on marriage is that it reflects the natural, creation-rooted complementarity of the sexes. It sets up the best known context for raising of children — one that is already under a lot of pressure in our [dying] civilisation, and especially in our region.
By radically relativistically redefining marriage under the false colour of “rights,” the homosexualists wish to transform our civlisation into a comfort zone for their behaviour; but the effect of such redefinition once legal precedents play out is highly predictable. “Marriage” will come to mean anything the powerful in the community desire; and thus, nothing.
That is — and as many such advocates have declared since at least the 1960’s — this will kill marriage as an institution, which is foundational to stable community.
While individual marriages may well still thrive in the teeth of the trends thus unleashed, the cumulative effect of the above trends and precedents would be devastating to the civilisation as a whole.
What the top tier homosexualists and evolutionary materialistic radical relativists, secularists and neo-pagans who understand this — NB: most who use the talking points and press for the agenda are simply caught up in the movement, and do not have any real depth of understanding on the matches they are playing with (cf. Plato’s parable of the cave here) — are hoping is that most of us will not take the time to think through the long term implications, will not take seriously the warnings of others that such trends are in play, and will emotively resonate with the parasitical claim to “rights.” [Remember, the evolutionary materialist frame of thought has no true foundation for rights; only for the triumph of the powerful. And, historically, the appeal to well-grounded rights is the best weapon for peaceful reformation of oppression and liberation of the oppressed.]
But, in fact, the agenda is rooted in a worldview — evolutionary materialism — which if triumphant will bread down basic support for recognition of our rights. And, such predictably leads to chaos and tyranny as desperate people seek strong rulers to preserve order.
That is why I have taken time to insist that worldview level issues be put on the table, so that those who are willing to think will at least understand the peril that is afoot in our region.
I suspect the trend in view is unstoppable, given its global reach and institutional access.
But, a remnant can at lest begin to take steps to protect itself and prepare to be an oppressed and misunderstood counter-cultural minority. [As to the roots of such misunderstanding, just look at the willful slanders above against me for simply pointing out and asking for serious discussion of unwelcome trends and issues.]
G’day
D
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 2:20 AM
Response is not going through
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 2:21 AM
Let’s try in bits:
Anonymous,
Kindly look above, as this was already done.
Start here and here.
In essence, the long planned and intended homosexualisation of marriage [cf also here [simple, 10 bullet points], here [focuses on the "you're bigoted objection],
[ . . . ]
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 2:22 AM
here, here, here, and here (focus on state interests) ] is a part of — and is inextricably tied to — a wider agenda of radical relativism driven by the increasing dominance of amoral, evolutionary materialistic thought in our civilisation’s intellectual culture.
[ . . . ]
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 2:23 AM
Evo mat, however, faces a major gap between the ISes that it accepts [matter, energy, chance and forces of blind, mechanical necessity], and the creation/human nature based OUGHTS that are foundational to rights.
It is thus worth pausing to cite the words of Richard Hooker in his 1594 Ecclesiastical Polity that John Locke used at the pivotal point in his 2nd essay on civil govt, in Ch 2 Sect 5, when he sought to found the core principles of what has become modern democracy:
No other coherent and factually well-anchored foundation for rights has ever been developed.
The breakdown of morality through the encroachment of an amoral, evolutionary materialistic view that leads to radical relativisation of values has been known since the days of Plato [cf his remarks in The Laws Bk X as cited above] to be a precursor for the breakdown of justice/rights and the rise of political strong men posing as saviours in the face of chaos; but these would be political messiahs as a rule are in fact precisely the most extreme examples of amorality in action, starting from Alcibiades and on to far more recent cases in point.
In the cases in the last century, over 100 millions paid with their lives for the experiments with such radically secularist and/or associated neo-pagan ideologies. (And, that does not count the ongoing abortion holocaust; which in the USA alone is totting up at about a million a year, and now approaches 50 millions since 1973.)
In short, the first and in many ways deepest concern is the inextricably connected thrust of radical relativist, secularist evolutionary materialism and the implications of the associated undermining of the moral foundations of respect for rights.
[ . . . ]
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 2:24 AM
The specific homosexualisation prong of this thrust is first intended to hypersexualise our young; opening them up for homosexualisation through systematically seeking to confuse their sexual identity and desensitise them to all sorts of sexual behaviour from a very early age.
So, once homosexual marriage is on the books, homosexualisty will be pushed into education as “normal” behaviour (probably on terms such as GLSEN is already doing in the US, as discussed above, here . . . warning disturbing contents, and the onward link is stomach-churningly explicit; with line drawings from some of the books in question). And, since it is “normal,” and a “right,” those who adhere to traditional views and values will be denigrated, slandered, demonised and disrespected as “bigots,” having their rights and freedom of conscience violated under false colours of law; as this case already linked above — currently ongoing in the US — shows. (The attitude by homosexualist and/or radical relativist and/or materialist advocates in the thread above should be a pointer to the sort of pattern I am here noting on.)
Finally, the basic point on marriage is that it reflects the natural, creation-rooted complementarity of the sexes. It sets up the best known context for raising of children — one that is already under a lot of pressure in our [dying] civilisation, and especially in our region.
By radically relativistically redefining marriage under the false colour of “rights,” the homosexualists wish to transform our civlisation into a comfort zone for their behaviour; but the effect of such redefinition once legal precedents play out is highly predictable. “Marriage” will come to mean anything the powerful in the community desire; and thus, nothing.
That is — and as many such advocates have declared since at least the 1960’s — this will kill marriage as an institution, which is foundational to stable community.
While individual marriages may well still thrive in the teeth of the trends thus unleashed, the cumulative effect of the above trends and precedents would be devastating to the civilisation as a whole.
What the top tier homosexualists and evolutionary materialistic radical relativists, secularists and neo-pagans who understand this — NB: most who use the talking points and press for the agenda are simply caught up in the movement, and do not have any real depth of understanding on the matches they are playing with (cf. Plato’s parable of the cave here) — are hoping is that most of us will not take the time to think through the long term implications, will not take seriously the warnings of others that such trends are in play, and will emotively resonate with the parasitical claim to “rights.” [Remember, the evolutionary materialist frame of thought has no true foundation for rights; only for the triumph of the powerful. And, historically, the appeal to well-grounded rights is the best weapon for peaceful reformation of oppression and liberation of the oppressed.]
But, in fact, the agenda is rooted in a worldview — evolutionary materialism — which if triumphant will bread down basic support for recognition of our rights. And, such predictably leads to chaos and tyranny as desperate people seek strong rulers to preserve order.
That is why I have taken time to insist that worldview level issues be put on the table, so that those who are willing to think will at least understand the peril that is afoot in our region.
I suspect the trend in view is unstoppable, given its global reach and institutional access.
But, a remnant can at lest begin to take steps to protect itself and prepare to be an oppressed and misunderstood counter-cultural minority. [As to the roots of such misunderstanding, just look at the willful slanders above against me for simply pointing out and asking for serious discussion of unwelcome trends and issues.]
G’day
D
PS: David, sorry if I have put in a multiple post . ..
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 2:24 AM
PPS: One part is waiting moderation by explicit statement.
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 2:34 AM
Footnote: this issues page will have some good FAQs.
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 3:03 AM
An article [linked above] that could help focus discussion:
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 3:08 AM
NB: I have also sent an article that could help focus efforts; but it does not even show up with “under mod.” [ Link.]
Anon // December 8, 2009 at 4:31 AM
@Dictionary. Imagine anyone wanting to perpetuate you by giving birth to you. Everybody must now be considering sterilization or homosexuality. If anyone every wanted to know why gays exist, it is so that they cannot, even by accident, give birth to another Dictionary. I might go that way myself.
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 7:16 AM
Onlookers:
We need to understand how the Plato’s cave shadow show game works on this general subject.
Mike Adams deconstructs a media report on a homosexual rape for porn and solicitation case involving a university health official and his 5 YO adoptive son.
David, thanks.
G’day
D
PS: Observe how Anon now plainly wishes that I were never born; i.e. a euphemism for wishing me dead. Sad, but not unexpected; as clearly some very strong emotions are involved on his part to sustain the pattern of slanders and turnabout false accusations above. Anon, it is time for you to take a serious look at your views, reasoning and attitudes. (I suggest you start with the below.)
PPS: A fair reading of my remarks on Wikipedia above will show that I am a critic [and definitely not a contributor!], but respect the fact that for a lot of [relatively non ideological] stuff, it gets it right and can be a useful source for otherwise very hard to find items; so it is important for us to make sure what we say can at least pass the Wiki test — match it or correct it. Now, overnight, I have found an interesting little video on using Wikipedia wisely; from the Library at University of North Carolina. (Actually, I wonder what so much of the fuss is over. Bias, error and outright lies can be found in all sorts of “respectable” media and even textbooks and reference resources; especially where the subject hits close to home for powerful groups. What I used to teach students at HS and College level — slightly updated — is that arguments and knowledge claims rest on one or more of three main appeals: (i) fact and logic, (ii) authority and (iii) emotions. Emotions are the most persuasive but are no better than the underlying perceptions and judgements involved. [Yes, emotions have a cognitive element!] 99+% of practical arguments require authorities, starting with the dictionary, but no authority is any better than his/her facts and logic. And, it is only if the claimed facts materially represent the truth — as opposed to a half truth — and logic is properly applied that conclusions are well-warranted. So, we need to teach kids how to identify the appeals being made, and to dig for the claimed facts used and associated reasoning, then test the credibility and completeness of claimed facts, while testing the chain of reasoning, whether deductive, inductive or explanatory/abductive. These notes on basic critical thinking and this introductory phil toolkit — both already linked in this thread — are a good place to start from. This survey on fallacies, smokescreens and propaganda techniques would also be very helpful, and the examples are a lot closer to home for say what would go wrong in a Wikipedia article, than the typical ones I have seen out there. Anon, from the above, would benefit from these tools.)
Dictionary // December 8, 2009 at 9:13 AM
NB: An eyewitness — a woman raised by her homosexual father in close contact with the homosexual culture in Canada — speaks.
michael // December 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM
dictionary
I hope from your last post ,the link you posted, anonymous and all can see what we are really up against,in some ways i think the battle is already lost in the northern countries if not the war our islands and our region need to pay close attention to what is being foisted on them,in western Europe every day is the drip,drip effect of pushing the boundaries further and further
Dictionary // December 9, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Thanks Michael
I suspect, though that the proposed attempt to ignore and/or strawmannise and demonise and dismiss what plainly cannot be refuted will continue.
Let us hope someone will wake up and take the matters seriously, before it is too late for our region. (I think it is already too late for Europe and North America.)
D
michael // December 9, 2009 at 7:01 AM
To the people who think all is well, to the direction we are being led to by the governments of the European countries an North America,here is an example of the persons who will go to the UN and suggest what conventions should be acceptable to or be adopted by the rest of the world http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/04/john-bercow-guide-understanding-women, these same type of persons have no problem with sexual deviations in society,I was once told by an old man that some people view of the world is like two frogs standing at the bottom of a deep well looking up and one frog say to the other what a large sky that is,and I think this is the view of some people when there are told that there is danger beyond our shores.I think there must come a time when one should lead not just follow, I am sorry that this has not been written to a standards that Anon can understand but i did not go to university
Love // December 9, 2009 at 7:33 AM
Is it true that Pearson Bowen (CBC) and Mark Anthony (Lottery) are *ullers and live together ?
Dictionary // December 9, 2009 at 8:02 AM
in Canada:
Here we have a case where for writing a letter to the editor that exposed and was critical of homosexual-ISM, a Canadian man was assessed a fine of Can$ 5,000 for “hate speech” — and was also issued a court gag order to silence him from speaking in public on the matter.
It has taken FOUR YEARS of litigation to get the verdict partially reversed.
We hardly need to say just how effectively that sort of situation has chilled those who might otherwise have wished to dissent from the now dominant media line on the subject.
And this is in Canada, a sister Commonwealth country!
D
Dictionary // December 9, 2009 at 8:08 AM
Love
Kindly, lay off the scandal-mongering gossip.
If these two are as you describe [and I don't even know who they are, much less care], pray for them and help them, being kind to them when you see them in the street.
Spreading rumours is nasty and unfair.
D
Dictionary // December 9, 2009 at 8:34 AM
meanwhile, in the UK . . .
Alex Fergusson // December 9, 2009 at 9:42 AM
I know you lot want to talk about homosexuality, but what about things that are actually important and that real barbadians care about such as:
(1) bottle gas going up again;
(2) diesel, kerosene and petrol at their highest in 14 years,
(3) cost of living rising out of control,
(4) people losing their jobs, while companies closing, and above all
(5) the DLP does not know what it is going, which is why 2010 will be worst than 2009 – with massive layoffs planned for the period: January – April?
FACED WITH THESE SAME CONDITIONS THE BLP WOULD BE PREPARING A FEAST FOR BARBADIANS – NOT MAKING THEM SUCH SALTS.
Barbadians must not develop “Stockholm syndrome.”
The DLP does not know what it is doing. That is why this country is in crisis.
The BLP can do better! Team Barbados Labour Party can return this country to prosperity.
THE DLP HAD ANOTHER CHANCE BUT ALSO SQUANDERED THAT. IT IS NOW TIME TO GIVE BARBADOS A CHANCE!
Dictionary // December 9, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Alex:
Before I head out the door . . .
I know you are concerned about pocket book issues, understandably so.
However — and not denying their importance! — economics issues are not the only policy issues that we need to concern ourselves with, especially as this one is, in a context where the very basis for the moral foundations of liberty are possibly being undermined by a determined, civilisation level agenda.
On the economics, too, please try to understand that B’dos’ economy is probably still very tourism dependent, whilst Guyana’s is not nearly as tourism driven.
When times get hard, people cut long distance vacation travel [esp at these high energy prices . . . imagine US$ 70+ per barrel oil is relatively "cheap"!], and it does not come back until they feel comfortable; which is still a long way off.
In turn that puts financial pressure on Governments in the region — last I checked about 1/4 of regional GDP and employment were based on tourism — which makes them look to cut costs.
One of those cost areas is the subsidy on certain energy prices. (Look here at the 5-year trend on crude oil: after spiking in 08, the trough was about the turn of the year at about US$ 50/bbl, It has crept back up to $70 – 75 now.)
I hold no brief for any govt in the region, but we should be analytical enough to understand the sticky wicket that they are batting on just now.
So, we in the region need to move into a more diversified economy than agri and mining commodities plus tourism [and note that post Sir Allen Stanford,
money launderingfinancial services is also under pressure, understandably so . . . ], and we need to begin to transform our energy base.Meanwhile, the lagged effect of decades of unsustainable development efforts and trends will dog us. For which, any govt in power will be blamed.
So, let us get serious about transforming the economics of our region, and let us keep a weather eye out for other significant policy issues that we need to address.
BOTH AND, not EITHER OR
D
Love // December 9, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Dictionary,
Apologies for mashing your…corns !
I did not realise you belong to the club also !
Alex Fergusson // December 9, 2009 at 12:10 PM
@ Love
FACED WITH THESE SAME CONDITIONS THE BLP WOULD BE PREPARING A FEAST FOR BARBADIANS – NOT MAKING THEM SUCH SALTS.
It is why Barbadians must not develop “Stockholm syndrome.
THE BLP CAN DO BETTER AND IS BETTER FOR BARBADOS.
michael // December 9, 2009 at 3:27 PM
@love
your asumptioms are unwarranted, D is absolutely right there is no need to subject individuals to abuse after all there are people like us,I have two members of my family who are involved in these practices one male one female, in the case of the male it was a way of earning money,and may i say at this juncture they booth came from family units where there fathers were not there for them,one was a dead beat dad as the Americans call it,and the other the father abused the mother,in the case of the male booth he and I use to go from tenantry to tenantry on Saturdays looking for his father to get some money to buy food when we were children ,in the female case I think what she saw meeted to here mother may have brought her to the conclusion that it was better to be a man than a woman,why I say this is because she once said to me she would not let any man treat her how her father treated her mother,she thought that men had more power than women this is very sad so please think before you make fun of these people, I still say what they do is depravity
Dictionary // December 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Brief notes:
Love:
in response to a reminder of our duty to the reputation and souls of others, you resorted to slandering me.
I suppose it is fitting that I should be wished dead by proponents of one side, and accused of being on that same side by an extremist on the other.
For, the point of balance is the true opposite to all extremes.
Alex:
Kindly, do not fall into the trap of being a Johnnie one-note.
D
Dictionary // December 9, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Michael
Thanks.
Let’s pray for these cousins — I assume — of yours, that God will grant them the grace to find healing and repentance, thence renewal and blessed transformation.
D
Dictionary // December 10, 2009 at 7:16 AM
More evidence: From Massachusetts, a tape and transcript on seminars on “safe schools” issues being used for desensitisation, propagandisation and recruitment in 2000. We need to understand this stuff, and learn how to expose and rebut it; but we must not let it get us into hate.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // December 11, 2009 at 5:42 AM
@Dictionary, michael, et al
In line with sentiments such as “absolutely right there is no need to subject individuals to abuse” Barbados may soon get a chance to show if it agrees with that, given the recent reports flowing around Rihanna. She is quoted as saying “I’d love to be an assassin. Either that or a lesbian. Maybe both. Hey, a gay assassin, there’s nothing hotter than that. Megan Fox would play my girlfriend – hands down. She’s yummy. She’s hot.”
A lot of speculation is now swirling around the meaning of her new song “Te Amo” (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8SPfrsvt94). Despite her known heterosexual relations and other comments about what she prefers in the opposite sex (big is better, etc), we will see how public tongues wag.
michael // December 11, 2009 at 7:23 AM
Dennis
I am sorry i don’t get it,what has this got to do with the debate on homosexuality
1) hollywood and the entertainment industry always seek ways to promote it’s product or it’s people and most entertainers promote them self by making outrageous statements so to be noticed surely a nation cant base it’s destination on eye candy, what you see and like for your enjoyment can not be a rule or bench mark for the rest of society,what we are trying to do here is to bring public awareness to the homosexual activist agenda,which (D)has demonstrated by the links he has provided,what i have noticed is that the people who support the idea of please your self what ever you do (no absolute right and no absolute wrong) always bring some thing for a distraction
ps in a few years no one will know of Megan fox or care about here and what you are seeing is makeup posses camera angles it all an image that is not a real person in other words it’s all hype
BM40 // December 19, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Are dictionary and Zoe the same person?
Amused // December 19, 2009 at 4:26 AM
BM40 // December 19, 2009 at 1:01 AM . You could argue.