"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."
C.S. Lewis
"The fingers of your thoughts are molding your face ceaselessly."
Charles Reznikoff
"Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere."
G.K. Chesterton
"Humility enforces where neither virtue nor strength can prevail, nor reason."
Francis Quarles
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."
C.S. Lewis
Resistance Thinking Society
'Society' is a term used to describe a grouping of individuals and outlines the structures employed to ensure that the individuals within a society relate to each other in an appropriate fashion. Different societies may have distinctive cultural behaviours and different institutions. In this society section you will find news, articles and reviews that relate to Australian society, or more specifically, individuals who live in Australia.
Topics in this section will cover: science and technology - stem cell research, IVF, cloning, intelligent design, evolution etc.; politics - ideologies (communism, anarchism, totalitarianism, capitalism etc.), state and federal politics, the free market, the United Nations etc.; sociology - globalisation, prisons, welfare, government; environment - global warming, alternative energy etc.; and moral issues - poverty, homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion etc.
The role of the Christian within society is to stand for truth, for justice and most importantly, to represent God's agenda on the earth. As the Resistance Thinking journey continues, our aim is to stimulate engaging dialogue exploring the complexities of how followers of Jesus should engage with society in our day and age.
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Article by Cameron Spink & Fellow Believer
Comedian Josh Thomas attacked ACL's Jim Wallace on the issue of homosexuality on Q & A this week saying:
"Why is it they listen to the part of the Bible that says it is abomination for a man to lie with another man but you ignore the part of the Bible that says it's an abomination to mix crops in the same field? Why are you so passionately anti-homosexuality but you are fairly quiet on the issue of biodynamic farming? Also, it's widely understood that gays have no choice about being gay. I can tell you from personal experience it's impossible for me to feel sexual desire or romantic attraction to a girl. We know young homosexuals have a hard time coming to terms with being homosexual and studies have shown that they're far more likely to experience depression, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness - that's right, homelessness - and they're ultimately far more likely to attempt and occasionally achieve suicide. I am interested to find out if Jim is concerned about the role the Australian Christian Lobby is playing in empowering homophobia, which could be contributing to the mental illnesses of young gay people."
Suffice to say that Jim Wallace's response was less than adequate. So let me explore Josh Thomas' comments. At the start of his criticism, Josh makes reference to the stance that the book of Leviticus has against homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13) and compares the Christian response to homosexuality as opposed to the Christian response to mixing crops (Leviticus 19:19). This is a regularly used ploy. "Why don't you concentrate on other verses from Leviticus?". To be honest, this question is either intellectually dishonest or is merely a question of ignorance. Leviticus 18 is entirely about sexual acts that should not be practiced. Whereas Leviticus 19 is broken up into three parts. Initially, and most importantly, it charges the Israelites to keep a holy relationship with God (Leviticus 19:1-8). This is the chief identifier of them being God's people. Secondly, there are the ways that the Israelites should interact with their neighbours (Leviticus 19:9-17). Again, this is off-spring of the Ten Commandments and how they related to the Israelites living in Canaan. That is, these laws are social directives to keep God's people holy. This brings us to the verses so regularly compared with Leviticus 18:22. Leviticus 19:19-37 speaks on God's statutes like not turning to necromancers (Leviticus 19:31) and fair trading (Leviticus 19:35). Again, it is clear that these are social directives that separate the Israelites from every other nation surrounding them. Of course some of these still make sense in how we should live today (Leviticus 19:29-37) because they exist outside of their social structure and are still very much sinful behaviour. It is very easy to identify which statutes are behaviours that mattered under the Israelite covenant that set this nation apart and which ones still have relevance.
Here's another way of looking at it. As Christians we have a position against murder and lies. Both of these positions would be endorsed by Josh Thomas as good moral rules. But how does he determine good moral rules? It seems that he just takes issue with the moral rules that affect his own life. To be honest, that's one of two responses to be expected. Either you conform your life or you reject the rules. Yet Josh would likely wish to stand strong against murder but would have no viable reason to hold such a view. He, by his own worldview, has no reason to condemn such a view while actually enunciate the dangers of homosexuality. In the end Leviticus must be read through salvation and understood that it's chief purpose was to keep the Israelite nation holy.
Toby Jones asked whether Jesus makes any mention of homosexuality, to which Jim Wallace responded "Christ was silent". However, Jim Wallace's response does not actually match Jesus' teachings. Jesus was clear on marriage in Matthew 19 - "the two shall become one flesh". Indeed he went further when speaking on divorce. "[F]rom the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8). Jesus is clear that relationships are meant for their created form. That is, a man is designed to become one flesh with one woman. This intention is important because we are told in John 1 that Jesus was present in the beginning. It was His creation. "He who created them from the beginning made them male and female" (Matthew 19:4). It is clear that what God created naturally for sexuality did not include same-sex relationships. Furthermore, as Ros Phillips states:
"No one on the program pointed out that Jesus explicitly condemned homosexual behaviour in Matthew 15: 19 and Mark 7: 22, where Jesus talks about the evil things which come out of a person. One of the evils listed is "porneia" or "porneus" in the Greek - sometimes translated "sexual immorality" - and includes all forms of sexual expression apart from sex between a married man and woman."
To construe Jesus stance as being ambivalent on homosexuality is either divisive and/or ignorant.
Edit: the following is written by a friend of mine who agreed to help me with this article. This relates specifically to Josh Thomas' contentions that are not about any Biblical interpretation.
Josh Thomas presents two main arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality not directly relating to the Bible. Firstly he presents that homosexuality is not a choice: "Also, it's widely understood that gays have no choice about being gay. I can tell you from personal experience it's impossible for me to feel sexual desire or romantic attraction to a girl.". Secondly he claims that a range of social and physiological problems that homosexuals experience is the result of 'homophobia': "...studies have shown that they're far more likely to experience depression, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness - that's right, homelessness - and they're ultimately far more likely to attempt and occasionally achieve suicide. I am interested to find out if Jim is concerned about the role the Australian Christian Lobby is playing in empowering homophobia, which could be contributing to the mental illnesses of young gay people."
The first point that Josh presents is that because people are one way, it is how they ought to be. This reasoning should firstly be rejected because it commits the is/ought fallacy. Basically the fallacy is that just because things are one way does not mean they ought to be that way. Therefore, even if homosexuals have no choice in their feelings, this does not mean that they ought to find approval for these feelings. To illustrate I will present some examples:
- If a man has chronic anger problems it does not mean we ought to approve of his actions, even if he did not make a single decision where he chose to be quick tempered. In this circumstance it is clearly recognised as not being how things should be and treated accordingly.
- All of humanity are fundamentally orientated towards self and sin. It is ridiculous to say that just because people have no choice in the matter it is right. This is fundamentally what humanity is and fundamentally what they ought not to be.
- To underline this understanding we should look at what Paul said about marriage. Paul clearly states that it is not necessary to be married; in fact it can be of benefit not to marry at all (1 Corinthians 7:1). This demonstrates that even with heterosexual feelings, they do not need to be acted upon. In telling others to marry Paul avoids using the is/ought fallacy as he instructs those burning with lust should marry SO THAT they won't sin (1 Corinthians 7:9). The fallacy is avoided as he gives reasons why is leads to ought. If Christians are not compelled to act on our orientation even when it involves the non-sinful act of getting married, why do homosexual feelings require participation in the homosexual lifestyle as well as approval from the public?
In saying that, the best way to avoid homosexual sin is to remove the 'is' in the first place. Better to cut the temptation off at the source, as this is far better than having the whole body thrown into Hell, as Jesus said (Matthew 5:29-30). Therefore, it is important that the provisions we have are used. Namely renewal through the Holy Spirit; repentance; prayer and the therapy that is available. In this, it is important to realise that everyone is inclined towards various sins in different amounts; everyone has things about them that are, yet ought not to be.
In making his second point Josh Thomas openly admits that homosexuals have a disproportionately higher level of problems such as depression, eating disorders, alcohol abuse etc. Josh Thomas tentatively places the blame of these problems upon homophobia. In rushing to this conclusion Josh ignores other variables that differentiate the lives of homosexuals from heterosexuals. Namely the sexual acts themselves; the homosexual culture; and the lack of natural parenthood. We could only conclude that homophobia is the culprit if these problems approached normal levels as 'homophobia' approached zero. Meanwhile, to think that homosexual culture, which at many levels actively rejects traditional constraint, would not have an affect on one's alcoholic consumption is nonsense.
In reality these facts alone do not make an argument for greater acceptance of homosexuality, unless 'homophobia' is indeed the primary reason for these problems, which it is not evident that it is. In fact if the other variables are more prominent then it gives greater reason to continue to oppose acceptance in the public sphere as well as to continue to call men and women out of the lifestyle. It is the only compassionate choice; to oppose that which brings sexual disease, deception, psychological problems, no parenthood and no salvation.
Safe sex gets more complicated. What? Sex before marriage has consequences?? Who would have ever guessed.
Sexual infections rise among Gen Y The Age, July 3, 2008 Lily has always been pretty savvy about safe sex. The 24-year-old nursing student used protection when she had sex with her first boyfriend several years ago, and on the one occasion the condom broke, she had a sexually transmitted infection (STI) check-up. When she began her next relationship, then aged 22, Lily (not her real name) made sure her new boyfriend had also been tested before they stopped using condoms.
As the articles flow in about the 10th anniversary of the terrorist September 11 attacks I wish to pause for a moment and add my voice to the fray.
I do not remember much from that day. As a twelve-year-old this event didn’t have the impact that it certainly would have had I been relationally connected to this tragedy. As such my life went on.
Yet September 11 of the year 2011 has awoken a stirring in western nations. This event created a so-called “War on Terror”. Perhaps, we didn’t realise that we were already in a war. Not a specific war against men but a war against our natures, against the prince of darkness.
For much of my life I have lived a comfortable life. Not merely in possessions but in a lack of hostility. Now I see that this war is not only right on my doorstep but in my own heart as well. For many this turning point was September 11, 2001. For me, it was several years later.
Do not be deceived, this war involves everyone. It is not a war against fellow human beings but a war for fellow human beings. In this war I am merely a foot-soldier but I will do what I am called to do. At the moment it is to stand firm against an onslaught of hatred and oppression. Against those who claim that the Gospel has no merit, that Jesus does not provide salvation.
As a combatant for the Lord I expect adversity. I am not afraid of worldviews spawned from Satan to entrap the masses. I denounce them with all my strength because they lead to nothing but despair and an eternity of destruction. I reject the concept that Allah is God. I deny Dawkin’s humanism. I stand on the firm, unchanging word of scripture.
What happened ten years ago is a tragedy. It caused masses of human fatalities and is a clear win for the enemy. Yet, hope is not lost. We know the war for the souls of man has been won. We know that Jesus reigns victorious. We are now charged with helping the casualties and those still imprisoned in their own sin. That’s why I continue to fight. So that none have to fall by the wayside. To rage against the darkness. It is my hope that you join me.
James 1:2-4
Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds,for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Embryo: A Defense of Human Life Reviewed by Bill Muehlenberg, Culture Watch, April 2008 (Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen, Doubleday, 2008)
In this important volume two philosophers with interests in bioethics and law make the case for the moral worth of the human embryo from non-religious grounds. The case instead is made with a combination of science (biology, embryology, genetics) and moral philosophy.
Thus this book covers a wide range of topics, and deals with the various technologies that threaten the human embryo, from abortion to cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Much of the discussion focuses on the scientific questions: what is an embryo, how is it formed and developed, and so on.
The authors show that at fertilisation a new and distinct human organism comes into existence. The newly formed zygote is genetically unique, and its sex is established. This newly formed zygote is genetically distinct from either of its two parents.
When sperm and oocyte unite, there is a new human individual which comes into existence. It is a “single, unified, and self-integrated biological system”, argue the authors, which is on a “developmental trajectory” toward a mature stage of human being.
The authors remind us that the zygote is no longer some functional part of either parent, but a “unique organism, distinct and whole, albeit at the very beginning of a long process of development to adulthood”. All the mother does from now on is provide nutrition and a safe environment for the embryo to grow.
And this growth is internally directed. It contains within itself all the “genetic programming and epigenetic characteristics necessary to direct its own biological growth”. It is a complete or whole organism, in the very early stages of development. And the changes from embryo to fetus to child to adult, etc., are simply changes in degree, not changes in kind.
Thus the scientific question is easily answered. This is a wholly new and distinct genetic individual. And it of course is fully human. But questions arise as to whether this new human embryo is in fact a person. Here the authors move from science to philosophy.
For science cannot answer these sorts of questions. Thus the need for moral philosophy. And here the authors take on all the leading critics of the personhood of the human embryo. Peter Singer, Lee Silver, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Michael Tooley and others are all interacted with.
Drawing on a rich history of philosophical discussion, going back at least to Plato, the authors seek to establish the substance or essence of an entity, in distinction to its various characteristics or properties. Distinction, in other words, must be made between the kind of thing an entity is, and its accidental or contingent properties. For example, being left-handed or red-haired is not an essential feature of peronhood, but is simply an accidental property.
Utilitarian and consequentialist definitions of personhood fail to make this important distinction. Thus personhood is tied up with functionality and activity, instead of one’s innate nature or essence. So persons are described as those with sentience, or self-consciousness, or various other functions. But the authors argue that the utilisation of these accidental properties is not the same as our fundamental nature or substance.
The various abilities to reason, communicate, make free choices, and perform other functions of course are not fully formed in the embryo, or even in a young child. They take time to mature and properly develop. But the capacity to perform such functions is with us from the very beginning. Each new human being “comes into existence possessing the internal resources to develop such capacities”.
Thus human beings live personal lives, argue the authors. These lives are “characterised by a certain range of potentialities, which need not be fully instantiated or realized all at once or to the same degree in all cases”.
The bulk of this book then takes on the various arguments made against the personhood of the embryo, and these functionalist definitions of personhood. Various philosophical and moral challenges and objections are carefully dealt with. Specific issues such as brain death, twinning, natural embryo loss, lifeboat ethics, surplus embryos, and other problems are discussed in detail. Challenges from cloning and other new reproductive technologies are also addressed. Finally, political, technological and cultural recommendations are made, based on this understanding of the complete humanity and personhood of the human embryo.
This is a very fine book that covers most of the bases in what is often a highly emotive and controversial debate. The scientific, moral and philosophical case for the worth of the embryo is here clearly and dispassionately made. The authors have produced a welcome addition to the growing body of pro-life literature.
Review found at culture watch (Used with permission)
