350 responses to “The Homosexual Debate Continues to Simmer In Barbados”

1. 

   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:

   They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements [[NB: air, water, earth, and fire . . . the classical view] are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism is hardly a new or a primarily “scientific” view!] . . . .

   these people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that THE HIGHEST RIGHT IS MIGHT, and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions, these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others, and not in legal subjection to them.

   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

   Loading…
2. 

   Dictionary

   December 5, 2009 at 7:13 am

   
   

   completion part is in moderation . . .

   Loading…
3. 

   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:

   Athenian Stranger: At Athens there are tales preserved in writing which the virtue of your state, as I am informed, refuses to admit. They speak of the Gods in prose as well as verse, and the oldest of them tell of the origin of the heavens and of the world, and not far from the beginning of their story they proceed to narrate the birth of the Gods, and how after they were born they behaved to one another. Whether these stories have in other ways a good or a bad influence, I should not like to be severe upon them, because they are ancient; but, looking at them with reference to the duties of children to their parents, I cannot praise them, or think that they are useful, or at all true. Of the words of the ancients I have nothing more to say; and I should wish to say of them only what is pleasing to the Gods. But as to our younger generation and their wisdom, I cannot let them off when they do mischief. For do but mark the effect of their words: when you and I argue for the existence of the Gods, and produce the sun, moon, stars, and earth, claiming for them a divine being, if we would listen to the aforesaid philosophers we should say that they are earth and stones only, which can have no care at all of human affairs, and that all religion is a cooking up of words and a make-believe.

   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

   Loading…
4. 

   Dictionary

   December 5, 2009 at 7:56 am

   
   

   Thanks David.

   Loading…
5. 

   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.)

   Loading…
6. 

   David

   December 5, 2009 at 9:10 am

   
   

   Interesting comment by Minister Sinckler in the context of disestablishment.

   Barbados minister says region needs to determine the best type of family structure

   Published on Saturday, December 5, 2009 Email To Friend Print Version

   BRIDGETOWN, Barbados (BGIS) — Barbados and the rest of the Caribbean need to determine the best type of family structure that is allowed to exist in society.

   Minister of Social Care, Christopher Sinckler (FP)

   This observation was made Thursday by Minister of Social Care, Christopher Sinckler, while speaking at the launch of Barbadian sociologist, Lloyd Springer’s book “Fatherhood in the Neighbourhood”.

   Noting that the female-headed households had become a dominant feature in the Caribbean and the role of males in many families had become marginalised, he said we had not “seriously tackled what type of family is best for us, or the family that we want to see in our society.”

   Sinckler opined: “We have a structure that is ill-defined and, in many ways, it is unmanageable. I think in order for us to get to the root of why our fathers or men have been marginalised in the context of that, we need to seriously re-examine and for ourselves determine what is the appropriate family structure in Barbados and the Caribbean.

   “To do otherwise, I think would be a clear and distinct failure in our responsibility to build our nation, because family building is really nation building. To be able to begin that seminal work, we have to look at our re-culturalisation within the society. We often say, but we don’t put a sufficiently high value on how foreign influences have determined, in a certain way, the cultural practices that we have,” he stated.

   Citing some instances where Caribbean people had begun to take on the practices of other cultures, Sinckler said re-culturalisation had to take place because we were imitating values that were foreign to our own existence.

   The Social Care Minister also pointed to the need to redefine what “maleness” represents because, according to him, “males either through their own actions or by the breakdown in the institutional and cultural structures in society have become emasculated and they are really less than they ought to be within society.”

   Noting the work that was being done by the Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA) on the role of fathers and the need for them to play a more central part in society, he hoped those efforts and “Fatherhood in the Neighbourhood” would restore the pride of males.

   “If we don’t address these issues, we are going to have consistent problems with what we are seeing coming across. I think that type of self-actualisation is critical to what we want to do, and my hope is that this excellent work, with its empirical investigation, by speaking directly to people who are affected, can begin that process for reconstituting the family as a critical institution within our society,” Mr. Sinckler stated.

   Loading…
7. 

   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!

   Loading…
8. 

   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.

   Loading…
9. 

   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.

   Loading…
10. 

    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.

    Loading…
11. 

    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

    Loading…
12. 

    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

    Loading…
13. 

    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

    Loading…
14. 

    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!

    Loading…
15. 

    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)?

    Loading…
16. 

    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).

    Loading…
17. 

    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.

    Loading…
18. 

    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.

    Loading…
19. 

    Dictionary

    December 5, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    
    

    Zoe, you are now being “invited” to go down an off-topic side-track . . .

    Loading…
20. 

    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?

    Loading…
21. 

    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. >>

    Loading…
22. 

    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

    Loading…
23. 

    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…)

    Loading…
24. 

    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?

    Loading…
25. 

    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

    Loading…
26. 

    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!]

    Loading…
27. 

    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:

    4:10 [Christ], the very one11 who descended, is also the one who ascended above all the heavens, in order to fill all things. 4:11 It was he12 who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,13 4:12 to equip14 the saints for the work of ministry, that is,15 to build up the body of Christ, 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God – a mature person, attaining to16 the measure of Christ’s full stature.17 4:14 So18 we are no longer to be children, tossed back and forth by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching by the trickery of people who craftily carry out their deceitful schemes.19 4:15 But practicing the truth in love,20 we will in all things grow up into Christ, who is the head. 4:16 From him the whole body grows, fitted and held together21 through every supporting ligament.22 As each one does its part, the body grows in love.

    4:17 So I say this, and insist23 in the Lord, that you no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility24 of their thinking.25 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding,26 being alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardness of their hearts. 4:19 Because they are callous, they have given themselves over to indecency for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.27 4:20 But you did not learn about Christ like this, 4:21 if indeed you heard about him and were taught in him, just as the truth is in Jesus. 4:22 You were taught with reference to your former way of life to lay aside28 the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires, 4:23 to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 4:24 and to put on the new man who has been created in God’s image29 – in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.

    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:

    6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If then your eye is healthy,28 your whole body will be full of light. 6:23 But if your eye is diseased,29 your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

    6:24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate30 the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise31 the other. You cannot serve God and money [here, as the false god, Mammon].

    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:

    3:16 Let the word of Christ18 dwell in you richly, teaching and exhorting one another with all wisdom, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, all with grace19 in your hearts to God. 3:17 And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

    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

    Loading…
28. 

    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.

    Loading…
29. 

    Dictionary

    December 6, 2009 at 4:31 am

    
    

    OOPS: Col 3:16 – 17

    Loading…
30. 

    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.

    Loading…
31. 

    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.]

    Loading…
32. 

    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

    Loading…
33. 

    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.

    Loading…
34. 

    Anonymous(2)

    December 6, 2009 at 8:35 am

    
    

    Amused, I second that (gavel comes down hard)!

    Loading…
35. 

    Dictionary

    December 6, 2009 at 8:45 am

    
    

    Ad hominem.

    Loading…
36. 

    Dictionary

    December 6, 2009 at 8:52 am

    
    

    Abusive . . . i.e. the classically fallacious form. [Link]

    Loading…
37. 

    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!!!

    Loading…
38. 

    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.

    Loading…
39. 

    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.

    Loading…
40. 

    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.”

    Loading…
41. 

    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.”

    Loading…
42. 

    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!!!

    Loading…
43. 

    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.

    Loading…
44. 

    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.

    [ . . . ]

    Loading…
45. 

    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:

    Protection of the right to marry etc.

    9.—(1) Every man and woman of marriageable age (as determined by or under any law) has the right to marry [Cayman here adds: “a person of the opposite sex”] and found a family . . .

    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:

    Marriage (Page: 897)

    Mar”riage (?), n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry, v. t.]

    1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

    Marriage is honorable in all. Heb. xiii. 4.

    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:

    Matt 19:4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

    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:

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

    21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [Then, in temples with pagan myths, now in the name of science/knowledge, with evolutionary materialist origins myths]

    24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done . . .

    ____________

    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.

    Loading…
46. 

    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!

    Loading…
47. 

    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”?

    Loading…
48. 

    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.

    Loading…
49. 

    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.)

    Loading…
50. 

    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

    Loading…