Response Bablonian Exile/Post Exilic Dating for the Hebrew Bible

“and learned that this was written in the period of the Babylonian exile.”

I could firmly disagree with that. You could assume that it came together in it’s canonical form then, but not the above quotation.To argue that the idea of the Creation narrative was written after (or during) the Babylonian exile should be dismissed. Why? First, it would sound as if an assumption is made that 1. Revelation does not exist (God would reveal to Moses the stages of Creation, 2. An oral tradition of the event does not exist. The assumption would mean that Moses didn’t write the Torah, and instead it was redacted (or edited) out of the blue after the exile (for whatever political reasons liberal scholars which to propose).

I ask that you please consider the evidence below, as you will not get it at FIU. I put the time into it with the hopes you could read it in full, and consider it justly. I know it is lengthy, but that is my prayer:

There are two central areas of evidence that can show how invalid a claim that Genesis was written after the Babylonian exile.

1. Inner-Biblical Evidence
   
   1. First and foremost, the Bible is the revelation of God in an inspired Text. Not simply a collection of books written over time or written out of whim (this latter one easily rejected by all serious scholars). Instead, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God [theopneustos, or God-breathed]” (2 Tim 3:16). If you dismiss the supernatural, as liberal scholars do in their approach to scripture, you will have difficulties not only with Creation, but the Bible as a whole. Within itself, it claims to be inspired revelation, and it is no stretch to assume an All-Powerful Creator, who created the very universe, can reveal how Earth was created to Moses. In addition, there is an appropriate warning in scripture to any idea that man simply wrote it at whim; “The prophecy [the Old Testament prophetic Scriptures] came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” (2 Peter 1:21).
   2. Second, the Bible all the way through affirms Moses’ authorship, and the literal creation of man and woman.
      
      1. The Torah testifies to Moses as having composed it (Ex. 17:14, 24:4, 7, 34:27, Num 33:1-2, Deut 31:9, 11,
      2. Other Old Testament books reference Moses: Josh 1:8, Josh 8:31, 32, 2 Kings 14:6, etc. The authorship of the Torah is ALWAYS attributed to the personal man of Moses. Ezra 6:18, Neh 13:1, Dan 9:11-13, Mal 4:4
         
   3. Most sobering as well, is that the New Testament affirms Mosaic authorship. If it was simply all fabricated after the Babylonian Exile, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would be wrong, and hardly the Perfect Son of God, but a liar. See Matt 19:8, John 5:46-47, John 7:19, Acts 3:22, Romans 10:5, etc. Mark 12:26 states that God uttered to the historical Moses Ex 3:6. Jesus himself said: “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law?” (John 7:19)
      
      • • Also to note: The New Testament affirms the literal historical existence of Adam and Eve, not some myth. The book of Genesis, in it’s Hebrew style, is relating an ACTUAL HISTORICAL, not fabricated, event. The book of Romans states: “By one man sin entered into the world…By one man’s offense death reigned by one…By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” Romans 5 continued to relate Adam with Jesus. If Jesus was a historical figure (absolutely no doubt), then such a comparison would logically assume Adam was as well. The apostle Paul, takes Gen 2 and 3 as literal history, NOT allegory.
          
2. Extra-biblical Evidence also affirms the antiquity of the dating and authorship of the Torah (first five books)
   
   1. Archaeology
      
      • In the words of the most prominent biblical archaeologist in the 20th century, W.F. Albright: “Archaeological and inscriptual data have established the historicity of innumerable passages and statements of the Old Testament; the number of such cases is many times greater than those where the reverse has been proved or has been made probably.“
      • I could go ON and ON and ON and ON regarding how the archaeological record, not available to Wellhausen and others (the authors of what you learned in high school), have affirmed the historicity of scriptures narrative. From the city of Ur as literal, to the name of Abram, etc. I’ll provide some of the many that affirm the historicity:
        
        1. Hittite Legal Code (dated 1300 BC). Affirms patriarchal purchase of the cave in Gen 23. Affirms the very procedure they used.
        2. Code of Hammurabi: Affirms many ancient customs written in scripture and not understand to those living in the post-exilic period. From How orchids are to be collected (Lev 19, CoH 60), to various punishments, the legal codes match the historical period.
        3. House of David Inscriptions: Earliest mentioning of David, who liberals assumed to be fictitious.
        4. Ras Shamra Tablets (1400 BC): Affirms the poetry styles and early sacrificial terms. The stuff you studied argued that these complex sacrificial systems were edits made by post-exilic priestly group trying to strengthen the priest system.That’s how they explained these complexities, let low-and-behold, we have matching sacrificial ter,s during the time-frame of conservative dating estimates..
        5. Merneptah Stela (1220 BC): Earliest mentioning of the name “Israel“
           
   2. Biblical Narrative
      
      1. You cannot make sense of the Bible without reading it within its context. Essential to the context is the beginning. The Torah puts the ENTIRE bible in perspective. You will not understand the need of a 2nd Adam (Jesus), if you do not understand the first. You will not understand what is sin, why we’re here, what’s our purpose, and why Jesus came.
      2. In addition, you will miss out on the wonderful cohesiveness of the structure. The post-exilic writings ALL ASSUME THE VALIDITY of the Old Testament works. You cannot make sense to the God of Abraham-Isaac-Jacob without their historical accounts.
         
   3. Hebrew Poetic Style and Writing
      
      1. It has been proved that the poetic style of the Psalms is very very ancient. The earlier mentions of the Ugaritic texts have affirmed 1) Alphabet & Complex Writing systems were well developed, 2) The poetic styles used in the Psalms match the antiquity of the Ugaritics.
      2. Why is this so important? If these ancient writings and styles were written after the Babylonian Exile, for some fabricated reason for political unity through a priestly group, it is illogical to assume they had access to these buried writings. We’re talking about 1000+ years without google! It is inconceivable to think post-exilic writers could have researched and copied the ancient poetic styles (this simply was not done, and an impossibility). They would have instead used their own poetic styles.
      3. The same is similar to the accounts of Abraham and Moses. Only Moses best matches the authorship of the Pentateuch. Besides him being witnessed to in the text, there are a host of internal writing evidences that would make no sense in a Post-exilic environment.
         
         1. The Exodus lists eyewitness details.
         2. Author of Exodus shows a vast acquaintance of Egypt (using Egyptian names, words, and local geographic references that are not used in the later Old Testament).
         3. Shows a consistently foreign or ‘extra-Palestinian perspective, instead of imposing a perspective matching the penmanship of post-exilic writers.
         4. References to Archaic customs in Genesis that are demonstrable for the 2nd millennium BC, but not the first.
            

CONCLUSION: These are only a splash the vast array of evidences. You can draw the various conclusions:

1) If you assume it was all simply fabricated after the Babylonian Exile, you would go against the internal biblical evidences. If Jesus is God, and he is, and He is perfect, why would he get the creation of the world and the authorship of the books wrong? You would make him out to be a liar. In addition, the Torah itself testifies to Mosaic authorship, not that of post-exilic. You cannot separate these first five books either, as they are a single work.

2) The vast array of internal evidences found in narrative, poetic style, archaeology, etc. attest to the antiquity of the Scriptures. You cannot assume post-exilics and others knew the complex ancient poetic styles used within the Psalms. It would simply be a fabricated.

What then is the best explanation? That the texts are inspired, and they are historical accounts. The rest of the scriptures rely on them.The scripture is not just about some ‘higher love’. It is about God, and his plan to bring humanity to him. It is about God, and we can only learn love by learning him.

Why do I make such an effort to share this to you Paul? After all, you’re a stranger. I share this to you because I had to study the secular perspective. I had to endure with such an empty biased secular study of the Bible. How much I missed out!

YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS: If you believe it was all fabricated after the exile, you are now the Judge over scripture, and Scripture is not the judge over you (2 Tim 3:16). If you begin to assume that scripture is not historical where it assumes it is, and place yourself as judge over what did and did not happen, where does it stop? Just Adam and Eve? What about the resurrection? Could it not then be brushed aside with a natural explanation?

The moment you cast aside the inerrancy of scripture, and the validity and supernatural nature of it’s revealed accounts, it turns into simply a work of writings. No longer can it stand in judgment of Man, and reveal to him God’s redemptive plan to save humanity through Jesus. It is not just some account where man stands in Lordship.

Oddly enough, this is exactly why Jesus came! So that man would not be his own Lord! That is why we sin! We place ourselves as God’s over our lives. We believe we can say what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’. What is ‘love’ and what is ‘hate’. What is ‘true’ and what is ‘false’. Liberal scholars, like the stuff you studied, work in this pattern, on the assumption of man’s goodness, naturalism, Hegelian Darwinist evolutionism, etc.

However Scripture has a sobering reminder. Within Gen 1, God mentions ‘good’ in reference to his creation seven times. The first time ‘good’ is used by humans is here, with Eve responding to the serpent: “Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at,” (Gen 3:6). Genesis opens with God telling us what is good, because as God he would know. However, what happened after Eve placed herself in the position of God to determine what was good? The Fall! Sin! What is this telling us?

We sin when we subjectively assume what is good and what is bad. This is why seeing scripture as inerrant and revelation is so important! With this, God is telling us what is Good and Truth. He would only know because he is perfect, and we can know because he reveals it to us. The other is the subjective assumption by man of what is good and evil. If we impose this upon scripture, meaning if we begin to say what did and didn’t happen, or what does and does it not say, in scripture, we now place ourselves in the very same position of Eve! What then, do you think would be the consequences?

God’s Blessings!

Discussion Regarding the Biblical Perspective of Eating Meat, and Hunting

From the following discussion: http://www.facebook.com/leonardooh?v=feed&story_fbid=224860888955

A biblical perspective (personal exegesis and scriptures from about):

Humans are made in the image of God, animals are not (Gen 1:26). God commands man to rule over the earth, and to rule over the animals (1:28). The Hebrew makes the comment ‘to subdue’, (kabash), or to bring under subjection (which fits the role of responsible hunters. Breath means life. Surely animals are alive, but to be made in the image and likeness of God is vastly different.

“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.” (John 3:4). Animals are creatures incapable of making moral decisions. The Law was given to humans. Humans are capable of making moral ethical creative and intellectual decisions. Animals function instinctual.

Jesus came to save the souls of man, not animals.

After the flood, God said the following: “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” (Genesis 9:3). Here is a clear biblical permission from God to eat animals. NOT some fanatical abuse and manipulation of scripture…

Later in Leviticus, God mentions the following regarding animals sacrifices: “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When any of you brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock.’” (Leviticus 1:2, NIV).

While discussing offering, it also states the following: “When anyone presents a grain offering as a gift to the Lord, his gift must consist of fine flour. He is to pour olive oil on it, put frankincense to it, and bring it to Aaron’s sons and priests.” (Lev 2:1-2).

In Exodus 20:13, God places a prohibition on murdering men. He DOES NOT place a prohibition on the killing of animals. Christ died to save humans as well, not animals. If killing animals consisted of some sin, he would not have commanded the israelites to sacrifice them, and he would have revealed it in scripture.

There will be animals in the new earth (Isaiah 65:25, Rev 19:14), but this in no ways suggests or provides evidence that animals have souls and they are eternal. Rather it suggests as God created this earth with creatures, so will he do it in the New Earth.

“Man’s concepts of spiritual values, his recognition of morals and his universal acknowledgment that he is responsible for his own behavior set him far apart from the animal world. That is to say, they have no immortal soul, as the following point documents. The spirit of man returns to God who gave it when one dies (Eccl. 12:7). Such is not said of the animal! Adam is called the son of God in Luke 3:38, obviously by creation. What animal is called the son of God or offspring of God?” (Gary Anderson)

In Acts 10, God tells Peter in a dream on a rooftop “In it were all the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth, and the birds of the sky. Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat!…”What God has made clean, you must not call common.” (Acts 10:12-15).

In addition, Paul provides the following clarification regarding kosher and dietary laws, which provides some clarification. “One person believes he may eat anything, but one who is weak eats only vegetables. One who eats must not look down on one who does not eat…” (Romans 14).

Ecc. 3:19-21 is also not some clear claim disregarding the afterlife, as it would not fit within the themes of the scripture regarding eternal judgment. Not is it some absolute statement about the equality of man. If anything, this reads to be a rejection of materialistic notions of the afterlife as found in neighboring Egyptian paganism (see “Harpers Songs”). “Death has been swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your victory. O Death, where is your sting.” (1 Cor 15:55). It’s clearn scripture speaks of an afterlife, and Ecc seems more at combating egyptian materialistic afterlife than the spiritual and new earth idea of Christianity.

RECAP:
1) We’re created in the image and likeness of God, animals are not. This is essential.
2) We have dominion and literal rule over animals (a charge of stewardship).
3) The law pertains to us, and Jesus came to save us, not animals.
4) God provides permission to eat animals. ‘Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything’.
5) The sacrificial system includes grain, oil, and frankincense (by Miguel’s argument, these would also have souls).
6) God places no prohibition on killing animals.
7) In a vision, Peter is told by God to eat of any animal, as none are unclean. Although a charge to bring the Gentiles into the church, the revelation is still prominent.
Jesus never spoke of the killing and consumption of animals as sin, and instead served fish to the people.
9) Paul provides an insight on the topic, and a call not to judge those who consume a diet different than yours.

This is a biblical presentation. Not a manipulation. I did this to show you how shameful it can be to claim someone manipulates scripture, without having or presenting some clarification (biblicaly grounded), on the charge. It is simply rude judgment, which Paul comments against in Romans 14. If anything, you need to only Genesis 9:3 as a response to your concerns

You still need to respond to my two questions mentioned earlier.

PS: Also, you must understand that hunters and fisherman have ethical system (catch and release, etc) that aid, and not harm, ecological systems. They consume the catch. They also ’subdue’ animals in the sense of controlling populations. Otherwise, we would experience animal overpopulation (see the various bunny crises in Europe), disease outbreaks, sickness, and ecological turmoil. Meat is used to feed a family, as well as control populations (which is controlled through tag and hunting/fishing requirements). They play an important role, and provide the primary population control and conservation funds. This is not some justification for poaching, or mass useless killing. That’s simply not what hunters and fisherman do. Join NCangler.com or some other hunting and fishing community, or even go hunting and fishing with some enthusiast, and you will likely find no greater community with genuine concerns and love for nature.

God’s Blessings.

For in depth info regarding the status of the soul and animals, please feel free to refer to http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448.

Exegesis of Hebrews 2:1 (Holy Tradition and Eternal Security)

NOTE: The following exegesis is in response to an email that proposed the following quoted points regarding Hebrews 2:1.

Verse in Question: “We must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.” (Hebrews 2:1)

1. “the Word of God” and Holy Tradition? “

“First, note that the verse below seems to be clearly saying that the Word of God was imparted orally (it was heard); this is, I believe, a basic part of what Catholics refer to as holy tradition, i.e., the oral transmission of normative doctrine and practice from the apostles to the Church (very similar to the rabbinic understanding of “oral Torah”).”

1. Eternal Security?

“Second, note that there is an equally clear suggestion that those under the sound of apostolic teaching (doctrinal and otherwise) are exhorted to observe it so as not to become apostate (drift away).”

Point of Hebrews: To express the superiority of Christ to the glory of the old covenant (Heb. 1:1-2, 1:4-6, 3:3, Joshua 4:8, 4:14-5:10, 7:1-28, 8:1-10:18). Christ is shown throughout those verses to be superior to the prophets, the angels, Moses, Joshua, the OT priesthood and high priest, and most importantly the sacrificial system and sanctuary. In Hebrews 10:38, the author seems rather concerned about Christians “shrink[ing] back”. Perhaps this is in response to the magnificence of Herod’s temple (where house churches would pale in comparison). It would provide further understanding to Hebrew’s effort at establishing Jesus’ authority against the above mentioned. The focus on Hebrew’s expressing Christ’s superiority in reference to all these OT covenants hints again at preventing individuals from “drift[ing] away from it.” What then, is this “from it” that Heb 2:1 speaks of? The pretext of Chapter one provides an explanation, as seen below. One must understand that when we speak of ‘tradition’, it is in reference to this long narrative of God’s redemptive plan in humanity. The Holy Tradition then, is the prophetic coming of Jesus in which it finds it’s climax. The tradition is an understanding of the Christ in the Old Testament, and the Jesus in the New Testament. The tradition is then a profession of this coming, the Gospel, the Good News.

The Focus of Hebrews: On Christ’s bringing a New Covenant (of salvation by Christ’s shed blood). It is this covenant that is superior to the previous one (of obedience to the law).

IS SEXUAL IDENTITY FIXED? RESPONDING TO THE WILDFIRE MYTH OF ‘GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY’

IS SEXUAL IDENTITY FIXED? RESPONDING TO THE WILDFIRE MYTH OF ‘GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY’

A Research Paper

Presented to

Professor Daniel R. Heimbach

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for

ETH6550B Moral Foundations of Marriage & Family

Leonard O Goenaga

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

December 10, 2009

IS SEXUAL IDENTITY FIXED? RESPONDING TO THE WILDFIRE MYTH OF ‘GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY’

As a youth pastor, I am in the front lines of the culture war. The number of questions we receive, from sex to salvation, are quite diverse. Having an open question policy, a student of mine recently approached me with the following. A friend from school had made the statement that homosexuality was genetic, and thus fixed and unchanging. The friend had quoted an article from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay-friendly activist organization within the Republican Party, as proof.[1] Within this article were numerous studies by researchers and psychologists I had never heard of. However, understanding God’s revelation on sexual morality, and the serious threat immorality poses upon both society and faith, I sought to do some research and provide my student with an answer. What I discovered was simply shocking: “contrary to what many Americans believe, there are no replicated scientific studies demonstrating that homosexuality is determined by biological or genetic factors.”[2]

From here I began to pour through the research and dig through various journals and studies, finding this statement affirmed within the scientific record. I had written these findings in a short essay and provided them to my student to share with his friend. This essay was then posted on my Facebook, with the following remarks from friends: Female 1: “The fact that you are arguing that homosexuals CHOOSE this life style is hatred in itself,” Female 1: “But the Bible says nothing against homosexuality.” Male 1: “And to think if being gay were truly a matter of choice, why would I, or any one else bother to pick it?” Male 2: “And for the record, I think Homosexuality is genetic, and there are many geneticists who believe so.”[3] In short, I was again in shock.  Why would I have received such comments? Was the evidence not studied? What assumptions were being made? Where did this claim that homosexuality was genetic come from, and how has it been absorbed so fully by the public? To answer these various questions, as well as provide a detailed exploration, I had done the following research. The claims made by such individuals needed answers, and it is the purpose of this paper to do so.

One more concern must be clearly expressed before the evidence is presented is the spirit of this research. In all things, we must have love. Our presentation must always be one of grace. However, we must not mistake this for political correctness, or a fear of man. The very motivation of love should motivate us to share knowledge with one another, regardless of one’s subjective preference. To share in a civil and well-supported manner cannot be perceived as hate simply because it brings about an opposition to emotionally attached issues. Such is the method of suppressing exchange, which is true bigotry (to simply toss the hate sticker at anyone who disagrees). Rather, a deconstruction of presuppositions must occur, and the approach to the evidence must be done with honesty. In this paper, I will explore the initial groundbreaking studies that lead to the myth of genetic homosexuality, and critique them both on scientific and moral grounds, as well as on biblical exegesis. I will argue that the idea that homosexuality is genetic and thus fixed is simply unsupportive, and contradicts the works in which the myth stems, as well as the body of scientific research. I will summarize the essential studies in which this myth arose (LeVay, Swaab & Hofman, Bailey & Pillard, and Hamer), as well as the vehicles that propagated the myths. After analyzing the source of the myth and how it spread, I will critically analyze the above individual’s work, place focus on the scientific community’s reaction, and the earlier mentioned researchers own later conclusions. Following this critical analysis, I will proceed to develop an understanding of homosexuality and it’s source of origin. When this framework is established, I will explore God’s Word on the subject, and refute contaminated readings of key topical passages. When the presentation is complete, I will conclude the paper by asking whether change possibly exists.

Sparking the Myth: Root of ‘Genetic Homosexuality’

In his study of the male brain, Dr. LeVay takes three subject groups (presumed heterosexual men, homosexual men, and women), and studies four cell groups (INAH 1, 2, 3,and 4).[4] The specific area of study is the anterior hypothalamus, which regulates male sexual behavior. Dr. LeVay takes postmortem tissue measured from the three subject groups, and finds no grave difference in the measurement of INAH 1, 2, and 4. However in INAH 3, Dr. LeVay discovers twice a difference between the amount in heterosexual men versus homosexual men, and women.

In addition to the LeVay brain studies, a second source of research studied the cell groupings in the brain and their relation to homosexuality:

The Swaab and Hofman research studied the volume of the suprachiasmatic nucleus [SCN]…in homosexual men. The SCN is a cell group located in the basal part of the brains of mammalians. It has been thought to be the principal component of the biological clock that generates and coordinates hormonal, physiological and behavioral body rhythms…it has been thought to have involvement in sex because of the varying body rhythms in sexual desire as well as the sexual changes that come with aging.[5]

The study conducted by Swaab and Hofman studied the brains of 34 subjects, divided into several groups. The first group was one of reference, consisting of eighteen males who died of various causes. The second group consisted of ten homosexuals who died of AIDS. The third group consisted of six heterosexuals who had also died of AIDS. The final group consisted of four males and four females. The study concludes: “…the human hypothalamus revealed that the volume of the…SCN in homosexual men is 1.7 times as large as that of the reference group of male subjects and contains 2.1 times as many cells.”[6]

In addition to the brain studies, a major area that contributed to the ‘genetic homosexuality’ illusion is that of twin studies. In J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard’s “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” research was conducted upon identical twins with the intention to show a high concordance rate (the rate at which both twins are homosexual). Their findings concluded with a 50% concordance rate for identical twins.[7] The concordance rate for non-identical rates hovered around 22%.[8] Their claim was that “the pattern of rates of homosexuality by type of relative was generally consistent with substantial genetic influence…”[9]

Complimentary to the works on brain studies and those of twins, proponents have cited gene studies by Dean Hamer. Geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute released a study by a team he led that studied genetic material on the x chromosomes of homosexual twins. Dr. Hamer states, “The goal of our work was to determine whether or not male sexual orientation is genetically influenced. We used the standard techniques of modern human genetics, namely pedigree analysis and family DNA linkage studies.”[10] Hamer’s study led him to conclude that “We have now produced evidence that one form of male homosexuality is preferentially transmitted through the material side and is genetically linked to chromosomal region Xq28…[and that it] contributes to homosexual orientation in males.”[11]

Fanning the Flames: The Media Response

Bible Study: 2 Chronicles 5, Ezekiel 18, Ezekiel 19, Luke 4 (12-7-09)

12-7-09
Bible Study

2 Chr. 5, Ezek. 18-19, Luke 4

2 Chr. 5

Reuben’s Descendants and genealogy.

Ezek. 18-19

I remember when I had visited a Hari Krishna temple for a site observation. As I entered I noticed a sign that proclaimed that both scripture and the early church taught Reincarnation. It was intriguing, but as I pass through the wisdom of Ezekiel I have found a prooftext to debunk the claim.

As for the early church comment, i have studied Origin and found that this comment refers to his explanation of how souls became trapped into material bodies upon creation. Simply put, it was mere imagitive thinking on Origins part, and not biblical teaching. An attempt to fill the gaps, not exegesis scripture.

The reincarnation prooftext comes from Ezek. 18. Here the Prophet discusses the affect of one’s families sin upon their lives and judgement:

“The person who sins is the one who will die. A son won’t suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity, and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s iniquity.” (Ezek. 18:20).

Here we see ownership of one’s sins. It does not generationally carry over as some eastern traditions argue. No generation is judged for the sins of previous ones. the prooftext goes further:

“Now if the wicked person turns from all the sins he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is just and right, he will certainly live; he will not die. None of the transgressions he has committed will be held against him. He will live because of the righteousness he has practiced.” (vv. 21-22).

Again we see personal ownership of sins. Even more, we find forgiveness in repentance. Stored personal sin may find cleansing in the simplicity of turning in repentance. Judgement is weighed against unrepented sin, yet if one turns away, judgement is stayed.

So the text refutes any illusion of reincarnation and generational sin. Man is responsible solely to the sins he commits in his lifetime, and may find forgiveness in turning from such sin.

“Throw off all the transgressions you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.” (vv 31).

Ezek. 19

Within Ezek. 19 we find a lament, or a funeral chant which was usually reserved for the death of a leader. We find within the hebrew scriptures several examples of laments used in sarcasm.

Here Ezekiel uses such a lament to discuss the seventh cause of Judah’s fall: it’s spiritual death. Chapter 19 contains two laments (Lion and the Vine), written in the meter qinah (3 beats, 2 beats). Lamentations was also written in this meter.

Vv. 1-9 is a lament for the king, while vv. 10-14 was for the end of the kingdom.

Luke 4

Within Luke 4 we find the passage where Jesus, after receiving baptism in the Jordan, enters the wilderness for 40 days. Here he finds himself tempted by the devil for 40 days, and he fasts intensely (vv. 40). The lack of any parallels in Greco-Roman literature leads us to conclude that the early-church would not simply invent the occurence, but instead have recorded an actual event.

As for not eating anything for 40 days, it is clearly possible for Jesus, however Luke’s language may mean he simply ate little and severely fast. It is the same type of language used to describe John the Baptist’ lifestyle in Mt. 11:18 (which did not mean an abstinence from food).

Two more points on the passage:

1) “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.” (vv. 8). Jesus quotes this from Dt. 6:13, and we may use it in conjection with other passages as a prooftext for Jesus divinity. Jesus is telling Satan that only God could be worshiped, however in Mt. 8:2, Jesus allows a leper to worship him. In Jn. 20:28, Jesus allows a disciple to offer worship to him (“Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”). Finally, Jesus allows an angel to worship him (“Let all God’s angels worship him.” Heb 1:6).

These examples of the worship of Jesus alongside Lk 8 make a strong cause for Jesus divinity. Besides the ‘I AM’ claims, and the incidence before the sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71, “You say that I am,”), this claim of divinity is clear. A simple prophet, as some claim Jesus to be, would not make the mistake of receiving worship.

2) I personally enjoy these passages because Jesus experiences the fullness of temptation. The Son opts to set aside the usage of His divine attributes to further experience humanity. How greatly our God experienced our daily sufferings! We have a God who clearly understands our hurt and pain, not merely because he made us, but because he walked within our humanity. Another wonder of the incarnation and brillance of God, that understanding the finite of our human mental capacities, he walks before us in human form, and shares such human sufferings. Surely we have an approachable and loving God. One need only read this chapter where he experiences the fullness of man’s suffering, and in his free will and love, puts aside his divine attributes to share in our sufferings.

Church History Exam, Imperial Church

Describe changes to the church that were the result of the new relationship with the empire under Constantine.

During the 4th century, the church had begun to experience some major changes. With the rise of Constantine, and his takeover as sole emperor, the church found itself in a reversed role. Constantine claimed that the Christian God, whom he believed to be more powerful than those of the pagans, helped him capture victory. With this, he began to enact a series of measures to promote Christianity as a public-supported religion. This all started with the Edict of Milan (313 AD), which ended the persecution of Christians.

The Church now found itself in a new position. By raising it’s position within society to one parallel to paganism, as well as removing the threat of persecution, Roman citizens flooded the Church This produced two circles of Christianity: those of the nominal nature, and those whom were truly believers. With the flooding of individuals came the competition amongst churches to swell member sizes, leading to a loss of the previous concerns of the church.

Whereas the Church had previously worked absent of the civil authorities, the church now worked alongside it. Constantine sought to flood priests with styles of worship that fitted the majesty of the empire, instead of its former humble beginnings. Priests now wore pomp attire, choirs were added, and processionals were introduced. Soon Imperial theology began to seep into the church. Three major additions were made: 1) Whereas the Church had historically seen poverty and meekness as a blessing, the flooding of Roman aristocrats produced a theology that saw riches as a blessing, 2) A new clerical aristocracy developed, 3) As seen in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the idea of which the early church held dear of Jesus’ return and establishment of the kingdom were swept aside, and instead focused on the idea of the church and roman empire ushering forth such a kingdom.

The combination of imperial theology, as well as the additions of nominal Christians, produced various responses by the Christian community. Four in specific: 1) Certain Christians, such as Eusebius, believed this was the climax of history, where the church and empire rose to great heights, 2) Certain Christians had seen the intrusion of the church as a perversion, and ran to the deserts to pursue lives as monks, 3) Certain Christians saw it as a heresy, and progressed to schism in the form of Donatism, and finally 4) Certain individuals recognized the threats of nominal Christianity, and decided to stay and combat them intellectually (the great Doctors of the Church). These four responses, due to Constantine’s newly created relationship, where to have profound influences on the future discussions and directions of the Church.

Describe the meanings and theological uses of ousia, physis, and hypostasis in Nicene theology.

During the first great ecumenical council, Constantine sought to call the various bishops and Christians together to 1) Develop a form of official practice and doctrine, and 2) Contain a sense of unity amongst the Christians that would further produce stability within his empire. Of great concern at this debate, was the description of the trinity. Eusebius of Nicomedia had taken Arius’ argument of Arianism, the idea that Jesus was merely a creature whom has not existed for all eternity, but was rather a creation of God, and proposed it with a sense of authority.

After stunned into the realization that this heresy contained, Alexander of Alexandria spearheaded an attack on Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia’s Arianism. Central to this attack was the drafting of the theological terms ousia, physis, and hypostasis. We may explore their definitions as follows:

1) Ousia: Is defined as the same essence or substance. In practical terms, we may finitely and imperfectly see it in the example of species. A horse compared to a kangaroo bring about two separate ousia, or essenses. In the form of the trinity, ousia helps us understanding that the same essence of the trinity expresses their divinity. This essence is that the trinity and it’s persons are eternal and infinite. Being of this essence, they exist within one another, and share the same will (Perekarisus).

2) Physis: Is defined as distinguishing characteristics. In practical terms, we may finitely and imperfectly see it as the distinguishing characteristics between a horse and a donkey. Although they may have similar characteristics (four legs, etc), they contain distinguishing ones as well (their size, speed, makeup, usages, etc). The distinguishing characteristics of God (his omnipotence, love, grace, etc), allow us to see it in comparison to us, as well as to the distinguishing characteristics amongst the God-head. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each contain distinguishing characteristics, however are still of the same essence.

3) Hypostasis: Is defined as the expressive persons. Although two horses may both be of the same species, ad contain the same physis, Buttercup and Silver are two persons. They are not one mere horse, but share in the ousia of them being horses. This helps us understanding that although the trinity shares the same essence, it contains within it three unique persons: Father, Son, and Spirit.

Describe the new relationship between the church and empire under Constantine. This includes (but is not limited to) the role the church was intended to play.

Community

Greetings!

God has destined us for community. Since Genesis, we have been designed to participate in collective bodies. Ultimately, God Himself lives in community with Himself (trinity), and by His grace, extends an invitation to participate this majestic community. We find purpose in this community. Our intended design, our meaning, is to come into community with God!

His son Jesus went as far as the humiliation of the cross to bring us into the life-giving purpose of community.

However we do not merely participate from an individual standpoint, as secular American society tricks us into believing. As God made humanity as a family, emphasizing the goodness of being together, we find our secondary ultimate purpose: living in community with one another.

“For the entire law is fulfilled on one statement: Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5:14). God gave the Jews the Law to teach them proper communal living with both God and each other. When we disobey this mandate to live as a community, sin enters the picture: “If you bite and devour one another, watch out, or you will be consumed by one another.” (Gal. 5:15).

In other words, we’re not to merely acknowledge each other’s presence, and restrain from doing each other harm (the message of world religions). The radical re-orientation of Christianity occurs in this: as Christ poured his life ultimately to attain and cleanse us for community, so are we to pour our lives into each other! This is the radical Christian community! The concept of discipleship! The pouring of lives for one another to reflect God’s pouring of His son into ours! Our ultimate model is in Christ, and as followers we are to emulate the sharing of this thing called life. The acting of this verb called love.

More than any other illustration, God describes us as a family. A bride and bridegroom. Brothers and sisters. We must not confuse the terms. We are not the simple worldly community that calls us to respect communal laws and presence. We are not merely a family bounded by blood relations. We are bonded by the fulfillment of laws in Jesus, and the bounding of sin by His blood!

We are a spiritual family, adopted into God, and called to live, serve, minister, and love as a community. A body. A single entity under Jesus’ lordship and example.

The challenge is as follows: With the golden opportunity of living in an actual seminary community, how are you living? Are your relationships merely associations? Simple friends? Shared identities in a seminary-academic institution? A vocation? Do you see it as merely a ‘responsibility’?

Or, is it something greater? Does it reflect the worldly examples of friendships, community, and family, or does it reflect the radical Holy Spirit empowered, Jesus-modeled, communal family under God?

If the former, how then will you move towards the two ‘Great Commandments’ (Matt. 22:37-40)? How then, shall you live with your Brothers and Sisters?

“Carry one another’s burdens; in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone considers himself to be something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself.” (Gal. 6:2-3).

“I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples. If you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35).

Argument Against the So-Called ‘Gay Gene’

In response to an inquiry regarding homosexuality being genetic, and the Chandler Burr argument.

There is no scientific evidence that a “gay gene” exists. I ask for your patience in reading this lengthy response, as I woke up at 5am to offer a satisfactory answer.

You must first ask yourself what is science? To make a scientific statement, such as homosexuality is genetic, you are not making a relative statement, but one that is scientific, and must be testable and empirical. A few observations must then be made about the source you provided as ‘proof’.

1.    Scientific research/argument from a political pro-gay rights group, whose goal it is to propagate a pro-homosexual agenda on society, is hardly a bias-free source for science. If anything, a red flag flares up since it is soaked with pre-suppositions on how they will evaluate the scientific research.

2.    This is not genetic. There is scientific research with empirical/quantitative analysis, and then there is clinical research & observation. In order for something to be scientific, it must be testable. If not, it falls into the domain of the ‘lesser’ sciences (you cannot empirically test whether a ruler will be a dictator, but you can gather a ‘trait profile’ of certain similar observations in dictators. However, because we have not located a “dictator gene” we cannot replicate and test this study, and therefore it is not hard science).  One provides testable results, the others compiles observations. This is a serious difference.

To make a claim gender orientation is genetic, as done earlier, one would need to point to scientists, not a political activist, and work from the scientists work, not the polluted assumptions and insights of a biased political activists’ assumptions. The activist seeks to find information that supports his cause (reading into the work). This happens with ‘gay gene’ studies and this article.

As mentioned earlier, if one argued that sexual orientation is generic, he must provide the testable proof of this gene, and be able to replicate this proof in further peer reviewed studies. This was not done. Rather, a political argument was given. The proof of the “gay gene” was not given, but assumed. However this is not surprising, as evidence for a gay gene does not empirically exist. Rather, it is a distortion made by media and pro-left/gay-rights activists upon related research.

We could sum up this paper as follows: we observe an invisible trait that may or may not be hidden but we cannot give you any ‘gay gene’ genetic proof. We assume it is there by observation.

This is not science. You MUST provide the ‘gay gene’ to say it is genetic. In addition, the research much of his assumptions rest on is lackluster (gay gene studies have not been reproduced, etc). Burr also gives inflated numbers (understandable given his political agenda), such as higher 9% homosexuality rates, instead of reasonable 3-4%.

I will repeat, there is no evidence that shows homosexuality is simply genetic. This article does not show it is genetic, but in terms says, in summary, observations are made so it probably has genetic roots. That is not scientific evidence, but politically poisoned speculation.

Even then, behavior-gene studies are poor: Science 1994

“Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated… ‘it is hard to come up with many’ findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated.”

In rebuttal to the twin argument, head of one of the largest genetic research groups says:

“While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality [these authors being two American activists], we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment”
In the words of the researcher Dean Hamer, who studies this topic of the ‘Gay Gene’, regarding whether homosexuality was solely biological:

“Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors.”

For something to be gene specific that produces a behavior or trait, it must be what geneticists call ‘inherited’. An example is eye color, which is genetically inherited, and we can point to a gene in which it is passed down.

Inherited means directly determined by genes (exp. eye color). There is no way then, of changing this via altering one’s environment. It is set in the genetic structure of the person (you cannot change their environment to change their eye color). Sexual orientation is not this at all (as my friend shows example of, and thousands who become heterosexual mothers, fathers, etc. show). Individuals choose, recant, return, etc. of their orientation. They can move from one orientation from another, and many have sexually done so (a simple Google search will suffice).

At this point then, we can see a difference in something inherited genetically (specific genetic structure that causes a trait such as blue eyes), and something that is heritable.

For explanation, let us show how All Basketball Players are born to be basketball players. We will use three fields:

1.    Twin studies.
2.    Brain dissections.
3.    Gene ‘linkage’ studies.

Sounds quite scientific, no? First, the twin studies: We will find that if one twin is a basketball player, you will find that the other is more statistically likely to be one. The percentage of pairs in which both twins are bb players, or not, is a concordance rate. You find that this rate is high, like that rate for sexual orientation.

We’re on to something! There must be an underlying bb gene as hinted in twin studies! We must continue exploring…

Second, we cut the heads open of several dead basketball players. We locate a portion of the brain where basketball functions occur. We compare it to that section within non-basketball players, and find that it is larger in the bb players. We then conclude this to be evidence that it is a biological factor of the brain section that predisposes someone to become bb players.

Third, we study gene “linkage” studies. We study bb players, and notice certain clusters of genes that are similar among bb players. With the supportive information in the first two points, we have proved that basketball players are genetic! No? We can expect the headlines ‘Scientists have found the Basketball player gene!’.

Actually, we cannot. In response to the third point: Some genes such as height, athleticism, quick reflexes, etc., are associated with playing basketball. They, however, DO NOT CAUSE basketball players. One may be likely to play because they have these genetic traits, but no one trait is the actual cause of basketball players, just the response there-of.  Saying otherwise is unscientific. These may be common amongst bb players, but they are not the “basketball” genes.

We can say male homosexuality carries similar traits (tendency for shyness, anxiety, intelligence, sensitivity, aesthetic abilities, etc), however this is not an area heavily explored by scientists. These genetic linkages are not the cause of orientation, but a response to traits. A willful response.

In response to the second point, the brain changes with use. Playing basketball exercises that area of the brain, vs. those who do not. Growth and changes occurs. We are judging post fact, and making the assumption that portion causes basketball/orientation when in reality it is simply being worked upon willfully by those individuals, leading to the change.

In response to the first point, we merely have observed what the gene linkage studies have done. A mere response to environment and certain traits. Understandable, given the closeness of genes, the shared environment, and the gene linkages (shared size, traits, etc).

This “basketball gene” is as scientific as this “gay gene”. We have used the same arguments that political activists like Burr distort. If the basketball argument seems hardly scientific, then you can conclude the same about the “gay gene”.

In conclusion, how does science, not a political activist with a clear agenda, define sexual orientation? Mainly by psychological, social, biological factors.
“At this point, the most wifely held opinion (on causation of homosexuality) is that multiple factors play a role” (‘Gay Brain’ researcher Simon LeVay)
“Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality” (Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist)
“I know of no one in the field who argue that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.” (Sociologist Steven Goldberg).

IN SUMMARY: 1. We have observed that Burr is clearly a biased individual reading into the researcher for the propagation of pro-homosexual agenda. He reads into the research. 2. We have defined what we mean by ‘scientific’, and have shown that there is no testable body of scientific proof we can replicate on the topic that ‘sexual orientation is in the genes’. 3. Burr’s argument is from a series of observations, not hard scientific evidence. 4. Associating genes with human behaviors is incredibly poor, as pointed out by Science magazine’s 1994 article. 5. Twin studies argue in favor of environmental response, rather than a specific gene. 6. It is not genetically inherited, but heritable. 7. Saying sexual orientation is genetic is as accurate as saying basketball players are genetic; that your genes would determine you will become a basketball player vs. your genes will determine what your sexual orientation will be. In reality, certain gene traits will be noticeable in basketball players, but NOT THE CAUSE THEREOF, just as certain gene clusters may also be noticeable in homosexuals, NOT THE CAUSE THEREOF. 8. This fits the practical experience of people shifting back and force from sexual orientations. 9. Twin studies, brain dissections, and gene linkages do no mean it is genetically inherited and thus unchangeable (opposed to something directly genetically & unchangeable like blue eyes, etc).

And finally, 10. There is no evidence or proof, as Burr would want you to assume, that sexual orientation is purely ‘in the genes’. That is not science. No research on the subject is making that absolute statement. Rather, it is a combination of media presentation, and political agenda distortion, that cause you to think otherwise. I would further comment that I implore you to seek the research free of any bias baggage or political agenda you carry, or that of commentators. Go straight to the source, and ask yourself this very important question: am I looking only for information that affirms by assumptions, or am I alleviated to observe this issue in a free manner.

Science instead argued for a complex response to the three earlier factors, which I would place extreme emphasis on one’s willful response to it.
Simply said, sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.

WITH THAT ASIDE: One final say, given we’ve run through the scientific realm. Something of the spirit must be mentioned, as it’s authority rises above that of science. Man is terribly flawed. As Burr shows, we pollute ourselves with bias. We can both look at the same scientific study, and come away with two wildly different conclusions. This is why so much philosophy conflicts. Man and his thinking, simply said are flawed (1 Cor. 1:20). We are depraved. We are, in short, sinful. We blind ourselves with ourselves. Burr seeks to find that orientation is natural, because he has an agenda. This hints at a greater need. It hints at the fallibility of man, and a need to alleviate us from ourselves. It hints at a need of revealed knowledge.

This is one reason why it is so necessary to have something that alleviates you from human frailty. I’m not talking about a strong ideology, but true perfect wisdom, and true perfect wisdom can come only from the perfectly wise. In other words, God. He is the only being who is freed of imperfections, or faulty reasoning, or poisoning bias. He is the source of truth, which is absolute, not relative. He allows us to submit our faulty will to Him, and instead attain true pure knowledge by the means of his revelation. From this revelation, this truth, we can respond. One of these truths is that real change exists. Revelation makes it clear in His revealed scriptures that homosexuality is a sin. God would not make something natural a sin (such as being black, or having blue eyes). Rather, sin is the willful choice, and the supportive action, to do something against God’s will. Homosexuality is placed alongside other behavioral sins. It is important to notice that someone like Burr places the need to prove homosexuality, a behavior, natural, because it would then justify such immorality. The individual places this desire as an idol. However perfect revelation shows otherwise (Romans 1:26-28, 1 Tim. 1:10).

Science is not an absolute source of truth. It merely provides us observations (not meaning, or purpose, or truth). Science does not have all the answers, as you cannot even prove that statement with science. We see an example above.
Our revealed source of truth, for good reasons, shows us that homosexuality is a behavioral response. A willful decision supported by actions. It is one that can be changed, as we see in Romans 6:11 where Paul is speaking to the Corinthian church, who among their members had individuals who were sexually immoral, homosexuals, and drunkards. “Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.” (Rom 6:11).

God, in His wisdom, has offered true change. Real change. In his Son, forgiveness, and God-empowered change can occur.

One more real life point:

A militant lesbian, who was entrenched in the lesbian lifestyle, now sits within a seminary classroom. She speaks openly of what she has done, and how she considered it to be central to her very being. It was her very identity. After such a lifestyle, she came to God, and was cleaned, washed, forgiven, empowered. She was removed of such desire for behavior. Where her desires were once sexual relations with her gender, they are now a godly husband and children. She had no ‘gay gene’. She did have real change. A gene does not produce depression, but the response to environment and situations. The same of homosexual orientation. And with both, and even behavior and action, forgiveness and real change are found in Jesus (1 John 1:9).

The above argument fits within this revealed truth. This female’s experience, which my wife knows, is not suppressing her ‘natural inclination to be gay’, but has rather been given freedom, and the power to change. I married a woman who was told she would be OCD, PTSD, and severely depressed all her life by psychologists. Her father suffered a brain aneurism when she was young, and for years she self-mutilated, attempted suicide, and suffered severe depression. Psychologist told her these were rooted in brain fluids. Serotonin levels. She would need to deal with such things for the rest of her life, day by day. Then, she came to Christ. She was healed of 8+ years of what psychology attempted. All those years of ingrained behaviors. Gone. Done. Vanished. Now, empowered, forgiven, and washed anew, she is completely different.  “Christ has liberated us into freedom” (Gl. 5:1).

There is true change to sinful behavior. The absolute source of truth, God, reveals to us that he did not make us for unnatural relations, but rather explains that such is a behavior which goes against his created order, and is such sin. However even then, he offers us the solution to change such behavior, one that is not within science, but in His son (2 Cor. 3:17).

Sources: Argument &  outline from Is There a “Gay Gene”? narth.com/docs/istheregene.html.

Discussion: Abortion I

Leonard Goenaga: Interesting note: If a property owner invites someone into their private property, and then kills them, they are charged with murder. However, in an abortion, a woman invites a child into their body (sex), claims the human life to be their property, and executes innocence via abortion. The legality of private property with two very different moral outcomes.

Friend 1: MOST abortions are the cause of an unwanted child in a woman’s body, thus, wouldn’t that NOT be an open invitation? And what about rape? That’s forceful entry.

Leonard Goenaga: Rape makes less than 2% of abortions. We are talking about a super majority.

Also, regardless of whether a child is wanted (God forbid a human life be more important than another persons wants and desires), individuals openly have sex. Overtly, the result of sex is possible pregnancy.

Any woman who has sex knows there is a possibility of getting pregnant. The person who invites the person to their house knows there is a possibility they will actually come.

In other words, abortions are the cause of an unwanted child in a woman’s body. What a terrible terrible reality! Someone desires selfishness to a point of eliminating human life. In legal terms we call that murder.

The open invitation arrives by the willful decision to pursue sex. It is purely something not forced upon them (minus the super minority of rape).

Friend 2: Sex is not an invitation for a child.
Do you use birth control?!?!
My point exactly, just because you have sex, it does not mean you are inviting a child into your life.
Married women have abortions, not just young women.
There are 3 reasons why people have sex (willingly)
1. Love
2. Sexual attraction
3. They want a baby

And don’t forget rape victims. That is NOT an invitation to a child. And don’t forget women with health complications either. They have the right to chose their life, over someone who has not been born yet, heck, who is not fully developed and is a fetus.

Not everyone wants a baby. Atl least at that given moment. Should 2/3’s of everyone else who is having sex be banned from making love?!? You (by this I mean people with this mentality) can’t control their sex lives. They will have sex because they want too. NOT because they want a baby. Sex does not equal inviting a baby into your life.

This is really a ridiculus comparasson. You have FULL control into whom you invite to your home. You do not have full control about when you get pregant. And the only possible suggestion that can stem from this logic is “don’t have sex.” But over half of new borns are not planned. You can’t ban 2/3 of the population, further more, you can’t even inforce it. Do you know that oral sex is against the law in the state of Florida?!?! How many people do you think get blow jobs?!?! It can’t be enforced.

Further more, there is a seperation of church and state. People need to keep their religion out of politics and try to control WOMEN’S bodies. It’s THEIR body, nobody elses. If people will try to mix church and state, we will soon be little the middle east, controlled by religion, even if we do not all share the same religion. We have a seperation for a reason.

Friend 3: I would argue to say that most abortions are not wanted or desired, but women feel its the only option and are rushed into making a life changing decision… Maybe they are afraid of what others will think of them for getting pregnant without a husband (judgment from over-righteous), maybe they do not have any emotional or financial support (feel they dont want to bring a baby into a world of misery), maybe their significant other is threatening to leave them if they don’t… there are so many reasons other than wanting to ‘murder’ their unborn child!

Maybe what people should be doing is not accusing them of murder, but helping them find other options… instead of standing in front of abortion clinics with hate signs, maybe they should reach out to them with a loving arms saying ‘let us help you get through this, please don’t abort your baby’ or ‘have you considered your options?’ or ‘Can I give you information on post-abortion counseling?’… How many Churches do you know that sponsor single moms with unexpected pregnancies? Or offer post-abortion Bible Studies?

Most women don’t want to get an abortion… but sometimes feel they have no other choice… it is our job to promote abstinence but sometimes people make mistakes… shouldnt they feel as if they would be forgiven by the Church instead of judged?

Friend 4: Just going with the analogy here… So I have a party (sex) and then somebody shows up that I didn’t invite (baby). In L’s own words (almost): Overtly, the result of a party is possible party crashers.

Can I kill them? Well, no, not really. But if they’re in my house and eating my food and sleeping in by bed I think I have a right to force them out. Is it selfish to not want to give up my food and shelter to my uninvited guest? Or is that my right?

Leonard Goenaga: I do not think I need to argue that it is common knowledge that sex leads to the possibility of children, regardless of whatever method of control is used. Any moment of sex is an invitation for the natural possibility of pregnancy. If my wife gets pregnant, awesome! It does not mean it interferes with my lifestyle, and I now have a right of lifestyle > human life.

Sex is not > Human life.

No one should be banned from doing anything. The topic is life. Should someone be allowed to have sex? Sure. Should they also be allowed to deal with the consequences? Absolutely.

You have ABSOLUTELY FULL CONTROL about having sex. You can choose to do it or not. If you go jump out a plane, you can very easily die. Although the rush is there. You can choose to do it or not. If you die, it may very well be your fault.

Regardless of how good sex is, you have a right to do it and should also be responsible for its results. Nature shows us sex produces children.

The fundamental question is this: why in the world do you have any right to begin with? What is the root to having any right or liberty? This is human life. Because you are human, you have inalienable rights. Then there are secondary rights (privacy, protection, etc) bestowed by a government.

You could not have any right unless the sanctity of your life was presumed. The dead have no rights, only the living. The right to anything would be meaningless if the right to life wasn’t presumed. Government rests on the foundation of preserving life, which then leads to possible secondary rights and liberties.

For this reason, a child’s life, whom by the way has every necessary component from growth at the moment from conception, and only needs nourishment and time like everyone else, deserves the same fundamental essential right of life than a woman’s desire for sex.

Lifestyle does not trump the essential preservation and sanctity of life.

You cannot argue that a person has any right, whether to sex, or to privacy, without assuming they have a first essential right of human life. This is the hypocrisy of the pro-choice argument.

PS: Again, you have full control over whether you can get pregnant. It’s called choosing to have sex. You do not need sex like you need water, or food. It is not necessary to human living. We willfully engage in sex, with the natural response of pregnancy. For that reason it is absolutely in full control, as you can choose to do it or not. The  ramifications that you may get pregnant, and produce the miracle of childbirth, should sober one to the seriousness of the activity, and not be perceived as silly recreation. The murder of human life should be absolutely positively sobering.

If you were aborted, you would not be arguing for rights to have sex. You simply wouldn’t be.

@Friend 3: Sin is sin. We preach forgiveness of sin. Sinners leading sinners to repentance in Jesus. I’m not standing in front of an abortion clinic. Nor would I. Rather, people need to have their eyes opened to the absolute importance of human life. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be argued in favor of rights and liberties and desires and lifestyles, if we do not assume that human life is important enough to warrant any of those thing. Sanctity of human life MUST be presumed for any of that to mean a dime. It’s automatic. We assume it. We don’t say “You don’t have the right of the second amendment because my humanity means more than yours”. That was the mistake of slavery. People must hear this, because the ramifications of such selfishness is the murder of innocent children.

However, even in the deepest and darkest of sins, we find the purity of forgiveness. The first step of repentance is the acknowledge of a sin to repent of. If someone does not see it as a sin, they do not see themselves as needing a savior, and repentance. How I wish we could adopt those ‘unwanted’ children, who Christ said had direct access to God the father.

Looking at the pregnancy and women services of Christian organizations is  closer to how it is handled than the fringe. 1. The truth of human life. 2. The truth of true forgiveness.

@Friend 4: The difference in your analogy is that for one you can simply ask the person to leave. If they say no, and simply stand there, you cannot kill them. It would still be murder. You could call the cops, sure, but you could not kill them. In the case of abortion, you would kill the child. That is the very stark difference. Life’s preciousness established, the reality of having sex and producing such, means you are very much responsible. There is no right to good sex without consequences. Sex is designed very much with the purpose of pregnancy, and there is no right to continue having fun that would supersede human life.

In your example, you have property (a house and food), that you believe to be yours. However, you do not own that individual, because they are a human life (human life has ownership over itself; the opposite is called slavery). Inviting the person over relates more to inviting sex and it’s consequences, better than assuming some straggler wanders in. But even then, the comparison of humanity is clean.

PS: I also believe it to be quite woeful that the miracle of childbirth is compared to a ‘party-crasher’. The assumption there is that your right to party is more important than a human being (to fit your model, that party crasher would be killed for interfering with your ‘right to party’).

Another interesting note: You have every right to have sex, but you have no right not to get pregnant, let alone exterminate human life if you do. Oh society, what ever happened to that thing called responsibility, and dealing with the result of one’s actions? How dangerous this mentality of entitlement.

Falls Lake Dam, Hiking & Fishing, 10/12/09

Activity: Hiking & Fishing, 10/12/09
Location: Tailrace Fishing Area, Falls Lake Dam, Wake, NC
Conditions: 57 degrees C, Overcast/Slight Showers, Wind E at 3 mpg, 91% Humidity
Bait/Lures: 7″ Dark Purple Worm, Topwater Plug, Jigs, Mini lure.
Caught: Nothing

Greetings!

With the close of my Seminary’s Fall vacation, I just HAD to wet some lines. Still new to the area (its been about two months), I’ve been looking for a good place to go fishing and exploring. After some research, I’ve discovered Falls Lake, and decided to visit it’s eastern most portion this morning.

After waking up early and buying my fishing license, I drove a good 15 minutes to Tailrace Fishing Area, within the Army Corp. of Engineers section, and right behind Falls Lake Dam. I took about a 2 mile hike along Tailrace trial, which took me to the dam. I then walked across the dam to the edge, where I walked down to observe a small cliff-face. After this, I walked back, and forged my own trail along the sandy shore-line along the lake. After this, found my way back to Tailrace, and decided to wet some line.

I fished for only two hours, with no success. I tried a topwater chartruese plug for about 45 minutes, with no bites. I then tries a dark purple 7″ worm with no luck. I then tried a small sinking lure with no luck. This pattern continued until I had to leave. I’ll get the hang of it yet, and might even catch something!

Nice creek & picnic area within Talerace.

View of Talerace from atop the dam.

Sight alongside shoreline hike.

Hiking Elevation (ft)

Hiking Speed (mph)

My Performance

Activity:	Walk
Date:	10/12/09  10:38 AM
Distance:	1.47 miles
Time:	1:06:45
Speed:	1.3 mph
Pace:	46′ 09 min/mile
Calories:	182