Posts from the ‘truth’ Category

The Search for Truth and the Prejudice of the Heart

image

The empirical question we can ask ourselves is this ;
“Do I really want to know the truth?”

But do we know ourselves?

Are we aware that the integrity of the mind can be easily compromised by that which the heart refuses to believe?

The answer to these questions can free us from self imposed restrictions to living life to the fullest now and can lead us to full assurance for all our tomorrows.

The intellect is most often subject to that which we desire to be true and false.

That is the prejudice of the heart.
We often consider something to be true or false based on more than intelligence.

So there must be a component in making the case for truth that appeals to our inner hunger for more than that which is tangible.

The message must contain resonance with our longings and then corresponding claims that cohere with reason.

Is it any wonder then that God initiates a relationship with us through an act of love?

He paid for our sins on the cross because He loves us.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. “
(John 3 :16)

His act of love is directed towards our hearts.

” With the heart man believes and is saved, by the mouth confession is made unto salvation. ” (Romans 10 :10)

When we come to truth we come to a relationship with Jesus, who says to us;
“I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.”

True Christianity is a relationship that satisfies the deepest longings of the heart and the biggest questions of man’s intelligence.

When we believe and ask Christ to save us, we ultimately come to a person and a relationship with the personage of Jesus Christ.

Do you want to know the Truth ?
He is truth, and He is waiting for you.

Desire to Know Truth No Matter Where It Leads You

image

My wife and I were sitting in the office of a marriage counselor as he gave us an, “interview”.

We had hit the proverbial bump in the road and had just agreed to seek counseling after two months of separation.

I asked the counselor what purpose an interview with him would serve towards the reconciliation of our marriage.
He told me the purpose of the interview was to determine if the two of us sincerely wanted to know the truth about our relationship with one another, and how to mend it, and whether or not he was willing to be our marriage counselor.

I was shocked.

He continued to tell us how most people don’t really want to know the truth in regard to what is wrong with their marriage.

“I estimate about 90 percent of the people who come to me for help don’t really want to know the truth about what’s wrong and how to fix it,” he said.

That was twenty years ago and I still remember the feeling of shock I had at the thought that most of us, more often than not, are reluctant to know the truth even when our very lives depend on it.

Yes, it has been tough at times. But we’re still married after 37 years.
And we owe a great debt of gratitude to a counselor who dared to be painfully honest with us even though we could have easily been offended and walked out of the office that day.

We have learned a great lesson;

The truth is often hard to take, but is always best for us.
We should always follow the truth no matter where it leads us.

C. S. Lewis reflected on his conversion to Christianity in a similar way in his book, “Surprised by Joy”.

“You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.”
~C.S.Lewis~

Consider what Jesus said in regards to the truth ;

And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
(John 8:32 NKJV)

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
(John 14:6 NKJV)

The truth is that we all need Jesus as Savior before this life ends, reluctant as we may be to accept that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Follow Jesus.

Lost in Translation – Hebrews 4:2- The Essence of Believing the Bible – Faith or Intellect ?

image

“For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.”
(Heb 4:2 NKJV)

18 inches is approximately the distance between the human heart and head.

It has been described as the longest distance we will ever travel.

And in the twenty first century western humanity is suffering from a pandemic of decapitation between our hearts and heads.

That is why this verse was very important to understanding the supremacy of faith in relation to how we grasp God’s truths from the Bible.

I remember how this scripture impacted me when I first realized that I was accustomed to filtering truth from error by intellect alone!

But God lives above this realm we live in. He created the natural realm with all it entails,but He is not subject to the laws of nature, for God is Supernatural.

Even our minds stumble at the thought of the miraculous.
But what is miraculous to us is quite simple to God.

Indeed, it is pure intellectual contempt and out right denial to even judge the possibility of the existence of an all powerful God by the laws of the natural realm that a true God could transcend in the first place.

God’s truths transcend the laws of logic and reason, just as God’s limitless power transcends the laws of physics ,nature and science in general.

All our science, truth, and natural laws coincide with God’s and even point back to Him as the single source of everything, but even science has repeatedly hit it’s head against the undeniable fact of the miraculous in all disciplines of nature from DNA to the Cosmos.

Our greatest science has only yielded greater questions that repeatedly defy scientific explanations and can only be explained by a transcendent miraculous being, the same being known for eons as God,Yahweh, Jehovah.

In light of the possibility of existence of a miraculous being, miracles make perfect sense.

Why has this verse been changed in so many new translations when it’s truth is so vitally important and needed?

The ESV, NIV 2011, and many others have caved to evolutionary science influences and a general Christlessness that has permeated western Christianity.

This can only attributed to the continued downward slide of western Christianity into the prophetic apostasy of the last days before Christ’s return.

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
(2Tim 3:1-4 NKJV)

Christ Centered Teaching hopes to serve as a reminder to both this teacher and all seekers of truth that Christ alone is the source of all truth, the way to live.
Jesus is the life everlasting, and the only way to an eternal destiny of all we ever sought and hoped for.

Jesus Christ is the Divine God, Creator, Saviour, and Lover of Lost Souls who died for them, was buried and in three days He rose in victory over death. He gives eternal life to all who believe by faith and ask Him to come into their hearts.

Christ fills those hearts to overflowing.

Simply ask and by FAITH receive the gift of eternal life from the all knowing , all powerful, miraculous Lover of our souls.

Christ is more than words can describe, but I will continue to try to give readers a glimpse of who He is, but the one absolutely essential ingredient in knowing Jesus Christ is faith.

Without faith we cannot know Him or hope to know God.
With faith, we become family of God.

Pontius Pilate Shares His Torment with Gaius (fiction, audio)” Ravi Zacharias from “Jesus as they Saw Him”

Read by Ravi Zacharias, this dramatic audio adaptation of the Biblical account of the trial of Jesus Christ is told from the fictional perspective of the man who reluctantly delivered Christ to be crucified, the Roman ruler assigned to Israel , Pontius Pilate.

Much of this does however dramatically reflect what we gather from the Biblical account.

The text is also included below.

Its almost fitting that the only recording of this I could find is a video shrouded in darkness similar to the ruminations of this dialogue.

Darkness really did come upon the middle of the day when Christ Jesus died.

Praise God for the resurrection and Light and Life everlasting.

“While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.”
(Matt 27:19 NKJV)
image

“… “It suddenly closed in on me Gaius, the impact of how trapped I was. The proud arm of Rome with all its boast of justice was to be but a dirty dagger in the pudgy hands of the priest. I was waiting in the room, Gaius, the one I use for court, officially enthroned with cloak and guard when they let this Jesus in. Well Gaius, don’t smile at this, as you value your jaw, but I have had no peace since the day he walked into my judgment hall. It’s been years but these scenes I read from the back of my eyelids every night.

You have seen Caesar haven’t you? When he was young and strapping inspecting the legion. His arrogant manner was child like compared to that of the Nazarene. He didn’t have to strut, you see. He walked toward my throne; arms bound but with a strident mastery and control that by its very audacity silenced the room for an instant and left me trembling with an insane desire to stand up and salute.

The clerk began reading the absurd list of charges. The priestly delegation punctuating these with palm rubbings and beard strokings and the eye rollings and the pious gutturals I had long-since learned to ignore. But I more felt it, Gaius, than heard it. I questioned him mechanically. He answered very little but what he said and the way he said it, it was as if his level gaze had pulled my naked soul right up into his eyes and was probing it there. It seemed like the man wasn’t even listening to the charges brought against him as a voice deep within me seemed to say `You are the one on trial, Pilate.’ You would have sworn, Gaius, that he had just come in out of a friendly interest to see what was going to happen to me. The very pressure of his standing there had grown unbearable when a slave rushed in all a tremble, interrupting court to bring a message from Claudia. She had stabbed at the stylus in that childish way that she does when she is distraught. ‘Don’t judge this amazing man, Pilate,’ she wrote. ‘I was haunted in dreams of him this night.’

Gaius, I tried to free him. From that moment on I tried and I always will think he knew it. He was a Galilean so I delivered him out of my jurisdiction, but the native King Herod discovered he was born in Judea and sent him right back to me. I appealed to the crowd that had gathered in the streets, hoping that they were his sympathizers, but Caiaphas had stationed agitators to whip up the beast that cry for blood and you know how any citizen here just after breakfast loves to cry for the blood of another. I had him beaten, Gaius, a thorough barracks room beating. I’m still not sure why. To appease the crowd, I guess. But do we Romans really need reasons for beating? Isn’t that the code for anything we don’t understand? Well, it didn’t work, Gaius. The crowd roared like some slavering beast when I brought him back.

If only you could have watched him. They had thrown some rags of purple over his pulped and bleeding shoulders. They jammed a chaplet of thorns down on his forehead and it fit, it all fit! He stood there watching them from my balcony; lame from weakness by now but royal I tell you. Not just pain but pity shining from his eyes and I kept thinking somehow this is monstrous; this is all up-side-down. That purple is real, that crown is real, and somehow these animal noises the crowd is shrieking should be shouts of praise.

Then Caiaphas played his master stroke on me. He announced there in public that this Jesus claimed a crown and that this was treason to Caesar. And then the guards began to glance at each other and that mob of spineless filth began to shout, hail Caesar, hail Caesar. I knew I was beaten and that’s when I gave the order. I couldn’t look at him, Gaius. And then I did a childish thing. I called for water and there on the balcony I washed my hands of that whole wretched affair, but as they led him away I did look up and he turned and looked at me. No smile, no pity, he just glanced at my hands and I have felt the weight of his eyes upon them ever since.

But you’re yawning, Gaius, I’ve kept you up. And the fact of the matter is you are in need of some sleep and some holidays. Yes, sleep. Claudia will be asleep by now. Rows of lighted lamps line her couch. She can’t sleep in the dark anymore. No, not since that afternoon you see, since the afternoon when the sun went out and my guards executed him. That’s what I said, I don’t know how or what or why—I only know that I was there and though it was the middle of the day it turned as black as the tunnels of hell in that miserable city and while I tried to compose Claudia and explain how I had been trapped she railed at me with her dream. She has had that dream ever since when she sleeps in the dark—or some form of it—that there was to be a new Caesar and that I had killed him.

Oh, Gaius we have been to Egypt to their seers and magicians. We have listened by the hour to the oracles in the musty temples of Greece chattering their inanities. We have called it an oriental curse that we are under and we have tried to break it a thousand ways, but there is no breaking it.

Do you know why I kept going, Gaius? Deep within the curse is the haunting, driving certainty that he is still somewhere near, that I still have some unfinished business with him, and that now and then as I walk by the lake he is following me and as much as that strikes terror I wonder if that isn’t the only hope. You see, Gaius, if I could walk up to him this time and salute him and tell him that now I know that whoever else he was he was the only man worthy of his name in Judea that day. Tell him that I know I was entrapped—that I trapped myself. Tell him that here is one Roman that wishes he were Caesar. I believe that would do it wouldn’t it Gaius? I believe he would listen and know I meant it and at last I would see him smile.

Quiet tonight isn’t it Gaius? Not a breeze stirring by the lake. Yes, goodnight. You had better run along. Would you please waken the slave outside the door and tell him to bring me a cloak, my heavy one please. I believe I will walk by the lake. Yes, its dark there, Gaius but I won’t be alone. I guess I really haven’t been alone—not since that day. Yes goodnight, Gaius.”

Life, Creation and Wisdom – We See So Little of All That Really Is

image

Men look up into the sky at night and marvel in wonder at the sheer number of stars and the vastness of the universe.

Yet with our most sophisticated telescopes today we can see that far more is actually there  than the unaided eye can see.

The voids of blackness begin to fill in with the light of discoveries previously unknown.

You may then realize that in a similar way that you can never know it all.

But rest assured you CAN know the one who does know it all, and He calls each of the heavenly host by name.

He is God, and has also promised;

as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,

Nor have entered into the heart of man

The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

(I Corinthians 2:9)

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;

blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” 

(John 20:29)

Biblical Content in the Context of Biblical Emphasis is Our Biblical Imperative

Christ's Resurection from Death

Most of what Christians communicate has Biblical content. Subjects like predestination, grace,love,unity, God’s sovereignty are all typical examples of Biblical Content.

But any time we communicate Biblical Content but neglect Biblical Emphasis, we violate Biblical imperative.

What is Biblical Imperative?

“That in all things, Christ might be preeminent.”

“I am determined to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified.”

To put it another way,

Jesus said,”I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me.”

The entirety of Christianity begins with the redemption of mankind.
Jesus is the only way to the Father, He is the only truth that leads us to the Father, He is the only life we can obtain with the Father, for we are all already dead in trespasses and sins.

Even discipleship means nothing without Christ.

“I am the Vine and you are the branches, without Me you can do nothing.”

“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”

Preacher.
What could you possibly have to say that would have more meaning or relevance aside from Jesus Christ ?

God’s Love is Unconditional but A Relationship with God is Conditional – All Close Relationships Come With Conditions

jesusandalostlamb

We are saved by Grace. We know this as God’s unconditional  and unmerited love.

Some very wise people question, “How can God’s love be unconditional if I will be sent to Hell for all eternity if I reject Christ as my Savior.”

The answer is found in the realization of understanding the difference between God’s unconditional love to us,

(God so loved the World)

Christ’s having satisfied those conditions for us,

(That He gave His only  Son)

and our having met the only condition for the restoration of a relationship with God.

(that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.)

 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

God personally settled the condition for us to be restored to a relationship to Him.

He took responsibility for our debt on Himself.

All He asks is that we freely receive His offer.

He will also allow us to reject Him, 

But we must then accept responsibility for that decision

ourselves.

————————————-

The following link is to a half hour audio by Ravi Zacharias on this subject.

I gave it my own title because Ravi actually covers a lot of theological ground on most occasions, and covered this subject well here.

God’s Love is Unconditional but A Relationship with God is Conditional – All Close Relationships Come With Conditions.

“WHAT ANSWER FOR THE WICKED HUMAN HEART, PART 1 OF 2”

In this audio,Ravi Zacharias reveals how he is often invited to speak with some of the world’s richest and most influential people.

On one occasion, Ravi was invited to go on a private yacht owned by a very wealthy man who had recently come to Christ through attending a Ravi Zacharias event.

 Before the speaking event,this man told Ravi that he only came to fulfill a promise to his own wife that he would be there.

Ravi then told the man that having fulfilled his promise to be there, he could leave at any time while he is speaking if he chooses, and that would be okay.

Instead, the man accepted Christ as his Savior at the event.

This man then invited many of his own friends, and Ravi, to a private yacht cruise along the coast of Sicily.(perhaps in hope they would find new life in Christ as well).

This audio tells of a man on that cruise who also became a Christian when he finally understood true love and relationships all have conditions for them to exist.

Yacht

Yacht (Photo credit: WaterpoloSam)

Born the Way God Intended – A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the Futile Search for a Biological Cause

Immanuel

“He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.”
(Genesis 5:2)
Dear friends,
No claim clearly stated in the Bible has ever been disproved, or ever will be. The science that supports God as Creator is always right, solid , and withstands testing.
The Theory of evolution,”Darwinism”, is erroding as the result of research centering on DNA ,”genetics”, archeological research, and more.
The same latest research is eroding the false assumption that Homosexuality is biological in origin.
Oddly enough, most articles that claim evidence for a developmental stage hormonal link will also rely heavily on evolutionary theory, and natural instincts of  animal species as evidence.
Bad science coupled to more bad science does not make good science.
Most articles on this subject will not provide credible resources to support their claims.
Most will not provide any support for their claims beyond vague references.
Don’t let public schools teach your children that being gay is natural.
 I believe society has many issues that will only become worse as we continue to mis-diagnose the sexual and psychological roots of homosexual behavior.
There is definitely a phycological issue, but also a growing sexual issue as more people see sex purely as a means of pleasure and escape, much as with a substance addiction.
Society is not even considering what we could become if we are wrong about homosexuality, and society is wrong.
What nature truly makes obvious about the difference between boys and girls is also supported by science,
and the Bible.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
(John 8:32)

The following article is written from the scientific standpoint. All claims are heavily supported by

solid,credible scientific research.

Any suppositions are stated as such.

A complete List of supporting references are provided at the end of this reprint.

——————————-

“This Is The Way God Made Me”

A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality 
and the “Gay Gene”

Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Dave Miller, Ph.D.
© 2003  Apologetics Press, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
Reproduced by Permission from Apologetics Press, Inc.

he trumpets were left at home and the parades were canceled.  The press releases and campaign signs were quietly forgotten.  The news was big, but it did not contain what some had hoped for.  On April 14, 2003, the International Human Genome Consortium announced the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule.  The press report read: “The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” (see “Human Genome Report…,” 2003, emp. added).  Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used.  The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.”Homosexuality has been practiced for thousands of years.  Simply put, homosexuality is defined as sexual relations between like genders (i.e., two males or two females).  It was Sigmund Freud who first postulated that parental relationships with a child ultimately determine the youngster’s sexual orientation.  But this “nurturing” aspect has effectively given way to the “nature” side of the equation.  Can some behaviors (e.g., alcoholism, homosexuality, schizophrenia) be explained by genetics?  Are these and other behaviors influenced by nature or by nurture?  Are they inborn or learned?  Some individuals believed that the answer would be found hiding amidst the chromosomes analyzed in the Human Genome Project.The human X and Y chromosomes (the two “sex” chromosomes) have been completely sequenced.  Thanks to work carried out by labs all across the globe, we know that the X chromosome contains 153 million base pairs, and harbors a total of 1168 genes (see NCBI, 2004).  The National Center for Biotechnology Information reports that the Y chromosome—which is much smaller—contains “only” 50 million base pairs, and is estimated to contain a mere 251 genes.  Educational institutions such as Baylor University, the Max Planck Institute, the Sanger Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, and others have spent countless hours and millions of research dollars analyzing these unique chromosomes.  As the data began to pour in, they allowed scientists to construct gene maps—using actual sequences from the Human Genome Project.  And yet, neither the map for the X nor the Y chromosome contains any “gay gene.”What is the truth regarding homosexuality?  Too often, speculation, emotions, and politics play a major role in its assessment.  The following is a scientific investigation of human homosexuality. 

Behavioral Genetics and Civil Rights

In an effort to affect public policy and gain acceptance, the assertion often is made that homosexuals deserve equal rights just as other minority groups—and should not be punished for, or forbidden from, expressing their homosexuality.  The fight for the acceptance of homosexuality often is compared to “civil rights” movements of racial minorities.  Due to America’s failure to settle fully the civil rights issue (i.e., full and equal citizenship of racial minorities), social liberals, feminists, and homosexual activists were provided with the perfect “coat tail” to ride to advance their agenda.  Using this camouflage of innate civil liberties, homosexual activists were able to divert attention away from the behavior, and focus it on the “rights.”

The argument goes like this: “Just as a person cannot help being black, female, or Asian, I cannot help being homosexual.  We were all born this way, and as such we should be treated equally.” However, this argument fails to comprehend the true “civil rights” movements.  The law already protects the civil rights of everyone—black, white, male, female, homosexual, or heterosexual.  Homosexuals enjoy the same civil rights everyone else does.  The contention arises when specific laws deprive all citizens of certain behaviors (e.g., sodomy, etc.). We should keep in mind that these laws are the same for all members of society.  Because of certain deprivations, homosexuals feel as though “equal” rights have been taken away (i.e., marriage, tax breaks, etc.).

Skin color and other genetic traits can be traced through inheritance patterns and simple Mendelian genetics.  Homosexuals are identified not by a trait or a gene, but rather by their actions.  Without the action, they would be indistinguishable from all other people.  It is only when they alter their behavior that they become a group that is recognized as being different.  If we were to assume momentarily that homosexuality was genetic, then the most one could conclude is that those individuals were not morally responsible for being homosexual.  However, that does not mean that they are not morally responsible for homosexual actions! Merely having the gene would not force one to carry out the behavior.  For instance, if scientists were able to document that a “rape gene” existed, we certainly would not blame an individual for possessing this gene, but neither would we allow him to act upon that rape disposition.  Neil Risch and his coworkers admitted:

 

There is little disagreement that male homosexual orientation is not a Mendelian trait.  In fact, a priori, one would expect the role of a major gene in male homosexual orientation to be limited because of the strong selective pressures against such a gene.  It is unlikely that a major gene underlying such a common trait could persist over time without an extraordinary counterbalancing mechanism (1993, 262:2064).

Evan S. Balaban, a neurobiologist at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, noted that

 

the search for the biological underpinnings of complex human traits has a sorry history of late.  In recent years, researchers and the media have proclaimed the “discovery” of genes linked to alcoholism and mental illness as well as to homosexuality.  None of the claims…has been confirmed (as quoted in Horgan, 1995).

Charles Mann agreed, stating: “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” (1994, 264:1687).  It appears that the gay gene will be added to this category of unreplicated claims.

The real issue here is homosexual actions that society has deemed immoral and, in many instances, illegal.  Since no study has firmly established an underlying genetic cause for homosexuality, arguments suggesting “equal rights” are both baseless and illogical.

 

Real Statistics

Anyone who has tuned into prime-time television within the past few years has observed an increasing trend of shows featuring characters who are homosexual—and proud of it.  It seems as though modern sitcoms require “token” homosexuals in order to be politically correct.  The perception is that these individuals share the same apartment buildings, offices, clubs, etc., with heterosexual people, and that we need to realize just how prevalent homosexuality is.  So, exactly what fraction of the population do homosexuals actually represent?

The famous Kinsey Institute report often is cited as evidence that 10% of the population is homosexual.  In his book, Is It a Choice?: Answers to 300 of the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Gays and Lesbians, Eric Marcus used the Kinsey studies to demonstrate that one in ten people is homosexual (1993).  In truth, Kinsey never reported figures that high.  The Kinsey Report clearly stated that: “Only about 4 percent of the men [evaluated] were exclusively homosexual throughout their entire lives….  Only 2 or 3 percent of these women were exclusively homosexual their entire lives” (see Reinisch and Beasley, 1990, p. 140).  However, there is good reason to believe that the real percentage is not even this high.

While no one has carried out a door-to-door census, we do have a fairly accurate estimate.  Interestingly, these statistics came to light in an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003, in the Lawrence vs. Texas case (commonly known as the Texas sodomy case).  On page 16 of this legal brief, footnote 42 revealed that 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following:

 

The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS).  The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (Laumann, et al., 1994).

The study also found that only 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women reported having only same-sex partners since age 18—a figure that would represent a total of only 1.4 million Americans as homosexual (based on the last census report, showing roughly 292 million people living in America).  The resulting accurate figures demonstrate that significantly less than one percent of the American population claims to be homosexual.  The NHSLS results are similar to a survey conducted by the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (1986) of public school students.  The survey showed that only 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls identified themselves as “mostly or 100% homosexual.”

The 2000 census sheds even more light on the subject.  The overall statistics from the 2000 Census Bureau revealed:

  • The total population of the U.S. is 285,230,516.
  • The total number of households in the U.S. is 106,741,426.
  • The total number of unmarried same-sex households is 601,209.

Thus, out of a population of 106,741,426 households, homosexuals represent 0.42% of those households.  That is less than one half of one percent!

But since most people are not mathematicians, we would like to make this point in a way that most individuals will be able to better comprehend.  If we were to start a new television sitcom, and wanted to accurately portray homosexual ratios in society, we would need 199 heterosexual actors before we finally introduced one homosexual actor.

And yet modern television casts of three or four often include one or more homosexual actor(s).  The statistics from the 2000 census are not figures grabbed from the air and placed on a political sign or Web site to promote a particular agenda.  These were census data that were carefully collected from the entireUnited States population, contrary to the limited scope of studies designed to show a genetic cause for homosexuality.

 

Is Homosexuality Genetic?

It is one of the most explosive topics in society today.  The social and political ramifications affect the very roots of this country.  But is the country being told the truth concerning homosexuality?  Is there really a genetic basis for homosexuality?

Former democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Governor Howard Dean signed a bill legalizing civil unions for homosexuals in Vermont.  In defending his actions, he commented: “The overwhelming evidence is that there is a very significant, substantial genetic component to it.  From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people” (as quoted in VandeHei, 2004).  Dean is not alone in such thinking.

Homosexual Population Pie ChartMost people are familiar with the idea that research has been performed that allegedly supports the existence of a gay gene.  However, that idea has been a long time in the making.  Almost fifty years ago, the landmark Kinsey report was produced using the sexual histories of thousands of Americans.  While that report consisted of a diverse sample, it was not a representative sample of the general population (Kinsey, et al., 1948, 1953).  In 1994, Richard Friedman and Jennifer Downey published a review on homosexuality in The New England Journal of Medicine.  In reviewing Kinsey’s work, they noted:

 

Kinsey reported that 8 percent of men and 4 percent of women were exclusively homosexual for a period of at least three years during adulthood.  Four percent of men and 2 percent of women were exclusively homosexual after adolescence (1994, 331:923).

With this “statistical information” in hand, some sought to change the way homosexuality was viewed by both the public and the medical community.  Prior to 1973, homosexuality appeared in theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the official reference book used by the American Psychiatric Association for diagnosing mental disorders in America and throughout much of the rest of the world.  Homosexuality was considered a sickness that doctors routinely treated.  In 1973, however, it was removed as a sexual disorder, based on the claim that it did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria that were used to define a disorder.  Today, there is no mention of homosexuality in the DSM-IV (aside from a section describing gender identity disorder), indicating that individuals with this condition are not suitable candidates for therapy (see American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

Physicians treating patients for homosexuality (to bring about a change in sexual orientation) frequently are reported to ethics committees in an attempt to have them cease.  Robert Spitzer lamented:

 

Several authors have argued that clinicians who attempt to help their clients change their homosexual orientation are violating professional ethical codes by providing a “treatment” that is ineffective, often harmful, and reinforces in their clients the false belief that homosexuality is a disorder and needs treatment (2003, 32:403).

Thus, the stage was set for the appearance of a “gay gene.”

 

Simon LeVay—Brain Differences

The first “significant” published study that indicated a possible biological role for homosexuality came from Simon LeVay, who was then at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California.  In 1991, Dr. LeVay reported subtle differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men (1991).  LeVay measured a particular region of the brain (the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus—INAH) in postmortem tissue of three distinct groups: (1) women; (2) men who were presumed to be heterosexual; (3) and homosexual men.

 

LeVay’s Reported Findings

LeVay reported that clusters of these neurons (INAH) in homosexual men were the same size as clusters in women, both of which were significantly smaller than clusters in heterosexual men.  LeVay reported that the nuclei in INAH 3 were “more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women.  It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men” (1991, 253:1034).  This difference was interpreted as strong evidence of a biological link to homosexuality.  LeVay’s assumption was that homosexual urges can be biologically based—so long as cluster size is accepted as being genetically determined.

 

Diagram showing INAH area
Diagram showing INAHarea.  LifeART images copyright © 2004 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.  All rights reserved.  Used by permission.

Problems with LeVay’s Study

When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems is that the study has never been reproduced.  As William Byne noted, LeVay’s work

 

has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility.  Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray (1994, 270[5]:53, emp. added).

Additionally, of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).  AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH.  Byne continued his comments on LeVay’s work.

 

His inclusion of a few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death, virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments.  To date, LeVay has examined the brain of only one gay man who did not die of AIDS (270:53).

Furthermore, in a scientific environment where controls and standards are a necessity, LeVay did not possess a complete medical history of the individuals included in his study.  He therefore was forced toassume the sexual orientation of the non-AIDS victims as being heterosexual, when some may not have been.  In addition, bear in mind that he had no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined.  LeVay has admitted:

 

It’s important to stress what I didn’t find.  I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay.  I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.  Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added).

Many have argued that what LeVay discovered in the brains of those he examined was only a result of prior behavior, not the cause of it.  Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, has demonstrated that sexual behavior has an effect on the brain.  In referring to his own research, Breedlove commented: “These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case—that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it….  [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused by) differences in the brain” (as quoted in Byrd, et al., parenthetical item in orig.).  Considering this type of research, it makes sense that a homosexual lifestyle (and/or the AIDS condition) could alter the size of the nuclei LeVay was measuring.

What exactly did LeVay find?  In actuality, not much.  He did observe slight differences between the groups—if you accept the method he used for measuring the size of the neuron clusters (and some researchers do not).  When each individual was considered by himself, there was not a significant difference; only when the individuals involved in the study were considered in groups of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals did differences result.  Hubbard and Wald commented on this lack of difference:

 

Though, on average, the size of the hypothalamic nucleus LeVay considered significant was indeed smaller in the men he identified as homosexual, his published data show that the range of sizes of the individual samples was virtually the same as for the heterosexual men.  That is, the area was larger in some of the homosexuals than in many of the heterosexual men, and smaller in some of the heterosexual men than in many of the homosexuals.  This means that, though the groups showed some difference as groups, there was no way to tell anything about an individual’s sexual orientation by looking at his hypothalamus(1997, pp. 95-96, emp. added).

Being homosexual himself, it is no surprise that LeVay observed: “…[P]eople who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are more likely to support gay rights.” In a Newsweek article, LeVay was quoted as saying, “I felt if I didn’t find any [difference in the hypothalamuses], I would give up a scientific career altogether” (as quoted in Gelman, et al., 1992, p. 49).  Given how (poorly) twisted LeVay’s data are, and his own personal bias, his abandonment of science may have ultimately been of greater service.

 

Brain Plasticity—A Fact Acknowledged by All Neuroscientists

Today, scientists are keenly aware of the fact that the brain is not as “hard-wired” or permanently fixed as once thought—an important factor that LeVay failed to acknowledge.  One of the properties of plastic is flexibility—many containers are made out of plastic so that they will not shatter when dropped.  In a similar manner, the brain was once considered to be rigid, like Ball® jars used for canning—but we now know the brain is “plastic” and flexible, and able to reorganize itself.  Research has shown that the brain is able to remodel its connections and grow larger, according to the specific areas that are most frequently utilized.  Given that we know today that the brain exhibits plasticity, one must ask if the act of living a homosexual lifestyle itself might be responsible for the difference LeVay noted?  Commenting on brain plasticity, Shepherd noted:

 

The inability to generate new neurons might imply that the adult nervous system is a static, “hard-wired” machine.  This is far from the truth.  Although new neurons cannot be generated, each neuron retains the ability to form new processes and new synaptic connections (1994).

Interestingly, since Shepherd’s textbook was published, additional research has even documented the ability of neurons to be generated within certain areas of the brain.  This information must be considered when examining comparative anatomical experiments such as LeVay’s.  These cortical rearrangements that occur are not as simple as unplugging a lamp and plugging it into another socket.  The changes observed by researchers indicate that if the brain were represented by a home electrical system, then many of the wires within the walls would be pulled out, rewired to different connections in different rooms, new outlets would appear, and some would even carry different voltages.  Due to the colossal connectivity that takes place within the brain, any “rewiring” is, by its very nature, going to have an effect on several areas—such as INAH3.  Scientists understand these things, yet LeVay’s work is still mentioned as alleged support for the so-called gay gene.

 

Bailey and Pillard—
The Famous “Twins” Study

One of the most frequently cited studies used in promoting the genetics of sexual orientation is a 1952 study by Kallmann.  In this famous work, he reported a concordance rate (or genetic association) of 100% for sexual orientation among monozygotic (identical) twins (1952, 115:283).  This result, if true, would prove nearly insurmountable for those people who doubt the biological causation of homosexuality.  However, Kallmann subsequently conjectured that this perfect concordance was an artifact, possibly due to the fact that his sample was drawn largely from mentally ill and institutionalized men (see Rainer, et al., 1960, 22:259).  But Kallmann’s research opened the door to twin studies in regard to sexual orientation.

Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, researchers at Northwestern University and the Boston University School of Medicine, carried out a similar experiment, examining 56 pairs of identical twins, 54 pairs of fraternal twins, 142 non-twin brothers of twins, and 57 pairs of adoptive brothers (1991, 48:1089-1096).  Bailey and Pillard were looking to see if homosexuality was passed on through familial lines, or if one could point to environmental factors as the cause.  Their hypothesis: if homosexuality is an inherited trait, then more twin brothers would be expected to have the same orientation than non-twin or non-biological brothers.

 

Their Reported Findings

  • 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual
  • 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
  • 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were homosexual
  • 9.2% of non-twin biological siblings reported homosexual orientations (Bailey and Pillard, 1991, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”)
  • 48% of identical twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
  • 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
  • 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (Bailey and Benishay, 1993, “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation”)

 

Problems with Bailey and Pillard’s Study

While the authors acknowledged some of the flaws with their research, they still were quoted in Science News as saying: “Our research shows that male sexual orientation is substantially genetic” (as quoted in Bower, 1992, 141:6).  However, the most glaring observation is that clearly not 100% of the identical twins “inherited” homosexuality.  If there was, in fact, a “gay gene,” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation.  And yet, in nearly half of the twins studied, one brother was not homosexual.  In a technical-comment letter in Science, Neil Risch and colleagues pointed out: “The biological brothers and adoptive brothers showed approximately the same rates.  This latter observation suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families” (1993, 262:2063).  In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers.  If there was a genetic factor, this result would be counter to the expected trend.  Byne and Parsons noted:

 

However, the concordance rate for homosexuality in nontwin biologic brothers was only 9.2—significantly lower than that required by simple genetic hypothesis, which, on the basis of shared genetic material, would predict similar concordance rates for DZ [dizygotic] twins and nontwin biologic brothers.  Furthermore, the fact that the concordance rates were similar for nontwin biologic brothers (9.2%) and genetically unrelated adoptive brothers (11.0%) is at odds with a simple genetic hypothesis, which would predict a higher concordance rate for biological siblings (1993, 50:229).

A more recently published twin study failed to find similar concordance rates.  King and McDonald studied 46 homosexual men and women who were twins.  The concordance rates that they reported were 10%, or 25% with monozygotic twins—depending on whether or not the bisexuals were included along with the homosexuals.  The rates for dizygotic twins were 8% or 12%, again, depending on whether bisexuals were included (King and McDonald, 1992).  Byne and Parsons commented: “These rates are significantly lower than those reported by Bailey and Pillard; in comparison of the MZ[monozygotic] concordance rate, including bisexuals (25%), with the comparable figure from Bailey and Pillard (52%)” (p. 230).  They went on to observe: “Furthermore, if the concordance rate is similar forMZ and DZ twins, the importance of genetic factors would be considerably less than that suggested by Bailey and Pillard” (p. 230, emp. added).

Another factor that may have had a drastic affect on the results of this study (and other similar studies) centers on methodology.  Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of homosexuals.  Instead, the subjects were recruited through advertisements placed in homosexual publications.  This method can be deemed questionable because it is highly dependent on the readership of those publications and on the motives of those who respond.  Thus, it may lead to skewed results—for example, inflated rates of concordance in identical twins owing to preferential participation (see Baron, 1993).  Hubbard and Wald observed:

 

The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors are involved, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers.  If being a fraternal twin exerts an environmental influence, it does not seem surprising that this should be even truer for identical twins, who the world thinks of as “the same” and treats accordingly, and who often share those feelings of sameness (1997, p. 97).

In summarizing their findings, Byne and Parsons stated: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking” (50:228).  Commenting on Bailey and Pillard’s report, researchers Billings and Beckwith wrote:

 

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment (1993, p. 60).

When evaluated scientifically, twin studies fail to provide any valid support for the longed-for “gay gene.”

 

Dean Hamer—The Gay Gene
on the X Chromosone

Two years after Simon LeVay’s report, a group led by Dean H. Hamer of the National Cancer Institute allegedly linked male homosexuality to a gene on the X chromosome.  His team investigated 114 families of homosexual men.  Hamer and his colleagues collected family history information from 76 gay male individuals and 40 gay brother pairs as they searched for incidences of homosexuality among relatives of gay men.

In many families, gay men had gay relatives through maternal lines.  Thus, they concluded that a gene for homosexuality might be found on the X chromosome, which is passed from the mother alone.  They then used DNA linkage analysis in an effort to find a correlation between inheritance and homosexual orientation.

 

Their Reported Findings

Because many of the families with a prevalence of homosexual relatives had a common set of DNAmarkers on the X chromosome, Hamer’s group assumed a genetic etiology.  Of the 40 pairs of homosexual brothers he analyzed, Hamer found that 33 exhibited a matching DNA region called q28—a gene located at the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome.  In summarizing their findings, Hamer and colleagues noted: “Our experiments suggest that a locus (or loci) related to sexual orientation lies within approximately 4 million base pairs of DNA on the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome” (1993, 261:326, parenthetical item in orig.).  This discovery prompted Hamer and his colleagues to speculate:

 

The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0, indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced (261:321, emp. added).

It is important to note that Hamer did not claim to have found a “gay gene,” or even the set of genes, that might contribute to a propensity for homosexuality.  According to Chicago Tribune staff writer, John Crewdson, what Hamer claimed to have found was “statistical evidence that such genes exist” (1995).

 

Problems with Hamer’s Study

One of the most significant problems with Hamer’s approach is that he and his colleagues did not feel that it was necessary to check whether any of the heterosexual men in these families shared the marker in question!  Would it not be useful to know whether or not this “gay gene” is found in heterosexuals?  Even if only a few of them possess the gene, it calls into question what the gene or the self-identification signifies.  Additionally, Hamer never explained why the other seven pairs of brothers did not display the same genetic marker.  If this is “the gene” for homosexuality, then one must assume all homosexual individuals would possess that particular marker—and yet that was not the case in Hamer’s study.

In a letter to Science, Anne Fausto-Sterling and Evan Balaban pointed out some of the additional problems with Hamer’s study.  They noted:

 

Despite our praise for aspects of Hamer, et al.’s work, we feel it is also important to recognize some of its weaknesses.  The most obvious of these is the lack of an adequate control group.  Their study demonstrates cosegregation of a trait (which Hamer, et al.  have labeled “homosexuality”) with X chromosome markers and the trait’s concordance in homosexual brothers.  This cosegregation is potentially meaningful if the mother is heterozygous for the trait.  In this case, segregating chromosomes without the markers should show up in nonhomosexual brothers, but Hamer, et al present no data to that effect (1993, 261:1257, emp. added).

Fausto-Sterling and Balaban continued:

 

This sensitivity to assumptions about background levels makes Hamer, et al.’s data less robust than the summary in their abstract indicates….  Finally we wish to emphasize a point with which we are sure Hamer, et al would agree: correlation does not necessarily indicate causation (261:1257).

In other words, Hamer’s methodology leaves something to be desired.  One also should keep in mind that Hamer’s sampling was not random, and, as a result, his data may not reflect the real population.

George Rice and his colleagues from Canada looked intently at the gene Xq28.  They then observed: “Allele and halotype sharing for these markers was not increased over expectation.  These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality” (1999, 284:665, emp. added).  Rice, et al., included 182 families in their study.  They noted:

 

It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study.  Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study.  Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28 (284:667).

That is a tactful way of saying that any claims of having found a “gay gene” were overblown, if not outright false, and that Hamer’s results are dubious at best.  Commenting on the study of Rice and his colleagues, Ingrid Wickelgren remarked: “…the Ontario team found that gay brothers were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance….  Ebers interprets all these results to mean that the X linkage is all but dead” (1999, 284:571, emp. added).

In June of 1998, University of Chicago psychiatrist Alan Sanders reported at the meeting of the American Psychiatric Association that he, too, had been unable to verify Hamer’s results.  Looking for an increase in Xq28 linkage, Sanders’ team studied 54 pairs of gay brothers.  As Wickelgren indicated, Sanders’ team had found “only a weak hint—that wasn’t statistically significant—of an Xq28 linkage among 54 gay brother pairs” (284:571).  Commenting on the validity of Hamer’s study, Wickelgren quoted George Rice: “Taken together, Rice says, the results ‘suggest that if there is a linkage it’s so weak it’s not important’” (1999, emp. added).  Two independent labs failed to reproduce anything even remotely resembling Hamer’s results.

 

Changeability of Homosexuals—
Evidence Against Genetics

An individual born with diabetes has no hope of changing that condition.  Likewise, a child born with Down’s syndrome will carry that chromosomal abnormality throughout his or her life.  These individuals are a product of the genes they inherited from their parents.  Homosexuality appears to be vastly different.  Many people have been able to successfully change their sexual orientation.  [Truth be told, some individuals experiment with a variety of sexual partners—male/female—often, going back and forth.  One might inquire if the bisexuality denotes the existence of a “bisexual gene?”] Ironically, however, the removal of homosexuality as a designation from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association has kept many physicians from attempting to provide reparative therapy to homosexuals.

Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417).  He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403).  Spitzer observed:

 

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403).

In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415).

Six years earlier, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) released the results of a two-year study stating:

 

Before treatment, 68 percent of the respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22 percent stating that they were more homosexual than heterosexual.  After treatment, only 13 percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual (see Nicolosi, 2000, 86:1071).

The study also reported:

 

Although 83 percent of respondents indicated that they entered therapy primarily because of homosexuality, 99 percent of those who participated in the survey said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable (p. 1071).

These data are consistent with the ongoing research project of Rob Goetze, who has identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change (2004).  Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation.  These are not studies that merely speculate on the ability to change; they actually have the numbers to back it up!  All of these data come on the heels of warnings from the Surgeon General, The American Academy of Pediatrics, and all of the major mental health associations, which have issued position statements warning of possible harm from such therapy, and have asserted that there is no evidence that such therapy can change a person’s sexual orientation.  For instance, the 1998 American Psychiatric Association Position Statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation noted:

 

…there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation….  The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior (see American Psychiatric Association, 1999, p. 1131).

Thus, physicians are caught in a quandary of a double standard.  On the one hand, they are told that it is “unethical” for a clinician to provide reparative therapy because homosexuality is not a diagnosable disorder, and thus one should not seek to change.  Yet, they contend that not enough studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of reparative therapy.  The message is loud and clear: “Do not do this because it is unethical to ask a homosexual person to change.  However, truth be told, we have not collected enough data to know if a person can safely change his or her sexual orientation.”

In situations where sexual orientation is being measured, studies face serious methodological problems (i.e., follow-up assessment, possible bias, no detailed sexual history, random sampling, etc.).  But even given these serious shortcomings from behavioral studies such as these, there are sufficient data to indicate that an individual can change his or her sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual—something that would be an impossibility if homosexuality were caused by genetics.

 

Conclusion

Consider the obvious problem of survival for individuals who allegedly possess a gay gene: individuals who have partners of the same sex are biologically unable to reproduce (without resorting to artificial means).  Therefore, if an alleged “gay gene” did exist, the homosexual population eventually would disappear altogether.  We now know that it is not scientifically accurate to refer to a “gay gene” as the causative agent in homosexuality.  The available evidence clearly establishes that no such gene has been identified.  Additionally, evidence exists which documents that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation.  Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, homosexuals should reflect this knowledge.

 

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,(Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Association), fourth edition, text revision.

Bailey, Michael J., and Richard C. Pillard (1991), “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,”Archives of General Psychiatry, 48:1089-1096, December.

Bailey, Michael J. and D.S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,”American Journal of Psychiatry, 150[2]:272-277.

Baron M. (1993), “Genetics and Human Sexual Orientation [Editorial],” Biological Psychiatry, 33:759-761.

Billings, P. and J. Beckwith (1993), Technology Review, July, p. 60.

Bower, B. (1992), “Gene Influence Tied to Sexual Orientation,” Science News, 141[1]:6, January 4.

Byne, William (1994), “The Biological Evidence Challenged,” Scientific American, 270[5]:50-55, May.

Byne, William and Bruce Parsons (1993), “Human Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 50:228-239, March.

Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson (2001), “Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” The Salt Lake Tribune, [On-line] URL: http://www.sltrib.com/2001/may/05272001/commenta/100523.htm.

Crewdson, John (1995), “Dean Hamer’s Argument for the Existence of ‘Gay Genes,’ ” Chicago Tribune, News Section, p. 11, June 25.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne and Evan Balaban (1993), “Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation,” [technical-comment letter to the editor], Science, 261:1257, September 3.

Friedman, Richard C. and Jennifer I. Downey (1994), “Homosexuality,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 331[14]:923-930, October 6.

Gelman, David, with Donna Foote, Todd Barrett, and Mary Talbot (1992), “Born or Bred?,”Newsweek, pp. 46-53, February 24.

Goetze, Rob (2004), “Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change: An Ongoing Research Project,” [On-line], URL: http://www.newdirection.ca/research/index.html.

Hamer, Dean H., Stella Hu, Victoria L. Magnuson, Nan Hu, and Angela M.L. Pattatucci (1993), “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science, 261:321-327, July 16.

Horgan, John (1995), “Gay Genes, Revisited,” Scientific American, 273[5]:26, November.

Howe, Richard (1994), “Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths,” American Family Association, [On-line], URL: http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/homosexuality.pdf.

Hubbard, Ruth and Elijah Wald (1997), Exploding the Gene Myth (Boston: Beacon Press).

“Human Genome Report Press Release” (2003), International Consortium Completes Human Genome Project, [On-line], URL: http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/project/50yr.html.

Kallmann, F.J. (1952), “Comparative Twin Study on the Genetic Aspects of Male Homosexuality,”Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 115:283-298.

King, M. and E. McDonald (1992), “Homosexuals Who are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands,” The British Journal of Psychiatry, 160: 407-409.

Kinsey, A.C. W.B. Pomeroy, C.E. Martin (1948), Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders).

Kinsey, A.C. W.B. Pomeroy, C.E. Martin, P. H. Gebhard (1953), Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders).

Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels (1994), The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

LeVay, Simon (1991), “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science, 253:1034-1037, August 30.

Mann, Charles (1994), “Behavioral Genetics in Transition,” Science, 264:1686-1689, June 17.

Marcus, Eric (1993), Is It a Choice? (San Francisco, CA: Harper).

NCBI (2004), “Human Genome Resources,” [On-line], URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/human/.

Nicolosi, Joseph, A. Dean Byrd, and Richard Potts (2000), “Retrospective Self-reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation: A Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy Clients,” Psychological Reports, 86:1071-1088, June.

Rainer, J.D., A. Mesnikoff, LC. Kolb, and A. Carr (1960), “Homosexuality and Heterosexuality in Identical Twins,” Psychosomatic Medicine, 22:251-259.

Reinisch, June M. and Ruth Beasley (1990) The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex (New York: St. Martin’s Press).

Rice, George, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, and George Ebers (1999), “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28,” Science, 284:665-667, April 23.

Risch, Neil, Elizabeth Squires-Wheeler, and Bronya J.B. Keats (1993), “Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence,” Science, 262:2063-2064, December 24.

Shepherd, Gordon M. (1994) Neurobiology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), third edition.

Spitzer, Robert L. (2003), “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?,”Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32[5]:403-417, October 5.

VandeHei, Jim (2004), “Dean Says Faith Swayed Decision on Gay Unions,” The Washington Post, p. A-1, January 8.

Wickelgren, Ingrid (1999), “Discovery of ‘Gay Gene’ Questioned,” Science, 284:571, April 23.

 


This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print, on line (including reposting on other Web sites), or on computer media, and will not be used for any commercial purpose. Further, it may not be copied without source statements (title, author, journal title), this paragraph granting limited rights for copying, and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

Related Reading – https://www.facebook.com/purepassiontv

The Deconstruction of Absolute Truth and the Foundation of a Free Society

800px-All_men_are_created_equal

“It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything.”

Malcolm Muggeridge

 

Our Declaration of independence reads,”We hold these truths to be self-evident”…

So what happens when a previously free society no longer accepts Absolute Truth?

If; “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free,” then to deny the truth means you will loose your freedom.

Government becomes a kind of god because selfish people no longer behave responsibly with their freedoms.

Government gets big.

Government takes more and more.

The people stop providing for themselves and become slaves to the government.

Totalitarianism is inevitable to those who deny truth and the personal responsibility that comes with knowledge of the Truth.

Freedom cannot survive as our one and only truth.
Freedom is the result of acceptance and application of Truth.

Truth sets us free.
Without it we are slaves.

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.”
(John 8:32 ; 36)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)

The Deconstruction of Absolute Truth and the Arts

image

“Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” (John 8:12)

Imagine a painter throwing away half of his or her color palette.

Or imagine a black and white photograph without white, only shades of dark gray.

Whether the subject is painting,photography,theater, or literature, all the above involve using contrasts to make images or tell stories.

Painters use colors ranging from light to dark.

image

Photographers use bright sunlight to dark shadows.

Theater and literature use contrasts in good and evil, peace and conflict, justice and injustice, love and hatred,truth and falsehood.

Now imagine a World that no longer accepts or believes in Absolute Truth, where the contrasts between right and wrong are no longer clear, and men stumble in the darkness because they cannot see.

God of Truth – He is the Rock of Absolute Truth

An Absolute Firm Foundation

An Absolute Firm Foundation

 

“He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.
For I proclaim the name of the Lord:
Ascribe greatness to our God.”

Deuteronomy 32:4,5

 

The Deconstruction of Absolute Truth and Creativity – The Loss of Inspiration and Innovation

Demolition

Demolition (Photo credit: hoskarsson)

“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” 
― George Orwell

“Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.”
― Blaise Pascal

Deconstructionism of truth is prevalent in today’s society.

“There are no absolutes”, is the theme of Deconstructionism.

(also known as Relativism,Existentialism and Postmodernism)

The negative effects are broad and damaging to society, industry, and politics.

No facet of society is left unharmed by the denial of truth.

Until we believe there are truths that we can believe in, we will have nothing in which we can invest belief, for truth is the subject,and belief is the action.

Conversely, to the degree that we are sure of that which we believe, to that same degree we will have confidence, courage, and willingness to take risk.

Truth gives solid ground for the activation of belief, and belief attempts things that doubt ignores.

Belief is as essential to innovation as water is to life.

Truth, belief and innovative creativity are interdependent.

Truth inspires us to believe we can achieve new possibilities.
Truth is called,”light”, in the Bible, enabling us to see possibilities.

Without belief that something came be done that has never previously been done, nothing new would become reality,

because we would not believe it can be done, and would therefore not attempt to do it.

That is how truth fosters belief ,creativity and innovation.

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)

Related articles

The Deconstruction of Absolute Truth and Belief in the Bible – The Biggest Threat to Any People

A bible from 1859.

A bible from 1859. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“It is impossible to enslave, mentally or socially, a bible-reading people. The principles of the bible are the groundwork of human freedom.” 
― Horace Greeley

“Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”

(The Apostle Paul – Galatians 4:16)

The vast majority of modern Americans believe everything is relative and there are no absolutes.

Deconstructionism of truth, and the growing sceptisism regarding the authority ,accuracy and relevance of the Bible as the source of all truth, is creating a generation of people who feel lost and alone.

In this environment, anyone who has absolute faith and belief in a given truth, and states it as such, will likely be considered rude, pushy ,over bearing ,and judgemental.

The inevitable degradation of society will follow any people who abandon truth.

Without truth as a basis for what can be known, we cannot hope to solve the problems we face because we cannot build upon what is known since we deny that anything can be known!

“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”

(John 17:17)

The source of truth is the Bible. The living , breathing Word of God is Jesus Christ.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”

(John 1:1-5)

 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:  who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

 (John 1:14,15)

May the light of truth of Jesus Christ the Savior, shine in our hearts and minds.

Related articles

The Deconstruction of Absolute Truth and Unity – The Reason Society Can No Longer Reason

 

Brumidi, Constantino - Apotheosis of Washingto...

Brumidi, Constantino – Apotheosis of Washington, detail E Pluribus Unum – 1865 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them:

“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”

(Matthew 12:25)

 

E pluribus unum

E Pluribus Unum, (Out of  Many ,One), is part of the history that made us a great nation and that made the world a better place for many.

We need an anthem of basic truths that inspires us to live in unity again.

These basic truths once formed a general basis for consensus,unity, and resolve for improving our society.

Without a clear definition of right and wrong, truth and error, everything will be a blend of gray without clear meaning.

~Reasoning is based on what is known, such as truth and facts~

To solve problems, reach solutions, make a diagnosis,theory, hypothesis, create, and improve anything, we need known truths to build upon.

(Educated guesses if you will, things we can say we are confident we know).

And the more sure we are, the bolder we will be in our attempts to make solutions to problems.

And the more of us who agree on basic truths, the more frequent and soon we will come to consensus on issues that demand our solution.

But without basic fundamental truths to unite us, we will remain divided, and will fall.

Without a basic assumption that anything can be known, we cannot hope to begin to reason solutions to our problems

by building educated guesses upon known fact and truth

because we deny that truth even exists!

 (such as presuppositions, ideological underpinnings, hierarchical values, and frames of reference)

Truth activates belief, and belief attempts things that doubt ignores.

This is the heart of realizing new realities and achievement.

Related terms are postmodernism, existentialism, and deconstructionism, but what all of these terms have in common is the abandonment of surety in truth.

Without the ability to say with can be confident of anything, we will likely lack the confidence to do or achieve anything.

This is also true in our attempts to create art or theater, be it novel or feature-length movie.

Is it any wonder that good theater seems more miss than hit?

Is it any wonder that the great art, theater and literature is in the past, or is based upon older literature or re-made movies ?

Is it any wonder that the overall approval ratings of government and officials is at an all time low?

Is it any wonder that the greater portion of change our politicians bring is for the worse?

Is it any wonder that political parties almost always make decisions down party lines ?

Is it any wonder that scientific and political debate quickly degrades into personal attacks?

Is it any wonder that thoughtless and absurd political dealings threaten the fabric and integrity of our American government ?

(These men and women are supposed to represent our finest leaders and patriots).

Is it any wonder that ,”we the people”, are often called,” we the sheeple”?

(If we deny the ability to absolutely believe anything we will likely fall for anything).

Is it any wonder that the best days of American ingenuity seem to be behind us?

Yet,we can rediscover truth as a nation and a people.

We can build the basic absolute truths that serve as a basis for consensus.

“Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.”

(John 14:6)

Jesus is the truth.

If we reject Jesus, we reject the truth, we lose the way, and we forfeit life as a people, and a nation.

If we know Him we know truth.

Jesus is the way. If we know Him we know the way.

Jesus is life. If we know Him we know life.

This is where you can start.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

(John 3:16)

Jesus Falls Beneath the Cross

Jesus Falls Beneath the Cross (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(Yes. It is that simple. Jesus did all the heavy lifting on the cross).

Just believe and receive Him and His love gift of life that He bought with His blood for you.

Pray ,and He will hear you.

Write me, and I will rejoice with you.

And I pray  that we all can one day soon, rejoice in unity as a nation.

Out of many, one.

Ethos,Pathos,Logos – The Image of God

Bust of Aristotle. Marble, Roman copy after a ...

Bust of Aristotle. Marble, Roman copy after a Greek bronze original by Lysippos from 330 BC; the alabaster mantle is a modern addition. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

God created man in His image.

Aristotle identified three primary areas of influence and response that comprise the mind, heart, and soul of mankind.

He called them Ethos, Pathos, and logos.

God is sovereign and all Powerful- this is Ethos

God is the author of wisdom and is all knowing- this is Logos

God is Love and so loved the world He gave His Son – this is Pathos

The Psalms puts it this way;

Psalms 139:1-4 “O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up;
You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my path and my lying down,
And are acquainted with all my ways. For there  is not a word on my tongue,
But behold, O Lord, You know it altogether.”

God knows us, understands us, comprehends us altogether because He loves us.

His pathos brought His ethos and logos to our rescue.

His pathos / love bridged the gap between us and God through Christ.

God wants our love as well.

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” (Deuteronomy 6)

The most remarkable thing about what God requires from us is that He gave all of himself for us in Christ first.

He expressed all His ethos, pathos, and logos for our benefit through the cross.

Is God not worthy of all our love in return?

DNA is Evidence of God – “order with content,” is proof of Intelligence Based Origin -Lee Stroeble

 Our genetic code is language, and is but a record of what,”God said.”

Lee Stroeble , former Court Journalist for the Chicago Sun Times, presents the overwhelming scientific evidence found in our DNA to support the Biblical God as our Creator.

Using the Story line from the movie,”Contact”, Stroeble makes his case.

Stroeble points out that Carl Sagan said that if we ever received an ordered message with content from outer space, then we could reasonably conclude that the message originated from intelligent life.

Though Sagan denied God as creator, his claim for ,”order with content,”as proof of Intelligence would come years after his death in modern Genetic scientific discoveries in DNA.

The Bible record of creation in the book of Genesis repeats the words,”God said”,11 times during the creation of the world and all living things.

The correlation between Genesis and the language of DNA at the core of all living things means our genetic code is but a record of what,”God said.”

DNA is a ,”message with content,” far more sophisticated than our greatest minds can fully grasp.

DNA is a coded language so sophisticated that our greatest minds still can’t fathom it fully, and those most familiar with the ongoing work say we will be deciphering it for the next 100 years. (Genetic Encyclopedia Project,ENCODE, 2012)

Appendix

The 3% of our DNA that is “STRUCTURAL” meaning that it defines our biological characteristics, has been mapped.

The rest of our DNA appears to work as a series of switches comprising a communicational network for our structural information, and was previously considered random ,”junk”.

It is this apparent communication network that we know least about.

This is the part of our DNA that is subject to discovery.

JUNK DNA- May Not Be Junk After All

(Quoted from Gene exchange no 2, 1996)In another reminder that we may not understand the full ramifications of genetic engineering, Science magazine recently reported new work on the function of genetic material*. Scientists have long been puzzled by the fact that fully 97% of the DNA in human cells does not code for proteins and appears to consist of meaningless sequences. The possibility that this apparently useless DNA has some as yet unknown function continues to tantalize scientists.The Science article reports on a paper suggesting that the non-coding 97% of the DNA, commonly referred to as junk DNA, might have a function.

The authors of the paper employed linguistic tests to analyze junk DNA and discovered striking similarities to ordinary language. The scientists interpret those similarities as suggestions that there might be messages in the junk sequences, although its anyone s guess as to how the language might work. (* F. Flam, Hints of a language in junk DNA, Science 266:1320, 1994)

“Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:26,27)

“Freedom” According to Islam – Theocracy vs. Democracy – Ravi Zacharias with Jeff Foxworthy as Moderator – 6 min. Video

Is there compulsion to believe in Islam?

Or does anyone have the freedom to reject Islam, Mohamed, and Allah?

The answer is in the definition of Islam and the doctrine of government in their book, the Quran – Allah governs and Islam means ,”Submit”.

This is ,”Theocracy”, or a ,”Theocratic form of government”.

Christianity has no doctrine of government calling for the forcing of rules upon the will of the people.

Christians are called to win the hearts and minds of men and women by the Good News of Jesus Christ ,

Both they who govern and they who are governed are called to accept Christ,

and they are also free to reject Him.

Not so in Islam.

Ravi notes that many major Western universities have centers for the study of Islam,

but no Islamic country has a university that has a center for the study of Christianity.

Even the most moderate and advanced Islamic countries, such as Turkey,

have no such center for the understanding of Christianity at universities.

Illustrations include Ravi’s interactions with leading figures in the Islamic world.

Ravi asked one such leader,”If your daughter became a Christian, what would you do?”

The answer Ravi was given by this Islamic leader?

“I would hand her over to the authorities and have her killed.”

Pascal on Mankind and God

image

“Man would desire to be great and sees that he is little; would desire to be happy and sees that he is miserable; would desire to be perfect and sees that he is full of imperfections; would desire to be the object of the love and esteem of men, and sees that his faults merit only aversion and contempt. The embarrassment wherein he finds himself produces in him the most unjust and criminal passions imaginable, for he conceives a mortal hatred against that truth which blames him and convinces him of his faults.” ~Blaise Pascal~ (Pensees)

“America is Lost on the High Seas of Time, Without Chart or Compass” ~Ravi Zacharias~

RaviZacharias

“Every heart has the potential for murder. Every heart needs a redeemer.

That is the message of Christmas.

The world took that child and crucified Him.

But by his triumph over death He brings life to our dead souls and begins the transformation within.

Unto us a child is born and He shall save us from our sins.”

~Ravi Zacharias~

http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=45b75085e6ab57e339ea89d67&id=43e1a268bb&e=db221c7bff

Dear Friend,The tragedy that shook Newtown, Connecticut, and indeed the entire nation, defies analysis.
What must have gone on in the mind of this young man for him to walk into a school of little children and wreak such devastating carnage numbs the soul.
At the same time this was happening, I was under the surgeon’s blade for minor surgery. When I left the recovery room and returned home, among the first pieces of news on my phone was the news of this mass killing. Something within me hoped that I was still not clear-headed, but I knew deep inside that I was reading an unfolding story of horror and tragedy.
What does one say? What is even appropriate without violating somebody’s sacred space and their right to scream in protest?I am a father and a grandfather. I simply cannot fathom the unbearable weight within a parent’s or grandparent’s heart at such a personal loss. It has often been said that the loss of a child is the heaviest loss to bear. I have no doubt that those parents and grandparents must wonder if this is real or simply a terrifying nightmare. My heart and my prayers are for them and, indeed, for the family of the assassin. How his father will navigate through this will be a lifelong journey.
When a mass-killer like this ends by taking his own life, there is an even deeper sense of loss. Everyone wants to know, “Why?” Not that the answer would soften the blow but it would at least give some clue, some release to speak, to hear, to try to work through. But all we are left with is twenty-eight funerals and lifelong grief. To all of those who have suffered such loss, may the Lord carry you in His strength and bear you in your grief. You will be in our thoughts and prayers.
My own attempt at saying something here is feeble but carries a hope that somebody listening will make this world a better place. My heart goes back to Angola Prison in Baton Rouge where I met such people whose savagery took them to that destination. It was interesting to see a Bible in every cell and to hear many talk of how it had become their only means of life and hope. Someone with me said, “If we had more Bibles in our schools maybe we would need less of them here.”
To the skeptic and the despiser of belief in God, I know what they will respond. I am quite convinced that the one who argues against this ends up playing God and is ultimately unable to defend any absolutes.
Hate is the opposite of love and while one breathes death, the other breathes life. That is what we need to be addressing here. The seeds of hate sooner or later bear fruit in murder and destruction. Killers are not born in a moment. Deep beneath brews thinking and the animus that in a moment is uncorked. We are living in a society that nurtures hate on many sides with the result that lawlessness triumphs.Even in ideal settings, killing can take place. Murder began in the first family when a brother could not stand the success of his sibling. The entire history of the Middle East–five millennia–is a tale of two brothers. Centuries of killing has not settled the score. Maybe in Adam Lanza’s case we will find a deep psychological reason behind what he did. But that does not diminish the reality that there lurks many a killer whose moment will come and the nation will be brought to tears again. We can almost be certain of that.Yes, we can discuss all the symptomatic issues—security, gun control, early detection signs, and so on. These are all worthy of discussion. But it’s always easier to deal with the symptoms rather than with the cause.The fiscal cliff is tame by comparison to the moral devastation ahead if we do not recognize the malady for what it is. Hate is the precursor to murder. Jesus made that very clear. Playing God is the dangerous second step where we feel we are the ultimate judge of all things and that we have the right to level the score.

Here, I would like to address our political leaders and media elite:

You may personally have the moral strength to restrict your ideas to mere words but many who listen to you do not. To take the most sacred privilege of democracy and transform it into the language of aggression plays right into the hands of hate-mongers. This is not the language of a civil society or of wise leadership. It is not the ethos of a culture of co-existence. It is not the verbal coinage with which we can spend our way into the future.

Our political rhetoric is fraught with division, hate, blame, and verbal murder. Our young are listening. Remember that what you win them with is what you win them to.

As for the entertainment world, what does one even say at a time like this?

Calling for gun control and then entertaining the masses with bloodshed is only shifting the locus from law to entertainment. Do our entertainers ever pause to ask what debased values emerge from their stories? The death of decency is audible and visible in what passes as movie entertainment and political speech.

This is the same culture that wishes to take away Nativity scenes and Christmas carols from our children.

God is evicted from our culture and then He is blamed for our carnages.

America is lost on the high seas of time, without chart or compass. The storms that await us will sink this nation beyond recognition if we do not awaken to the rapid repudiation of the values that shaped this nation.

The handwriting is on the wall. Freedom is not just destroyed by its retraction. It is destroyed even more painfully by its abuse.

There is one more thing.

It is so obvious but is seldom ever addressed. All these recent mass murders have been done by men. Many of them young men, yes, even mere boys.  Jonesboro, Columbine, Virginia Tech, now Newtown.

Is there something within our culture that doesn’t know how to raise strength with dignity and respect?

Is this how boys are meant to be? From bloodletting in hockey games while thousands cheer to savagery in school shootings while thousands weep, we must ask ourselves what has gone wrong with us men? Where are the role models in the home? Is knocking somebody down the only test left for strength? Is there no demonstration now of kindness, gentleness, courtesy, and respect for our fellow human beings?

One young man on death row in Angola Prison told me that he started his carnage as a teenager. Now in his thirties with the end of the road in sight, he reached his hand out to me and asked me to pray with him. Life was lost at the altar of power and strength.

The Bible only speaks of one remedy for this:

the transformation of the heart by making Christ the center.Those who mock the simplicity of the remedy have made evil more complex and unexplainable.

Every heart has the potential for murder. Every heart needs a redeemer. That is the message of Christmas. The world took that child and crucified Him. But by his triumph over death He brings life to our dead souls and begins the transformation within. Unto us a child is born and He shall save us from our sins.

Before the first murder was committed, the Lord said to Cain, “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.”

To gain mastery over sin there is only one way. 

Just as Victoria Soto put herself in the way so that the children in her class might live, Jesus Christ put himself in the way that we all might live.

That is the beginning of the cure for us as individuals and as a nation.

All the laws in the world will never change the heart.

Only God is big enough for that.

Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias

Christianity and Islam – The Basic Fundamentals of Different Fundamentalisms

Map showing the relative proportion of Christi...

Map showing the relative proportion of Christianity (red) and Islam (green) in each country. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The essence of any religion is the fundamental truths it is founded upon.

That would comprise a religion’s Fundamentalism.

A “Fundamentalist”,is one who attempts to strictly adhere to a religion’s fundamentals.

The word fundamental can mean something  good or bad, depending on a religion’s core truths.

The Supreme Doctrines of Christianity and Islam are polar opposites.

“Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”  (Matthew 22:34-40)

“Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:21

God wants us to love Him, and has provided the ultimate reason to desire to love Him by loving and giving His one and only Son, Jesus Christ as a sacrifice, the just for the unjust, on the cross. God WINS our love and trust.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”(John 3:16)

In contrast to that, Islam means,”Submit to Allah”, and force is the means Allah’s word, the Koran, imposes.

Free will is forcefully denied by this fundamental belief of Islam.

(Read the following quotes from the Koran)

Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them [who do not believe] until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Ishaq:324 “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'”

Qur’an:8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”

Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

Qur’an:47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in
battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them)captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”

Free World listen!! It is clear! Democracy was born out of Christinity’s “Unalienable rights” and the belief that “all men are CREATED equal”. 

Allah demands we all SUBMIT to him. Or die.
Islam is fundamentally tyrannical.

God’s desire is for us is to LOVE Him, and He personally came down to us to die for our sins and defeat death for us.

What more could He do ?

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

God did this to set is free from sin and death. Christianity is fundamentally liberaiting.

“If the Son of Man sets you free you shall be Free indeed.”

Different core beliefs, different fundamentals, different fundamentalists.

Additional verses and links

Qur’an Sura 4:34, “Men have authority over women because [Allah] has made the one superior to the other… Good women are obedient… As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them…”

http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php

 

%d bloggers like this: