W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Volume What is New
ISSUES TO HAND IN THE NEWSPAPERS
AND FOR THE HEART AND MIND OF MAN
The Australian, Friday, February 26 and
Haaretz, February 5, 2015.
In the last Chapter, we were looking at what in today's paper, The Australian is compared in one article to a process of sexual grooming, the the so-called Safe Schools This is one aspect of the various idea models being voiced as the vote on the gender issue touted, draws nearer. It comes currently in the midst of reactions to the Safe School Program, which have been exceedingly negative in many cases, leading to a review of the issue of this form of education or indoctrination, at the wish of the PM. One flank protector, we noted, is using hate terminology, that is claiming someone who differs is in hate mode, homophobic being the term, which being gratuitous in general, helps to make the issue seem less obvious than it is.
There is far more error and presumption, really irrelevance that sidetracks in this attack mode of misrepresentation. Thus it is important to realise that we are dealing not just with one topic, but three related ones in the themes here. Topic one is the question of same-reproductive equipment being formalised as good for use in the recognition normally given in the term 'marriage' when male-female meet, even when the two complementary parts, physically, are not used as such, but one is involved with the other one the same: male to male or female to female. Thus the desire is for some to apply 'marriage' not only to the functional duality, one that has been the reproductive now, with special equipment provided that works so well in such a highly complex setting, but to an approach of sameness, not difference in type. That is one wing of the matter. It seems to sever function, even a vital one for the race, from the normative one used, in the outwardly conformed duality, male and female. In the Bible, Romans 1, it is presented as a result of considerable compass in review of the case when God is resisted, His testimony held down like a wrestler fighting. Moving from creaturely obedience to God has a stated trend, or is closely associated with, homosexuality. That is part of that message in the Bible, concerning this issue.
Sustained revolution against God with impressive struggle, has a trend towards lust toward one another, even to the point of what is not the natural configuration, male to male, female to female. There is the sense in this setting that if God is of interest, for address, then the roving spirit may seek what is less natural, indeed far from normative. Thus suppression (1:17, with undue aversion) is associated biblically with expression (with undue passion). Not only, indicates Romans 1, does this tend towards what is against nature as God made it, in the reproductive field, but it reaches the point of approval of what does so*1.
That formal phase of the matter is similar to the functional aspect in the allied point. Then there is the point that despite all that is said, male and female are repeatedly found to have actual differences in measurement, in certain cognitive trends and modes in development*2 . These are different, not damnable, diverse and not devilish, functionally magnificent, and not a marring. These special gifts enable many women to specialise more than many men in some fields - there is a tilt- in certain powers, functions, capacities; and men too have trends which are useful as such in some not uncommon situations. There is also a relationship which has long seemed normal, natural, attractive, that brings a sense of love and enlightenment and gratitude to each, in sharing such differences of attitude to one another, that can give to life in a usual marriage situation, such an effectual mutuality, in some ways like visiting another country.
To lay the false charge that valuing these elements as they are, man esteeming woman with relish and woman man, is the same as some kind of hatred is not only way out from the realities involved, but it can be acutely misleading. It is, to the point, in this highly usual case, love that has the surround to the relationship. No one, let alone the child of such reciprocity, is being hated. The use of the term is like a cancer in health. In any case, strange things may come to be, but it is not intrinsic; whereas mutual delight has been the opportunity and of course, a buffer for children.
Hatred ? It is not a man or a woman who is being hated, but loved. Nor is it just sex - that may be one component, which comes in the special case of adding to the race, a specialised expression of the love that can be very strong indeed. Nor in many cases (such as that in the Bible and its use in this field, just as some refuse to use it), is anyone being hated, but something. Thus a surgeon might perhaps be said to hate the misuse and spoiling of his scalpels, because it injures his work. There is no personal element. If something or someone else has the same effect on his work he might hate the interference, but not necessarily the person - it would seem prima facie, to be rather an immature response. Finding something inapplicable for good reason, whatever else might be said in other viewpoints, is not per se hatred, and to call it so, without specific evidence in the case in view is quite simply distortion, irrational and presumptuous.
Not only so, but those who do not approve on religious grounds, including in the model in many cases, the concept of design (cf. DEITY AND DESIGN, DESIGNATION AND DESTINY, esp. Sections 2 and 8 ), may simultaneously to rejecting the practice of same sex formal relationships as far as they lawfully can, out of love be seeking deliverance for those who follow other plans proffered by society, than those of the normal construction, and that on a variety of grounds.
They may have a love for them such as a life-guard may have for someone drowning in this, that it is easier not to bother and you foresee trouble, such as that of which the Bible reminds us pointedly enough and freely in both Testaments. Thus the life-saver may lose his own life in the rescue attempt, just as bad laws can fine or imprison those who dare to be different by not diver ting from the teaching of their religion. Whether for adultery or homosexual practice, in the biblical case. it is just the same sort of pitch in peril and result as in adultery. Either or both if unrepented is sufficient to exclude from life, or from God (I Timothy 1:9-12, Romans 1:17, 27-32, I Corinthians 5:11-6:9, Leviticus 20:13). In the theocracy, death is the result. In the New Testament, which does not prescribe law for a nation, but for Christians, exclusion from the kingdom of heaven is the result. It is a case of what is right, and variation from it in the use of this equipment and the Maker's view of any such assertion and action.
Calling this love hatred, ipso facto, is of course a gross distortion, contradiction of the fact and the religion. It is simply ignorantly flighty, without due care, judgmental in the worst sense, of passing judgment without proper watchfulness and process.
If, then, one finds women a wonder, their differences, not in value but in specific features as persons, to be in general worthy of real variety, as in taking an international holiday, however slight these might seem to those who appreciate them less, then talking about hatred of somebody or something else because one can so delight in them, seems not only beside the point, but blind.
One finds that in extreme cases it comes like a surge, to the point not only of approving this line of behaviour, but of slandering those who do NOT prefer the diverse treatment of the matter, some even calling love of what is the observable and the generationally productive, a hatred of man- using the academic sounding term homophobia, rather than an appreciation of the marvel which has enabled such ready production of what is precious, the child.
Design of man, including the use of logical categories in his making, and capacities of mind for himself, both paralleled, the one IN him and the other BY him, is assaulted by many in these State enterprises, faith in God assumed a subjective oddity or error rather than a use of reason (cf. SMR). Thus we gain not only an indoctrinative resultant from the State, in this case Commonwealth, but an advocacy of what is contrary to the uttermost, for example, to the Bible, with a series of assumptions which constitute a multi-pronged attack on it, and not on it alone. This as one whole becomes a religious invasion WITH hostility and slander, which if permitted, becomes a take-over.
If some religion, for instance the Commonwealth one in this case, with emphasis on psychological adventurism to boot, as in the Safe Schools philosophising confronting children, is to become a source of persecution and indoctrination at the forbidden level, then of course there not only has in all reason, to be a referendum on constitutional change, but a free, open and sustained opening of all the issues involved, with equality of liberty in all directions FOR THIS PURPOSE in terms of free speech.
Unfortunately for Europe, in the last 200 plus years there have been many take-over movements, involving doctrine of one kind or another, and the results have been painful. It is important that Australia is not bent by bureaucrats in Education, fleeced by financial adventurists or ideologically transformed by loud and legally assisted speech, exceedingly difficult to distinguish from experimental extremism. When truth is reduced to a variable, and other instruments are substituted for it, then fancy can justly prove costly. Many nations in this last two centuries have engaged in it, and very often paid for it. It is a way on which there is a toll.
Why is there this insidious use of language to create unsustained concepts, generalisation follies, a legal invasion in religious fields, using discriminatory means of advance ? Is it fear of rejection, that advances such methods ? If fear of rejection, or indeed indoctrinative fostering of the views of some leads to greater liberties for those, than for opponents, it merely makes a mockery of voting. Imagine contestants variably dealt with in a debate, or as may occur even yet, subject to different rules of speech as they "debate". It would be farcical, self-condemned. It would merely formalise the discriminatory treatment of one. How does that relate to Australia ? Legislated discrimination has been one term used in this area, and it has application. It is especially relevant in the notorious Section 18C legislation in the Racial Discrimination Act, where subjective feeling can dictate absolutely (cf. The Afterglow ...Epilogue, Mercy Outdistances Judgment Ch. 10, for example).
This of course tends to transform the land into a political jousting, in which religion is taken over by those who substitute their own, and to the extent law strikes only one of these two religions, not only a religious norm for the Commonwealth, a forwarding of one against others, against the Constitution, but actual attack on those who do not conform to the discrimination that is set.
Stop Press: In March 4th's edition of The Australian, we find much data on various attempts to defend and expressions of displeasure on one rather staggering topic. We are advised that a number of academic researchers were given access to their (State's ... parents ... ?) children in dealing with various types of cases and giving information such as strange sounding types of sites to support this or that sexual preference, and generally becoming involved in such sometimes especially vulnerable youth. There were numbers of 'authorities' who seemed more than willing to defend such usurpation, who were not actually involved in the nurture and work of parents, which can be quite heavy, but took advantage for their conception of professional need eve at this spiritual level of the personality and its desire, thoughts, perspectives, weaknesses, strengths, and what were to be deemed the one or the other.
Since the Safe Schools program has been associated with Marxist pursuits, it appears that that particular, wide-ranging religion (cf. World Amiss... Ch. 5) is being given discriminatory and intrusive access, after losing the war, to the children of the victors, even to the exclusion of parents.
Gender, Cytology, Genetics and Pathology
In Haaretz, Feb 5, 2015, there appears a contribution form Ido Efradi. In sum, it indicates research showing measurable differences in the case of male and female mice, which related closely to highly important genes relative to the brain, with special relationship to the hippocampus. This study underlying the news appears in the journal, Translational Psychiatry, and was conducted by a group of researchers led by Prof. Illana Gozes, a professor of clinical biochemistry and Director of the Department of Human Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry at Tel Aviv. It was related to varying incidence for male and female in the case of both autism and Alzheimer's disease
She pointed out: "Our study stresses the neurological difference between men and women, and the need to examine the responses of the two genders separately , especially in clinical trials of the effective of new drugs." She adds: "Following these findings we are continuing to investigate the brain mechanisms that cause these differences .We believe that we've discovered an important key that is likely to lay the groundwork for the development of effective remedies in the future."
This is by no means the first such study of differences in facility or aptitude in male-female situations, concjerned in development. The gene cited in this present case (2015),the "ADNP gene" is said to be "central to brain development," so that its presence in this neurological focus and its force in developing features jointly brings in one more substantial construction technique as a place of differences in the genders. The effects relatively to each are positive and negative, and are a diversity of note.
It is always foolish to put up a platform and spit words, then use invective, then in lordly style govern and issue and dictate to the people, let alone in matters with intensely religious relevant; and far better is it for the Australian Government to keep, as such, to its Keep off the (religious) grass order in the Constitution. It is no use staring fixedly at the Constitution, as some of one or other gender is envisaged by some as doing re their desire for gender like this or like that, and saying, I FEEL FREE OF IT. You have, in that case, to CHANGE it, not mesmerise and make a coup, however hidden, to invade as Russia did the Crimea, only later admitting what it had done.