W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

Chapter 3

MORE ON THE THREE FROGS

Sexuality, Perversion, Inversion and Conversion
in their Broader Context

News 295

The Australian, October 29, 2003

QUESTIONING THE QUESTION

and Answering It

There is much to consider in Christ, as in overview from His word, applying it and considering our current curriculum in this world, we ponder the developments. Let us consider one recent one in Victoria.

In The Australian, a report  is found of a curriculum item in Victorian. Of concern is the fact that it leads to elicitive presentations on perverted sex, one characterised by the Principal of the government High School concerned, in this way:

it "clearly states that as an activity, students should read the following and answer and discuss the questions at the end of the attached questionnaire."

It is in that questioning process that the damage is done.

This is the report in the above newspaper, October 29, 2003^*1. Although this has been denied by the Education Department concerned, the Principal is quite clear that the material provided in a course for teachers, specifically in fact so declares!

What then is the question that aroused so much concern, affirmation and denial, in a piece of material which now having been withdrawn from the curriculum, must have been on it for the High School concerned ? There are two noted. The first:

"Why do women and men go to bed together ?

How can they truly know how to please each other being so anatomically different ?"

Indeed, the context was not oddity but alternative.

The objective, the researchers who created the paper allege, was to force people who were not heterosexual to answer the sort of question homosexuals meet.

The answer to the question cited is in fact very simple. The anatomical difference between men and women is precisely what begets children; and children are precisely what many people want, without whom the race would end; and though means and ways and technical facilitation may be found to try to avoid this, this is the provided equipment beautifully adapted to such an objective, void of the lurking perils and complexities of the artificial.

Secondly, the difference, as with pepper and salt, is what makes for an integral complexity and pattern which is mutually adventurous, so that emotions, desire and delight are found in a regard of each for the other personality, leading to this unity in diversity as an occasion of something like visiting another nation, or another discipline besides one's own.

Thirdly, and importantly, it helps to stress that this is not essentially a taste treat, like some new ice-cream, but an adventure in inter-personal love in the embrace of productive delight , with the possible fruit children, who in turn are to be loved, so making a parallel to a closed-circuit in which every feature relates harmoniously to the other.

The objective realities of the entirety of the matter are to be considered, not some aspect. Let us illustrate. To be sure, a car needs oil, but we do not lose sight of the fact that it goes, provides support, obeys directions (usually), assists one following a direction of the compass, can act as a pseudo-cocoon of multiple-provisions, and carries one on one's way. Oil is a fact, but it is not the only fact, nor the chief one. Undue focus on one feature can be mere aberration.

Fourthly, to use another illustration, if one were a tyre, and wanted to 'mate' with a front-end, so that the car could run, an endeavour to pervert the pattern so that one could sit directly under another tyre, rather than in parallel with it,  would be considered a wild dysfunctionality, unworthy of thought, an inability to conceive a pattern, let alone a design, or to consider a composite in its consequences and value; or else a simple rebellion against the nature of the parts supplied. In other words, there is this fourth reason for the heterosexual mutuality, that since it is communicative collaboration of broad character, to make other use of the equipment seem bizarre, disjointed, if not distrait and disoriented. Failure to perceive the totality can lead to partiality and pretence, disillusion and futility.

Assertive autonomy in this sphere can lead to passionate hatred, because the underlying nature of the case is disdained, and the assertiveness in the face of design being perhaps mutual, and diverse, there is the payment required for such autocratic illusionism.

Moreover, when, in addition to being complementary, the two, man and woman, can beget children THROUGH that difference, the concept that some other way of relating should be found which does not so beget, which is not complementary but merely supplementary, like a surplus of grain, becomes an expensive invasion of the unknown, where things like AIDS have already pounced on the provocation.

This brings in the fifth reason,  and the sixth following from it.

 As shown in SMR, if man were not a design, the definition of the term through the nature of the construction could not be used of anything on earth. Thus in SMR pp. 209ff., as part of *22 and I25, we find this:

Language, though it varies, no more presents a primitive-to-superior gradation correlative with the idea of tribes-to-modern-man, than does cell technology in minor organisms to major ones; mutations do not exhibit, but rather obstruct any living sight of the flow to the watchful eye, as does palaeontology to the retrospective onlooker. The failures of flow on the one hand, a procedural rebuff, and the fact of language and cell initial and pervasive sophistication on the other, a generic contradiction, are merely two of the total non-verifications of organic evolution. The mathematical minutiae of cells, their administrative 'genius' and magnificent miniaturisation, similarly attest that we are dealing with a prodigious mind in its deployment of words and works - the language of cells being reflective, our own introspective: not with some self-developmental sequence where that-which-is-not invents itself from non-existence by clever contrivings.

To all this the noted Professor A.E. Wilder Smith adds a fascinating datum: the cell not only has its molecular system (the materials on site in right proportions), and the apt spatial arrangement of the same, such as isomers exhibit (this is a variable); but on this basis there is to be "superimposed" a "sequential code" in living genes and derived proteins. This super-imposition of conceptual considerations, as a constraint on prior or more basic concepts, this infusion, enforcement, emplacement of code is:

l) A conceptual work.

2) Exactly the function of mind.

3) Facilitated exactly in proportion as all the concepts can proceed from the resources of the one mind, being congenial to the style, system, parameters or powers of its thought (as words to paper, thoughts into words, vision into thoughts).

4) The definitional heart of what we call "design". (Cf. pp. 114-116 supra, 211, 252E-J infra.) That it has here an invisible agent is scarcely surprising, when it is considered that, as shown in Ch.l supra, matter is a design, of necessity a product of a law-maker who is necessarily not material.

To revert: Wilder Smith (p. 53 cf. p. 82 in his work: Creation of Life) emphasises at the technical level that in his experience, a true biological cell is virtually one great code, a code complex, a collation of codes, a code matrix. In terms of this magnificent furniture, made resident like a star boarder in the cell, or "superimposed" on its apt and ready structures: energy becomes "converted" (p. 122 op. cit.) into idea-exhibits. We of course do this with a system of thought on other systems, all the time, having the ability to think, of which this is the specific outcome.

What then ? Observationally, the evidence caresses creation and rebuffs any alternative option, with single-minded intensity denying gradualism. It negates it for language, for cells and for relic transitions, whilst exhibiting the paraphernalia of mind with that exuberance in the living methodology of cybernetics, that we mini-creators with teeming cells at our disposal, habitually deploy in our own language gifts.

The positive and negative criteria, alike, act in symphonic unison to acclaim creation in any contest (cf. Image, and p. 1031C); while the systematic, and sudden methods found in language and gene alike, correlate with the legal force of intransigent matter, to make a concept of mindlessness, a mindless one, ridiculing the facts.

THAT-WHICH-IS-NOT never was nor could be; it is I-AM-WHO-I-AM who both is, must be, and always must have been; and here we see the thoroughly consistent, co-ordinate and correlative working of His mind.

 

*25  It is necessary to point out that it matters not at all where the information input - the directions for operation, the practical provisions for implementation of the directions (plans do not create factories: you need both, and a mind for either in this world), the data banks, the codes, the linguistic provisions for intelligible computation, interaction between parts and hence the intelligence - where, and indeed when this is inserted.

You can build as you will, put down your money when it is acceptable to the builders, have the machinations at will: but it is all to be done.

If it is done in miniature (as in the cell codes in the human body), then this takes more input, it is harder. If it is done in spectacular and unexampled miniaturisation, as in the cells of this same body, that takes the more. If moreover, it is done embryonically, no matter: it is merely the more intensive that the application of intelligence must be. Commanding, symbolic control is not meaningless motion. A coherent, managing code in a cohesive managed circuit in an integrated, collaborative whole of billions of parts (each cell), multiplied by billions (each body) - is not the easiest to manage, as it is forming itself and containing the lively data for growth, the while.

None of us can manage it. Its technology leaves us for dead, as Dr Denton points out, by orders of magnitude that seem astronomical. Thus while its manner of the introduction of this prodigy is of much interest, and the point is clearly addressed, yet it is the fact of its introduction, like a payment into a schoolboy's bank account, which should not be forgotten, with concern about the method, however legitimate this subsidiary question may be.

As also shown in this chapter, the implications of the startling method of introduction of this machination, and origination of this equipment are of such a character - that this element also is of prodigious importance.

Let us however, not forget the fact of the amount deposited. We have nothing which by observation can match for intelligence, by results can equal for its manifestation, the equipment with which on earth we think, and move and have our being. If the source were not intelligent, contrary as we see and shall see, to all reason, then our greatest works should be denied the attribute of intelligence. However, we experience the intelligence as we proceed in our works; and perceive it is profoundly surpassed in the works which make our working possible: the construction of our bodies, minds and spirits, and of the world which is their visible habitat.

That is of course the definitional dilemma always faced by unbelief: if you are going to be consistent, and define what it is that intelligence is by what it does, then the essential characteristics and criteria are surpassed in what we are, as evidence of its working, relative to anything we do. Yet intelligence is by definition attributed to us in terms of performance. Alas for the atheist, we are monumentally outperformed. See further: Chapter 3, esp. pp. 262-263, 290 infra.

Thus for such reasons as these, and those provided in TMR Chs. 1, 9, Wake Up World! ... Chs. 4, 5, Secular Myths ... Chs. 1, 7, 8,  Earth Spasm ... Chs.  1,   8, Spiritual Refreshings Chs. 6, 13, 16, and SMR pp. 140ff., where the fact that the criteria of scientific method are exceedingly well met by creation and vastly in conflict with the theory of evolution, we are constrained to consider man a design.

Hence to proceed as outlined in the questionnaire, appears to have an ultra-Sodom and mega-Gomorrah sort of thrust, to use biblical evaluation: in that we find here evidence of what in form seems virtual, unnatural and seductive solicitation of the young, not merely perversion of the old. To ponder the possibilities in the way the questions seem designed to incite, becomes rather like considering the possibilities of putting a microscope in a drain to block it. It is without any relevance to design, is contrary to design, and is not good for the equipment and its outcome, therefore.

The ensuing point, in accord with Spiritual Refreshings Chs. 6, 13, 16 in particular, and SMR Chs. 1, 3, 5, 10 is that it is contrary to the mind of the Maker, so that the equipment would be in confrontation with its purpose, and hence would involve the persons using it (cf. Ch. 2, *1 above), in the biological equivalent of defalcation of divine property, war on God.

Not everyone relishes this, the rebellion involved being biblically characterised as one which, unrepented of, excludes from the kingdom of heaven (I Timothy 1:10, I Corinthians 5:9ff., 6:8ff.), with a divine thunder that is more like earthquake than rain. Indeed, all ultimate rebellion against God is of this genre, divorcing from the access to and atmosphere of heaven. Thus in I Samuel 15:23, we read this:

                           He also has rejected you from being king."

Many actually love their Creator, and see no good reason to run off with His equipment, without His wisdom or power, when His love has been so profound as to match yes and surpass, the wit and imagination of His actual creation in the first place, and there are those too, who find that since His salvation biblically expressed, involved sacrifice of His only begotten Son to meet the crisis of man's sin in general, simply to ADD to man's sin in this or in any other way, is an act of the most profound ingratitude.

For all these reasons, then one would answer, There is much to prevent such an 'option' or aberration, contrary to pattern, design and purpose, as you suggest. Heterosexual normality is not a necessity to one made with the wonderful liberties of man, but it is a rational need, ethical constraint and spiritual soundness.

There are other questions of a similar kind in this questionnaire from Victoria, but the whole is so elicitive, whatever the intention, so provocative of perversion and given to those who being young and unmarried, might try anything for fun or diversion, and then become emotionally absorbed in the perversion, that one does not proceed further in quoting them. The above is sufficient to make the type of point concerned, and may therefore suffice.

THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE
AND THE AGEING OF THE SPIRIT OF MAN

The fact however that if we are to believe the Headmaster concerned, who asserted of a matter readily checked, that the questionnaire CLEARLY MARKED that it was suitable for 14 year olds^*2, or some such group, is enough to provide ground for reflection. Thus we can also ask a question. It is this:  Is this Age becoming so grossly disoriented, is the spirit of man becoming so tired, so aged in its antics, that it can start using such a term (as another question implied), as seductive of the approach of one to the other, in terms of a heterosexual kind of relationship!

Seduce from homosexual perversion to heterosexual relationship! Is this world becoming to topsy-turvy that its style is going out the window, and its end is coming in the door ? The word of Isaiah to this is to the point, now for Gentile, as then to the Jew, in this case one specific application of it:
 

(Emphasis added.)

Is then this world becoming so topsy-turvy, an initiate of darkness that rejoices in weightless flight, without the 'burden' of responsibility, or the gravity of reality!

It is, as a matter of fact doing precisely that (cf. Answers to Questions Ch. 5), and this is one of the 'mature' indications (like growing melanoma), that its end is fast approaching (cf. Matthew 24:12-14), as the Gospel's proclamation proceeds, meanwhile, as required by Christ, to all the world, before "the end comes." There is nothing so humorous about beginnings when YOU have to make it (try making the universe for example, O man seeking to become god, as will be the final indulgence of inanity); nor is it so bewitchingly funny when YOU have to face the end, whether of a race or a financial year. It comes when it is ready; the question is rather ARE YOU READY for it ?

The endeavour to take over biology, so vainly attempted by Darwin in his contra-evidential, alogical spasm of thought (cf. TMR Chs. 1, 8), just as psychology was given similar treatment by Freud, in his confusion of pathology with health and man with his diseases (cf. Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 9, esp. *1, SMR pp. 334ff.) and his convolution with irrationality, and economics with Marx (cf. SMR pp. 925ff., 127ff., 307ff., News 98,  *2), similarly making marvellously enlightened theories for anyone merely the butt of economic forces, escaping the downdraught of delusions wrought by social processes, to stand a personal destroyer of his own theory, just by making it!

How people like to have it both ways, inditing truth where there is none, where moreover none is obtainable and where they alone are the irrational exceptions, having access wrought by magic to what is neither there, nor available, on their own models!

It would be apposite to recall something in the area of the book of Revelation at this stage, noted earlier in TMR Ch. 8. It follows, significantly extended and adapted here.

The Three Frogs

The Book of Revelation also gives indices for the ungodly myths of our day. Thus we find in Revelation 16:13, three highly mobile and doubtless, as is normal in such cases, voluminously communicative FROGS which come out of the mouth of the 'dragon', a symbol for Satan in his worldly vestments. They are 'unclean spirits' which seem to have such flexibility of passage that they come not only from the mouth of the dragon, but from that of the beast of political pomp and pretension that seeks the worship of man, and from the false prophet, whose austere duty would appear to be to 'interpret' the unclean. We have much of this, and doubtless it will soon have its own archbishop.

It is quite possible this refers to our three hopping heroes of the last hundred years, the liberators of thought from God by the unclean irrationalities which appeal to those who desire to be bound by them: namely, the outpourings of Marx, Darwin and Freud. This is quite a table of naturalism, in fact. Marx sought to gain genesis and meaning from the structure of things: but their structure did not create them, and this applies equally to his mental militia which studies, almost as if with Buddha, the navel of matter to see if its head can be found there, and meaning assigned to it. This has a certain fraternity.

Darwin tried to gain vital genesis and meaning from the flow of things, and projecting unconfirmed extensions: but their inter-relation did not create them^*3.

Freud, a little more forward, sought to gain glints of human genesis or meaning, from the drive (and shuffle of things in the reedy reaches of psycho-somatic broad waters): but the drive did not create them.

Indeed, Jung combined drive and flow in his own way, reaching again from 'Nature', as he sought in 'Nature', the nullity for source which it possesses. He probed more factually then Freud into ... the screws and pulses of the thing, for the meaning/direction of the engine. But the pulses did not create the thing that pulses.

(See for all these things in more detail, SMR, Chs.2,3,4,10, esp.303ff., 750Bff.; and Index on the 3 names in view.)

Alas, in the syndrome so constant and consistent, the frantic engineer forgot the factory, the diagnostician of motor troubles forgot the plans, the sketches of machines in his sales talk, confusing drawings with construction, just as the accident analyst ignored the creation of what had the accident. The accident in the end is neither the design, the creation nor the law of life. It is rather the breach of it!

So do the frogs of Revelation leap, so well symbolised these or their like, hopping into the (mental) houses of men with their raucous and atrociously unintelligent croaking, as if to laugh at the pretensions of houses built in swamps.
 
 

The Free Fogs

Whether, then, in 1) biology, 2) psychology, 3) sociology, 4) politics or 5) physics, one and the same result obtains as man peers into the 'profundities'.

There is nothing of genesis there. As to the ceaseless callow substitutes, each one doesn't work; it can't even be made to work. (Cf. SMR Chs.4, Sections 1-3, with Ch.7, pp. 611-631A and Ch. 5.)

On the other hand, in each of these categories there is an overwhelming attestation that verifies the Biblical statements, as has been exhibited in SMR continually and in considerable detail, and amplified in some respects in the present work.

Indeed, the categorical testimony of Genesis, competitively, is overpoweringly irrefutable, significantly testable, verifiable, applicable. That is, the acuity and accuracy of all verifiable components leaves organic evolutionism with no place as a serious contender, competitor, in terms of scientific method, or logic more generally. How much then depends on the 'g', whether it be as in Genesis, or merely genesis! - on the source, the substance of the power, the sufficient cause.

There is a way for each of these five fields in this area, that is right; none of them is self-creating or liable in itself for this result. Rules and principles, laws, personal, moral, political, sociological, physical apply. They must be kept in mind, in heart or in use, not applied artlessly or heartlessly: or else the thing doesn't work. Indeed, what they portend must be met; and at that meeting, what He wills must be found, and HE must be found. Otherwise it is rather like silly children, spoilt in many cases, playing without wisdom, with the father's equipment.

There is a way in the ultimates for each of these five fields that is explicatory, and without antinomy: and indeed, just as none of them is self-creating or available in itself for this result from itself and its world, so none is available for autonomous manipulating. Yet it is tried!

Autonomy?

It is like a baby in a womb, wanting for the sake of self-expression (or self-respect?) to smash out of it... Created by God in His image, we have as a race a natural desire for finding out and exercising. Yet as to proceeding to forget ourselves as if we were non-derivative, it is quite as foolish as is the custom of making ourselves central, and wondering what on earth (or beyond it, for that matter) possesses things, that they DO NOT WORK OUT!

If however they WERE to begin to work out in this more ultimate sense, that is the case when indeed it would be true: the womb is the tomb. Men would then by their apparent 'success' be in even further danger; for they might in this way subtly be gulled, deceived with their delusions of grandeur and their aspirations of divine status.

Yet this excuse we do not have. Each field of man's philosophical manipulation fails to find its ultimate rationale within itself or its world. Failure, furores, dismays, disruptions, decays, degeneracies, conflicts innumerable, adventitious law suits to profit from the mistakes of others on every side, craftily put in many cases, wars, witherings, defilements, cruelties, misspent passions, idle ruins: these in abundant verification of error, attest the stress of divergence from truth, the price of autonomy and the cost of self-display, of atomising man who is far from any atoms, but rather conceives them in his mind, analyses them with his logic, causes them to cavort through his constructions, errs or achieves truth in his depictions, at work in his own domain over material things with all the divergence from that other realm,  of creation.

If, then, it were otherwise, and man's autonomous proclivities, his erratic designs on his own self, to take it over, and move the universe at his will, were to become a peaceable thing of stable soundness, confirming itself on every side, then he would be in acute danger of being confirmed in his follies; but this is not so. He is exposed like a vast chasm, cut by the torrential rains on a hillside; and this, it is by his own spiritual passions, inciting his body, possessing his mind, wild and unfulfilled, like a cost constantly ruining its legs by trying to jump the fence.

Meanwhile, he is himself a construction of the most sophisticated kind ever seen in material form on this earth; and he does not respect this, neither understand it, nor bow to the scientific evidence, nor the logical necessities; and so of course is spilling his way to the point that the world can no more contain him.

All these things fully accord with the biblical depiction of these latter day storms of man in his misrule (cf. Matthew 24, II Peter 3:3-5, II Timothy 3:1-5, Romans 1, Luke 21:26), and with all other things, simply consolidate constantly the testimony of the truth, which just as it CAN be found only in a self-revealing God without limitations, so IS found in the work of His will and the exhibits of His word, which always happens. This, it is not merely in event, but in analysis and concatenation of allied events, each in its pattern, its place, in its principle.

Man therefore is warned both positively and negatively: but the word of God and thew ays of mankind! and indeed, by the correlation of the same!

Nevertheless, with neither excuse nor extenuation, the race as a whole is tumbling that way now in this century, ever faster. Yet this speed is not progress; soon there will be no speedway on which to ... travel.

Furious, frantic or even frenetic efforts are being made. Firstly, this is to circumvent those laws and secondly, to re-create them either directly or by inventing subtle scenarios for quasi-geneses of man's invention. Yet these lie like so many Junkers bombers in the Battle of Britain, trailing clouds of vainglory, on the beaches, or on the high seas of philosophy, futility or poignant regret.

We are made, all of it and all of us, by direct fiat of the Almighty whose grandeur tolerates significant variability within kinds, physical, social, psychological and biological (just as is the case with differences between faces); but no pretence of creation is or has proved to be defensible, outside the Creator. (Cf. SMR Chs.1,3,10). The fact that this is not the name normally given to it does not alter the fact that substantively, this is what is being pursued, wholly in vain.

It is time to repent. As Ezekiel put it to his own people in the name of the Lord to the people of his own day: Thus says the Lord God: "Woe to the foolish prophets, who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! O Israel, your prophets are like foxes in the deserts" (Ezekiel 13:1-2). Confusion and delusion mislead many; but as with motor accidents alas, the result does not differ in blood...  This is so whether the aim is evil or whether the flaw is confusion.

God brings the people to the end of imaginings and twistings. He announces (Ezekiel 12:22ff.):

• "Son of man, what is this proverb that you people have about the land of Israel, which says,
   
• 'The days are prolonged, and every vision fails' ?
   
  • Tell them therefore,
    
    'Thus says the Lord God: I will lay this proverb to rest, and they shall no more use it... For no more shall there be any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel.
     
  • 'For I am the Lord. I speak, and the word which I speak will come to pass: it will no more be postponed, for in your days, O rebellious house, I will say the word and perform it, says the Lord.' "

 

The Lord proceeds: "None of my words will be postponed any more, but the word which I speak will be done, says the Lord God." (Ezekiel 12:28). Jesus likewise attested that every jot and tittle of the law and the prophets would be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17). In objective fact, that is the unexceptionable way of it. That is the way it goes with the word of God, always has been. There is reason for it; but there is also continual expression of it. Both apply.

Now finally, as then for the first 'innings', that of the Jews, there is a diminishing residual time allocated to folly, false prophets and to a people, now a whole world indeed of all races, conniving with such persons, replete with their fashionable irrational nostrums.

The word of the Lord will be done, the time is increasingly ripe by every facet and phase of Biblical authority, even to the pinpoint of the doomed and arbitrary denial of the last judgment, the one which preceded, that of the flood (as in II Peter 3:3-5, cf. Joyful Jottings  8).

The word of the Lord will be done in termination as in creation. Things have gone on, long, the circuits of ideas in all 5 dimensions have been covered more than once; with magnificent foolish thrusts and querulous galaxies of thought. Opportunities have been multiplied, delusions have been spawned, barren marvels have led in all but endless seeming circles and circuits of fantasy and murder: increasingly by the million in the latter, as corpses, and in the former, as books.

v      But no! says the earth!

v      Not at any event! says the world.

v      Jehovah of the Jews, become Jesus of the Christian, and all His Bible can go to the devil, says the world.

v      We will not have this man to rule over us, it rowdily intones.

v      As a plaything for philosophy, as a possibility for religions, it can be tolerated of course ...

        the world concedes;

v      but as Truth, no! - again no! likewise never. "He has 'gone on a long
journey!'"

        declaims the wit and wisdom of the world. It resounds:

·       "Let Him! We will NOT be ruled."

 

It is then time to repent for the world now, as it was for the Jewish people in the days of Jeremiah. But if not, then as now, there is scope for those who do.

Return to the Lord, and He will turn to you: for the hand that created the universe in macrocosm, is ready to create a new flood, that of the outpouring of His Spirit (Isaiah 32:17) on each who receives His gift of repentance, His gift of the forgiveness of sins, of the Saviour whose vicarious sacrifice secures for all who come, an atonement, a peace, a reconciliation.

As Paul puts it: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us... that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" -

Galatians 3:13-14 has this for the flock to whom it was written, for the Christians who have appropriated these things by faith.

For them, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new... He made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him," Paul continues in instruction to the Christians.

This way is open.

Time however has its limits.

Thus as Peter reminds us,

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"

(II Peter 3:9) - and of course, eventually as Isaiah 51 reveals this essential point, so Peter states it,

"The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away
with a great noise, the elements will melt with fervent heat, but the earth
and the works that are in it will be burned up."

The end is as prescribed as any prognosis, is being fulfilled with almost slavish seeming servitude to the prescription given thousands of years ago. At times, it has almost an added tragedy, because the "patient" seems all but proud of his condition, parroting the lines of text, as if they were a discovery. Thus in the approach of the final movement of judgment, there is precisely the predicted arrogant disdain which dismisses the catastrophic declensions of the flood, which evidentially exercise themselves endlessly in the surface of the earth. Yet: Never! They say.
It simply did not happen.

"Where!" they contemptuously declaim, "is the promise of His coming!" It is JUST as it was predicted to be (II Peter 3:3-5 cf. Joyful Jottings   8). This they do while the whirlwind of the contemporary express train passes station after prophesied station in fascinating but awe-ful precision (see Chs.8-9 SMR). These words they utter without seeing the irony of it: THIS is the spiritual situation predicted and these are the words predicted for it; yet they speak them like someone with delirium tremens.

THERE IS NO PENSION FOR THIS SORT OF OLD AGE;
but there are BETTER PASTURES

So have the highwaymen of academia sought in vain, but with much panache, to rifle reason from the curriculum of thought, and invest in irrationalism the prodigies of now aberrant human thinking. So irrational is all of this unspiritual resurgence, that to be right, they would HAVE to be wrong, for each of these alogisms invests man in an ineffectual unreason which automatically contradicts the sound results of reason: thus the model being fatally flawed at the outset, becomes the chief obvious enemy of the thought of each! Indeed, how can they 'reason' of the truth they dismiss, with the weapon they abort ... 'Invalid ' reason, invalided out from ultimate truth whether by Kant or by other cant (cf. Predestination and Freewill Section IV), indeed in a universe construed as without governor, guide and ultimate Speaker decisively to depict truth, cannot then logically be present as the means for achieving the results of reason in the form of truth. You then CANNOT know and so SHOULD not say, for that would merely be a lie.

There is then nowhere to go, only the painful processive partialities of the interactive oddities. You could not even know they were oddities, just entities.

Yet in life, suicides do not count. They have left it, as far as man is here concerned.

Only the word of the self-declaring God remains; and in remaining, it does just what He pleases, history His domain, prophecy His herald.

Indeed, all endeavours to remove design from man, remove in their 'chance' models, the availability of the truth they so graciously provide, like other false prophets of this type; for then there is neither such a thing nor is it available if it were. Such is the model, the mode, the insufficiency of self-sufficiency. That the particular verifications needed in each such aberrant case have, as references above indicate, also categorically failed is only a further problem for the problem children of thought, who violate what they use, and destroy what they would employ for building. What is it like ? It is like builders who first and with some dedication destroy all their equipment, machinery and bricks, wood and steel alike, and then ask for labourers to put things together.

It is indeed, to use Shakespeare's term, Love's Labour Lost! except that it is not love so to treat the Designer, unless perhaps, of themselves.

Thus as these frogs hop, and their derivatives, their neo- varieties, they remind us of Egypt and its plagues. After all, the three frogs we noted are merely EXAMPLES, albeit soul-destroying modern ones, of the autonomy to which man aspires, which likewise kills him, whether in his psychological assertiveness, his biological witlessness or his economic legalism, all amazingly the objects of law, knowledge and nescience alike, founded on a foundling made so by the model.

So does man abuse his being and seek nevertheless to use his relevant facilities, dismissed by his ardent and vacuous misconceptions at the outset.

Man has tried as far back as Plato to have a social control mechanism, and to ascertain some law which would handle things for him, in terms of imagined principle and observation; in Democritus was an earlier atomism, in Heracleitus the dedication to change as the nature of the stable universe (charmingly diverse, these thinkers), in Parmenides the thought of fixity as the reality behind all; and in all, the normative absence of God has made their partial insights and vague prescriptions, ever renewed and amplified in our days, so much more dictatorial in tone, but just as inchoate in spirit: just as all partiality inevitably is. It is incoherent, inadequate, ineffective, and if taken the least bit seriously, destructive, maiming to man. Not only his intellect, but his very prospect is by such means made terminally ill, the very hospital in conflagration as man's invalid ways are anxiously implemented.

Yes, whether in sex or the perplexities of many more 'questions' which arise when the abyss is the basis, and the validity of reason for truth is jettisoned on the model in view, there is then no rest for the wickedness of delusion, no clarity for confusion and no answer^*2. It must be sought where man originated; and where his originality originated; in the maker of freedom and the creator not of some mere model of inadequacy, but of the universe which His word attests, and which as so often noted in great detail on this site, attests His word!

Fixity on the unfixed, and conviction on the nebulous has a fate moreover; for where light is excluded, there darkness rules. Man however is made for light, seeks it, aspires for it (most rightly), and when he avoids it, then his destiny is contrary to design (Matthew 25:41). It is a thing most horrible to consider. What is made for light is best with its source, as even electric light globes teach us!

The light, indeed, which God commanded at the first, is the light which in spiritual terms, at conversion, in that vast regeneration which only the Maker can produce, must meet the mind, bless the spirit and uplift the heart of man. It is only then that he might fly where his ‘plane is planned, walk where the cool waters flow and find the truth so overwhelming in its immensity and intensity, that it bubbles with sheer joy, like a waterfall (cf. II Corinthians 5:17ff., Titus 3:4ff., 2:11ff., John 16:22. I Thessalonians 5), covering all.

NOTES

See also Spiritual Refreshings Ch.  9, incl. End-note 1; News 98, *2

*1

In the same newspaper, November 4, 2003, another report helps one to see

	the rate and spate of decline,
	devaluation of man in terms of his heritage,
	conflict with the Bible,
	spiritual conflagration and
	virtual demise of the international reality of the Anglican 'communion'.

Much more that is similar, surrounds this, such as some recent moves in the Uniting Church in Australia, which has gone as far, in principle as the Anglican, if not indeed further (News 44, Defining Drama Ch. 4).

In an article under the heading, "Consecration triggers great divide", The Australian reviews the outward manifestation in Anglicanism of the 'consecration' of a bishop who is by report, a practising homosexual.

In passing, let us note that this 'practising' term is not so very relevant in a biblical approach.
IF you LOOK on a woman sexually, as if to have intercourse in your mind, you are guilty of adultery: THAT is the sermon on the mount! (Matthew 5:28-29). If your eye, Christ then proceeded to instruct, makes you stumble, pluck it out.

Now allowing for the imagery here, it is yet clear that this means that if you have a phase or facet in your life which encourages or makes you to be impure, then you get rid of it. It is death. Therefore the extraction is done. It is not negotiable.

While this is to be distinguished immediately from perfection on the one hand - false pretension of sinlessness, as condemned in I John 1 - and from sloppy falling on the other, its thrust is powerful and unyielding. It is rather like an athlete: if you fall over twice in your career, on the track, you are not amazing. Yet if you practise falling, you are virtually a clown!

Thus the heart has to be pure, and the idea that you can have a DESIRE for sexual intercourse of a perverse character and yet purely not actually indulge or engage in it, is far too short. The desire, if it involves lust, is condemned already. The distinction is substantially otiose.

You get rid of the desire through the power of God, realise the condemnation of His design which it betokens, appreciate that fellowship is of a wholly different character, and with fervent brotherly love (I Peter 1:22 - "love one another with a pure heart, fervently"). Thus you proceed as you ought, in character interchange, personality communion and purity of heart. Love diverted is love perverted, and sex perverted in love inverted. It is forbidden, foolish and in clashing clangour with Christ.

Let us however revert to the Anglican situation noted in the news.

The American Anglican Council, a conservative body in the US, we read, has issued a statement:
"Our family is now split and the whole cloth of the Anglican communion is torn.  Realignment has begun." It proceeded to state: "Today is a grievous day in the history of our church. Heresy has been held up as holy. Blasphemy has been redefined as blessing."

The thought there echoes Malachi in measure: "

"And now, O priests, this commandment is for you.

 

^'If you will not hear,

And if you will not take it to heart,

To give glory to My name,'

Says the Lord of hosts,

'I will send a curse upon you,

And I will curse your blessings.

Yes, I have cursed them already,

Because you do not take it to heart.

 

^'Behold, I will rebuke your descendants

And spread refuse on your faces,

The refuse of your solemn feasts;

And one will take you away with it.

 

^'Then you shall know that I have sent this commandment to you,

That My covenant with Levi may continue,'

Says the Lord of hosts.

^'My covenant was with him, one of life and peace,

And I gave them to him that he might fear Me;

So he feared Me

And was reverent before My name.

The law of truth was in his mouth,

And injustice was not found on his lips.

He walked with Me in peace and equity,

And turned many away from iniquity.

 

^'For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge,

And people should seek the law from his mouth;

For he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

But you have departed from the way;

You have caused many to stumble at the law.

You have corrupted the covenant of Levi,'

Says the Lord of hosts.

 

^'Therefore I also have made you contemptible and base

Before all the people,

Because you have not kept My ways

                           But have shown partiality in the law' "

                          (emphasis added).

Yes, I will curse your blessings! this is the prototype from the Old Covenant situation, for gross violation of the work of the Lord, indeed the corruption of the covenant, on the part of those called to minister for Him. It is as if they changed the hand-book and altered the manufacturer's specifications in high-power aircraft, and yet the pilots thought to deceive the maker and use the 'plane felicitously ?

Were they out of their minds ?

Would they instruct God or teach the Lord of hosts ? Would they cunning contrivances add to the infinitude of His wisdom, or subtract from the character of His principles! Were they present at creation, and was their sophistication to the Almighty when he constructed their brains and made their minds ? Did the subtleties of DNA occur to them, and did the mode of miniaturization of code become theirs, which even now man, with the copy of the Lord’s work not only before his eyes, but IN them, as in all their living cells, cannot make or model ? Were they present when liberty was crafted in spirit, and the matrix of mind was cast ? Yet they presume with an arrogant disdain to meddle with things they do not know, to abuse wisdom with its very premises as base, and mock the God of their own construction!

Is this for fun ? Is it some party comedy ? Is it to be expected that the curse will not find its mark, when the marksman can fire to the target! Is there no heed to the Lord’s denunciations in the former times, in Israel, and will people refuse to learn despite the scriptural injunction to WATCH and study ALL His word (II Timothy 3:16) ? Are these words to be despised, their wisdom ignored, when the Lord called those who before did this, were characterised ? Did not the Lord call such “an  assembly of treacherous men” (Jeremiah 9:2), noting this, that “they have done violence to the law” ? and such teachers “insolent,  treacherous people” (Zephaniah 3:4).

Vain is it to mouth irrelevancies about legalism, for the arena of false methods of salvation has nothing to do with alteration of the very word of God which TELLS you what is what, and what is not! Is the negation to become affirmation, the yes to be no ? Is this to be the land of make- believe ? and is man to become god to please the conceits of his heart, the affluence of his created mind and the lusts of his falling spirit ?

This, then, is the word for those who dare to defile His commands, and who in His name dare to present other things, outrageous things which came not at all into His heart! (cf. Jeremiah 23:16-17,32, 19:5).

Put differently, from I Corinthians 6, those of biblically defined sexual perversion CANNOT enter the kingdom of heaven. As with other sin, if they repent and are changed in heart, putting away their sin and relying on the Saviour for His merit, and pardon, believing in His bodily resurrection as the PHYSICAL fact which shows the way, for man has a physical being and must recognise it: then they can be in the kingdom. Otherwise, as with adulterers who do not repent, they CANNOT enter (cf. Revelation 21:8, I Timothy 1:10). God is the God of fact and act, as well as principle and law, pardon and mercy. That is precisely HOW we are able to be facts, and to act: though in many things, in this generation, wholly inadvisedly, mimicking our creator in aspiration and declaration, but neither in wisdom nor in power. This too is par for the prophetic course (cf. II Timothy 3:1-5).

This Anglican furore, which ought to have occurred long ago on multiplied topics of unfaithfulness, left to fester, and have been resolved in obedience or division, continues without abating, and indeed it mounts, as when a river mouth is not cleaned out, or flushed with abundant waters.

Such errors, wholly alien to the initial nature of Anglicanism, and the Bible (cf. SMR pp.  950ff., 1032f-1088H), as the increasing acceptance of Romanism (cf. A Question of Gifts VII), and in the midst of other major failure in that denomination or communion (JOY ... Ch. 2, esp. *1, Beauty for Ashes Ch. 9) is an ecclesiastical  complement to recent failure in the Uniting Church. This too has fallen in this sexual perversion area, and that relative to pastors likewise.

In undisciplined biblical radicalism, or unbiblical teaching - the point is one - both are in these things moving in parallel to the secular follies in the same area of which the noted curriculum point, with which this article began, is an apt illustration.

*2

In general, this whole matter of sex-instruction in schools, secular schools especially, has been a void of virtue for quite some time. As far back as 1969, when the author was a pastor in Hinsdale Illinois, the local High School became involved in this issue with a caricaturing idea, seemingly enticing to unrealistic romps. It did, however, at that time, dump it, after wide-publicity. Indeed, this author had access to the Chicago Tribune, through a Church official, with a denunciatory article, ready for use if the thing had continued.

Again, in the 1970s in Victoria, much of this sort of instruction was becoming modish.

The difficulty in such settings, apart from the content, at the secular level is this. If the claim is made that this is purely physiological, instruction in biological simplicities, denoting behavioural facts and consequences of this and that action or activity, and hence that there is no reference to religion or morals: then it is not as simple as it sounds, and is far more seductive spiritually. Indeed, it is a case of blatant bias.

The reader may wonder how this could be, but consider.

The ATMOSPHERE in High School is frequently in that philosophical wimpery of organic evolution

(that is, the illogical misuse of scientific method allied with adherence to metaphysical irrationalism cf. references  above).

With this reductionism in full sway (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7 for its exposure), with all its moral overtones

(cf. SMR pp. 127ff., TMR Ch. 6, Appendix),

the procedure into a 'merely' physical approach to sexuality for 'teen-agers' is already slanted by the 'academic' environment constantly and sometimes continually present, with small interruption, like the loud-speakers which Time magazine at one time reported to be blaring out their propaganda programs even in rural Chinese locations! How so many love to play God, when they are entirely disenabled to do His work ...

Secondly, IF you speak of the communication media for life, in human beings, which includes sexuality, then to present this in pragmatic terms, in a secular setting (you do this, you get that, but do you want that ? style of approach), is to instruct in what is available without conception of what it is, what it is for and why it is there, or means of orientation, other than what is continually preached, namely the materialistic, or at least reductionistic and morally askew theory of organic evolution, which does not even meet scientific criteria.

Hence in such settings, students are simply being indoctrinated by omission, in the presence of the other option, which alone is systematically presented as a potential 'truth'. In the case of South Australia, in its iniquitous Circular to Principals (cf. TMR Ch. 8), this is also in a setting where religion is specifically treated as having the role of value matters and NOT as something touching the factual, so that it is automatically excluded by specific orientative purposes in the pedagogues!

The folly and presumption of such officious propagandising is extensively revealed in the above reference in TMR. Even without this specific elevation of a new religion as established, one which deals all other religions their place, without even reason to buttress it, there is frequently to be found in the organic evolutionary setting, a very similar jejune, callow and wry approach to anything which is contrary to this theory, to its presuppositions.

Subjectivity, the domain of Darwinism and organic evolutionism generically, as exhibited in the above references, becomes the order of the day in its illusionism projected onto others, and pragmatic openings are soon displayed as the thrust. In fact, as noted in this article, however, it is just such theories as these which lack objectivity, at the outset, in terms of their own model, whereas the things of creation do not labour in this miasmic fog, and when the word of the Creator is found, have the perspective which resolves all problems at the outset (cf. SMR Ch. 5, Repent or Perish Chs.   2,   7, Barbs, Arrows and Balms  6 -7, Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 16).

With the weakness of our current culture, issuing in a thrust for self-satisfaction, self-fulfilment, self-affirmation and the like, such as the curriculum item noted in this article assumes (asking -- Would you be fulfilled without perversion ? in effect), this sort of sexual instruction readily becomes tantamount to sexual exploitation. The matters concerned should be the domain of parents, whose religion for their children, even in the more than suspect UN document against discrimination in religion (cf. Mystery of Iniquity), is not in these secular intrusions, respected. All these areas are irrevocably involved, as we have presented above; and their adoption by omission on the one hand, and intrusion on the other by the parameters of the curriculum in the school system, becomes a coup.

Let us now consider such secular sexual instruction in a more generic sense. What is to be said of it ?

Religion deals not least with the meaning and value of life, and sexuality is one significant expression of this: its systematic denudation becomes thus an erosive dynamic, a gross invasion and a surreptitious usurpation. An unstated religion replaces others, without ground, but not without effects. It says, Here it is, what do you want to do with it ? It assumes no law, no value, no utility, no design, no purpose: and that, not only in the non-statement of the same, but in this, that the presuppositions allowing such a teaching approach at all are simply, at this merely technical level, in all levels are 'over to you'. It is the teaching for the autonomous man or child.

Autonomy is a religion, the values centred in the self. Only in the last few days, this site received a communication from an aggressive sounding party, wanting to make it QUITE clear that all that mattered in determining the way to go was ONESELF. This is worship at the shrine of oneself, putting all value, all knowledge, all perspective within the confines of someone created by means not seen, using codes of control in many parts of the body and brain, not implemented at his or her own will, and facing a destiny which is not permitted to make itself the author in that the self is for all things sufficient.

Such a religion, if carried through consistently, would have JUST SUCH a sex-instruction course as this, so that in its own innate and final arbitrage, it could DETERMINE wholly without thought outside itself, what should be done. In fact, if you ASSUME you are the beginning and the end, then you EXCLUDE what is; and since you are not,  in such selfishness you CANNOT be right. The intention of such secular sexual instruction may not be of this kind; but the consequence is that it fits such a model, and no other. It excludes what it will, includes what it will, surveys what it will, and purveys what it will, making itself in PRACTICE as self-centred as the person would appear to be, whose mail reached us.

In so assuming, the teacher creates a model, value-free in theory, value-added in fact, where the only considered value is one's preference, whatever that may be. It is at once not value free in this, that it is omitting all reference to source of values, which as an omission, constitutes a value which rules the roost. In using such a model as this one, a monopolistic model, with religious and design facets ignored, teaching becomes discriminatory, religion in danger of being established as that of the model is all that is available. (Cf. SMR pp. 374ff.).

The astute connoisseur of pleasures, of pastimes, of opportunities, of exploitation of resources, like the merely wilful, who alike may be found in autonomy, by such teaching facilitated in self-will, thus are aided on the path of their religion, which is therefore in grave danger of becoming politically established through this module, this sort of teaching approach, and many like it, in other and more specific areas of reductionism. Good and bad pleasures, use of will, becomes a subject unknown, its grounds not exposed, so that good and bad become the mere baggage of self, whether in the abstract profile of the presentation, or in the concrete data of what is presented to the actual student.

Thus those who do not favour this blinkered approach, lack of concern for the good pleasure and bad, the criteria of life, may be wholly appalled and aghast at the ungrounded liberties taken, the issues joined, the preferences pursued, since it is mere preferential treatment of the area and issues, given by authority, instituted by desire.

The State may take taxes, but now it is seeking souls, just as the biblical prediction makes so astonishingly clear in Revelation 13. Souls unsouled is the product in view, like shoes unsoled, a flapping matter of vulnerability, without virtue. Like a reckless car driver in this, the State may not MEAN to murder that child who happened to be in the path of the careering and ill-guided car; but it is STILL RESPONSIBLE, as is the arbitrary driver, fulfilling his own, or her own will with the car, irrespective of consequences.

Any acceptable model for teaching in this field, short of actual argumentation for truth, would need to survey EQUALLY various models of approach to man, including man as design; with will, as being required to face facts, since man's will does not run the universe; and philosophical fashion, as being just that; and the present one as merely a culturally contemporary expression of social life.

The same no less applies, of course, in biology, the infamous character of the instruction of which in many places throughout this unhappy world is often found to surface in court cases in the USA; and in the case of Australia, it is treated at length with accurate detail, in TMR Ch. 8.

What is it like ? It has resemblance to instructing terrorists how to use weapons, how to make bombs, how to escape from the imposed destruction they may make, without pondering the reason for it, behind it, the grounds for it, the options back of it, the situation in which it inheres or the past which has been its contemporary and perhaps more ancient basis. One doubts if even the most propagandising instructor of such murder units, is quite as salient in omission as that!

*3

See A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-3, 8-9. From Ch. 8, the citation below is taken. For its total context, use the hyperlink.

The ORDERS for organisation, and the organisation to execute the orders are all part of an enterprise in speech which uses matter as its slave and servant.

DESIGN?

·       Definition requires it (cf. SMR pp. 211, 252E),

·       'nature' endorses it,

·       laboratory bows to it;

·       theory asserts it;

·       observation excludes its negation;

·       creation (in us) exemplifies it;

·       causality commands it;

·       code conceptualisation positively, and entropy negatively, salute it!

 

If this be not design, words have no meaning, logic has no force. If however this were so, the field is vacated. Rationally design stands alone, 'nature' its product. Without it, rationality, coherent thought is excluded, and with it all conception of validity. Design alone is valid. The designer has a name not unknown in His many works, including those of His Spirit in the hearts of man, where new creations occur, redeeming individuals to lost specifications in the area of will and spirit: it is the Lord.

 

In mere organic evolution, what a catastrophe for reason is to be found.

From the drollery of precipitate dynamics, meaning-measurers such as man claims to be (in positive or negative mode) cannot come, since immersion in events provides nothing by which to affirm or deny, so that it becomes self-contradiction for truth to be affirmed on this model; and design cannot come, since neither reason nor nature oblige with the specifications for this self-invention, controlled or mutually involved as are the visible elements of man's format,  through conceptual code and integral composition for functionality; nor can logic extrude the dimensions of validity, since where nothing is the sole capacity in validity for such a model with its happenstances and non-direction, and where truth can have no home, neither man nor his intellect nor his effectual assignation of truth can be.

Where God is and expresses Himself, truth can be known; but without this, it is an orphan, with all the exigencies of the unknowable in the midst of the unknowing. Interaction and reaction are not their own assessors, and with what is man to assess, who is unassessed, except by some prior assessment, based on himself as absolute; which demonstrably, he is not.

What then of such a model ?

What is left is a joke, mistaken for man; but for the man who makes that mistake, the stakes are rather more than a laughing matter: as with the pilot of some large space-craft, abstracting from the actual flight and observable conditions is inexcusable.