H  O  M  E          
Theological, Doctrinal, and Spiritual Musing - and whatever other else is on my mind when I notice that I haven't posted in a while.
  • - Endorsed
  • - Indifferent
  • - Contested
Daniel of Doulogos Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
The Buzz

Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich

His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole

[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train

This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos

Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead

There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
Email Me
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Latin verb pervertere, was made up of two smaller words: per (meaning "away") and vertere (meaning "to turn"). In Latin, to pervertere something meant to cause a thing to deviate from its proper purpose or activity. The noun, of course would describe the one who was deviating from a right purpose or activity.

The word perversion therefore, winds its way into English (indirectly) through the French language which borrowed the word from Latin originally. Setting aside all cultural taboos for a second, that is, for this discussion at least, restricting our discussion to what certain words actually means, as opposed to how our culture is commonly (mis)using, I hope to briefly point out, not so much that that our culture is blindly embracing perversion, since that much ought to be obvious, but rather to discuss the likely outcome of that embrace.

First, when I speak of perversion, I am simply referring to any deviation from a proper purpose, activity, or true meaning. The word perversion was originally used by the church to describe doctrine that contradicted scripture. If your theology was perverse, it meant that it ran contrary to what scripture plainly teaches. If a manuscript was perverted, it typically meant that whoever copied it (by hand) introduced a copying error into the text. These deviations from the original design were rightly called perversion.

It was only in the late 1800's that the term began to be widely used to describe aberrant sexual behavior, yet since then, that has become the common association - if you call someone a "pervert" today, you are probably not referring to his theology, but to some sexual practice.

The interconnectivity of Lego™ building bricks is no coincidence. These bricks are designed to fit precisely and purposely together. The person who glues a variety of Lego™ pieces into an artsy, mosaic so that each piece is not connected according to the intention of its design, but is instead used contrary to its design, is (formally) perverting the Lego™ for his or her own purpose. We don't stop our children from perverting their use of Lego™, unless their doing so would harm themselves or someone else (for example: Johnny! Don't let your little brother put that Lego™ in his mouth! He could choke on it!)

We recognize therefore that there is a "right" way to use Lego™, and a "wrong" way - and because it is only Lego™, we typically do not attach negative social stigma's to improper use of Lego™. Perhaps there are some Lego™ purists out there who might, but by and large, the common weal are satisfied to live and let live when it comes to Lego™ use - so long as no one gets hurt.

When we speak in an informed way about sexual perversion, we want to be careful to set aside all negative social stigma for the moment, and simply speak in terms of design and function.

However the male and female genitalia came to be compatible, the fact is that they are compatible only with one another. We would call this the "natural function" since it takes place (without prior instruction) in pretty much every species on earth. Animals "naturally" distinguish between inanimate and animate partners - that is given the choice of a rock or a living animal as a sexual partner, animals normally are able to make a natural distinction between living and non-living. Likewise, given a choice of like species, or alien species, and animal is inclined first to attempt to mate with its own species, and given a choice, animals by and large make gender distinctions too - attempting to mate with the most compatible gender available - and further, distinguishing between mature and immature partners - even dogs do not attempt copulation with new born puppies.

Thus when we speak of going against "nature" we are speaking about a natural order that clearly exists, and the word perversion, when applied properly to sexuality is describing any sexual act that transcends the natural order.

When I describe our culture as embracing perversion, I mean only that it is rejecting as a rule the natural order, and exalting "choice" above the natural order. This society reasons that while a natural order may exist, that order must not be used to restrict the actions of intelligent, emotional beings. The culture is embracing the idea that personal choice is trumps natural order - for if two consenting adults decide to transgress the natural order - and if the natural order is just a coincidence anyway - what is the harm?

There is a religion at work behind this view of tolerance, and that religion believes that the universe either has no cause, or has an impersonal cause. If no cause, then the faith of the believer in that religion is this: I believe that reality, (or the potential for the existence of reality), in one form or another, has always existed, and it is from this reality that all things flow.

The idea there is to explain where all the matter in the universe came from without requiring there to be a Creator. If everything has always existed, then No one was the creator. That isn't a "scientific" position either, in fact it is anti-scientific since it embraces a position without evidence to support it, and denies a creation without having evidence to support that denial. It truly is a leap of "faith" - the one who says that all the matter in the universe has always existed, believes that because he chooses to, and not because there is any evidence to suggest it. It is convenient to his world view to do so, but his faith adds nothing to it.

Likewise, the idea that everything created itself is equally unscientific - since there is no evidence that anything can spontaneously create itself. This too, therefore, is nothing more than a convenient belief intended to bolster a particular world view. There is nothing especially intellectual or scientific about it, except that like the previous example, it is primarily held by those who reject the idea of a Creator.

I suppose, to be thorough, we should mention that some hold to an intentionally vague denial of a Creator, and instead suggest that all things happened by "chance". This is, perhaps the most obviously ignorant of all systems since there is no such thing as "chance". If I flip a standard coin, I don't know if it is going to come up heads, tails, or even land on its end and roll. Because I don't know these things, I say that it has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails, and next to no chance of landing on its edge. But in truth, if I possessed the math, and could accurately measure all the forces involved, I could "solve" the flip mathematically - in fact, If I had the math I could make a machine that could flip a coin however many times you would like, and always give heads, or always tails, or always landing on its edge. All we lack is the knowledge - there is no extra power in the universe called "chance" that influences the coin toss - all that stops us from knowing one way or the other is our own ignorance. Even in a system as simple as a coin toss there is so much going on (the density of the coin, the surface area, the elasticity of the metal, the air resistance, abrasions on the surface, etc. So many tiny factors that it is unlikely we will develop the mastery required in mathematics, physics, and chemistry to build such a machine - but we can reason from it that there is no special power at work that makes the coin fall heads one time, and tails another - it is simply a matter of the forces acting upon the coin. If we could measure and compute with the we could eliminate all chance from the toss. The same is true of every system we can invent that doesn't involve intelligent intervention. How can we measure how someone's mood, for instance, will affect their ability to purchase cheese at such and such a price in a street market in Bangkok?

Thus the person who reasons that the universe started by "chance" is being a willful idiot, for it ought to be clear that chance is another way of saying, "I don't know" - and not a power by which things can be created or happen. Evolution cannot simply happen by "chance" (for instance), if macro evolutionary changes have ever taken place, they have not taken place by "chance" - something made them take place, some interaction from an external system - but not chance. The universe therefore could not have begun by "chance" since the very notion of chance depends upon some external system affecting another system in a way that is presently not understood. Rather than say that the universe began by chance, one ought to say, it began in a way that is not understood.

Agnostics are another wily lot, since they accept the possibility of a Creator, but at the same time refuse any definition of the same. Agnostic scientists are by far more intellectually honest that atheistic scientific, since these are willing to accept that they don't know where it all came from. That is far superior, intellectually, than saying, I don't know where it all came from - but it certainly wasn't created!

Getting back to the main idea however: our culture's embracing of perversion. Typically, this embrace is most pronounced in those who not only reject the patterns seen in nature, but especially those who reject the possibility that there is a Creator who intended creation to adhere to a set of natural rules. Their premise is that nature itself (or any Creator associated with the "natural order") has no authority to direct their conduct. If they decide to behave in a way that is contrary to nature - so what? As long as no one "gets hurt" - it is fine!

We have been trained to think like that haven't we? As long as no one is hurt it is okay? But here is where world views collide.

In Judaism and especially in Christianity, rejecting "God's design" is tantamount to rejecting God, and rejecting God as a nation hurts that nation because God begins to judge that nation. So the world view that says, hey, if two consenting adults want to interact with one another in a way that could be described as a perversion of the natural order - then that is okay because no one is getting hurt - that view is premised upon the assumption that the God of the bible is a liar, or does not exist.

Plainly stated, the very idea that "no one gets hurt" when a nation embraces perversion, presumes that there is no God, and no judgment to attend the transgressing of his purpose as evidenced by the natural order designed into creation itself.

Yet we ought not to stop here.

One hundred years ago, homosexuality was recognized as a perversion - but our culture has redefined perversion to mean something "that society finds revolting" - rather than something that demonstrates a corruption of natural use.

It cannot be long now when someone will ask if homosexuality, why not bestiality? Pedophilia? Why are these "bad"? The same ignoring of God's design will produce the same reasoning - it is only immoral to mate with animals because people say it is immoral - if we all agreed that it was okay, it would be fine - as long as no one gets hurt. What of polygamy? Who is to say that it is moral to have one wife, and immoral to have two? Why is it okay to mate with a sixteen year old, but not a fifteen year old - or how about a physically mature nine year old? What's the harm?

Or what of abortion? There are people in our culture who support the murder of unborn children, do we consider them to be morally upright? On what basis? Popular opinion? If life exists and we artificially end it, we are working against the created order.

You see, our culture has already slid three quarters of the way down a very slippery slope. We no longer recognize any authority in the natural order - and the nations that set aside the design of God as something dismissible, the same stand this day in jeopardy of being set aside by God, if they haven't already done so.

I invite you to read the first chapter of Romans, and see what the God of scripture thinks.

It is ironic that those who regard tolerance as the greatest virtue, regard Christianity as (one of) the greatest evils simply because (biblically informed) Christians recognize the offered opiate for what it is - a license to embrace that which brings judgment.

Love constrains me to say "no" when my little ones want to do something that I know is dangerous and/or harmful. They cry and carry on because they cannot see beyond their own selfish desires. In their immaturity they imagine that to deny them something that they want is to do them some injury.

Those who reject God imagine that Christian intolerance of their perversion is unloving, but this only shows that they cannot see beyond their own selfish desires - they don't see a loving concern for this society, they only see someone who would reign in their freedom, or worse, someone who is deluded and trying to spoil the party for everyone else.

God help this nation.


posted by Daniel @ 9:24 AM  
  • At 12:51 PM, November 11, 2008, Blogger Jim said…

    Lust is an unquenchable fire which is never satisfied. It needs more and more perversion to feed its cravings.

    This is where our flesh wants to ultimately go; down the path of complete reprobation.

    There is no middle ground with the old man; he must be put to death and this is a daily struggle.

    Only when we see the awfulness of sin and its consequences will we really understand the danger of entertaining iniquity in our hearts.

    As a wise man once said; "our morality dictates our theology."

  • At 12:49 PM, November 15, 2008, Blogger Rose~ said…

    God help THIS nation too!

    I happened upon a program last night that brought new meaning to the first chapter of Romans for me. Barbara Walters was interviewing "the first pregnant man." It was sickening. This young woman has undergone a legal gender re-assignment - so she is legally a man and I think she is "legally" married to a woman. That alone is beyond totallly perverse.

    So this "man" had kept his/her sexual organs so he/she could "have a family" someday. He/she was artificially inseminated and has given birth to a baby girl. Now "he" is pregnant again. "He" has gone on the Oprah Winfrey show and posed for topless photos... looking indeed like a prgnant man.

    BUT - she is a woman, for what man can become pregnant?

    These people being interviewed and talking about it seem to have lost simple common sense.

    It was monstrous. I was utterly amazed and speechless at the lengths that people nowadays are going to in order to demonstrate their disdain of what God has made them.

    It is sooooooooooo sad.

  • At 6:37 AM, November 16, 2008, Blogger Daniel said…

    Rose, That is an excellent illustration of what I am talking about. Does anyone really imagine that this woman is a man?

    When I was married my sister brought, as her date, a fellow who was about half way through the whole sex change procedure. Not that I really regard it as a sex change per se - since, like yourself and probably most people, I see it for what it really is - legalized gender mutilation coupled with a lifetime of hormone treatments and a legal agreement that "from now on" Miss. Pinocchio shall be called a real boy.

    What is absurd about the whole thing is that we are expected to swallow this or be labelled a hater. We are being told that because this person has defined themselves as a man, we have to respect their definition of themselves or there is something wrong with us - we are not tolerant.

    The tools are ingenius in this warfare too. I mean we rightly rail against the notion that a man ought not to be judged by his skin color - he was designed by God to be that way, and to judge him is to judge God. Yet if we take God out of that equation, now we have the notion that we ought not to judge a man by the color of his skin because that's just plain mean, and if it is mean to judge a man's color, it is just as mean to judge a person's gender, or sexual preferences, or any social deviance for that matter.

    Twisted stuff.

Post a Comment
<< Home
Previous Posts
Atom Feed
Atom Feed
Creative Commons License
Text posted on this site
is licensed under a
Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5