Very well aruged point. my only comment now is to instruct the clearnote kids to do a better job at chalking the side walk there "Was Kinsey Right? Find out Why?" chalkings made me think this was about kinsey.
The devil will eat your depraved and shadowless soul.
Just kidding!!!
Most sickenly, they had it again this last Friday! There was an IDS write-up about how it was going to happen.
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=86931&search=genderf%20%20k&se...
Here's also a link to an interview the IDS did with Doug after the event. The paper paints him in quite a different light after the fact.
Sir,
Pastor Wilson, or Clearnote Fellowship, for that matter, made no claim to be giving a lecture "all about Kinsey" or to "present his facts vs. Kinsey's facts". He came to give a series of lectures about how God designed sexuality. You came into the situation with unrealistic expectations, which you turned into demands. When your demands were not met, you got angry. I'm sorry you got angry.
Before addressing the rest of your statement, forgive me a brief exposition. Yes, the U.S. Constitution does outline a separation of the State and the Church. The separation outlined in the Constitution, however, was written to prevent the State from "dipping in the [Church's] Kool-Aid", if you will, viz., the purpose of the separation of State and Church is to keep the State out of the Church. When the Constitution was written, it was assumed that Christians and Christianity would be an active part of the government of these United States because Christians and Christianity were the founders and founding principles of this Nation. Compare that with today, when those who scream "Separation of Church and State!!!" loudest, are those who would have the State telling the Church what it will do. For example, the PPACA (Patient Protection Affordable Care Act), also known as "Obamacare", is before the Supreme Court right now. One of the reasons why is because of push-back from the Roman Catholics, because the PPACA would force the Church to violate its stance against abortifacients, which is based on its adherence to the Word of God. The men who would support the PPACA are the men who will loudly scream “Separation of Church and State!!!” if a man like Pastor Wilson preaches the Word of God, during a Christian organization's event, in a lecture hall of a State-funded University. Which leads directly into my counter-argument.
The Bill of Rights clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Amendment I). This covers two of my counter-arguments, viz., the so-called "separation of Church and State", and the reason why, based on the Constitution, Pastor Wilson and Clearnote Fellowship have the right to speak at Indiana University, and why Indiana University (as a "state funded university") cannot "ban Wilson from coming back to speak". As a side note, it is also why men clamoring for “Freedom of Speech” have no leg to stand on when they attempt to prevent someone with whom they disagree from speaking.
Respectfully,
-JH
I appreciative that Pastor Wilson came to speak, and he made some very compelling arguments. However Wilson's lecture was not at all about Kinsey, he never even mentioned Kinsey in any of his lectures. the only time it was brought up was in the Q & A session at the end when someone asked him about Kinsey's research. The university should ban Wilson from coming back to speak unless he has something educational to say. The US Constitution separates church and state. This is a state funded university so I should have had a lecture presenting his facts vs. Kinsey's facts and not a Sunday sermon which I received.
Looking forward to it!
Don
I look forward to meeting you, Don. Glad you are coming! if you can, we would love to have you and your wife fellowship with us on Sunday. Pastor Wilson will be preaching. We have two services 8:30AM and 11:00 AM.
My wife and I plan on attending, Lord willing. Why do you ask?
Don
Don, will you be able to attend the Sexual by Design event this Friday?
If your issue is whether homosexuality is really a sin, here you go: Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-28, or just continue down in the 1 Corinthians passage to 6:9. Notice, contrary today today's opinion page in the IDS, laws against sodomy are not just an Old Testament issue. If you can't be swayed by this, I really don't know what else to say other than that God's Word is the authority and we must submit to it. It's not a fuzzy issue.
If your issue is that homosexuals are not included in Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 5, you have to understand that the list Paul gave in 1 Cor 5:11 is only a sampling. Notice that he gives another very similar list of sins in v. 10, but it's not identical. Nor is the one in 6:9-10 identical, although all are very similar. The point is that Paul is giving examples, not cut-and-dry lists. Again, going back the principle you had issue with: "unrepentant, practicing homosexuals" who call themselves Christians is who is excluded from Christ's Church, as well as unrepentant, practicing greedy, revilers, swindlers, drunkards, etc. who call themselves Christians.
As for what JM meant by "the Church of Jesus Christ"; he means being among the number of the faithful and in fellowship with a local church. It's one thing to have homosexuals at a church service; we want that! But if we're to be faithful to God's Word, we must reject William Campbell as a liar because he is an unrepentant, practicing homosexual who claims to be a Christian, preaching a message that churches should not obey Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 5. Remember, the issue is not people being sinners. The issue is people claiming to be Christians who refuse to repent of a serious sin.
Simply a World-Class Dirty Bird
Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson
Monday, 09 April 2012 06:26
Whereas I will be speaking this coming Friday night on a sexual topic (Sexual By Design), and whereas I will be doing this in Bloomington, Indiana, and whereas Bloomington is the home of the Kinsey Institute, I thought I should say a little brief something about the odd backdrop.
It is a little bit like speaking in Tuskegee on ethical scientific studies, only doing so when they weren't ashamed of the experiments done there, but rather were still proud of it. The Tuskegee experiments and the Kinsey foolishness came out of the same "modernity rocks" mindset, but the good citizens of Alabama have had the good sense to be ashamed of what happened there. Bloomington, not so much.
Alfred Kinsey was simply a world-class dirty bird. In order to accessorize his junk morality, he decided to go with junk science, and in both areas he owned and operated a junkyard the size of Rhode Island. That man was king of the footnoting mouthbreathers. He got his jollies in unspeakable ways, and still he has the kultursmog covering for him down to the present.
Now Godwin's Law states that as online discussion progresses, the likelihood of somebody comparing somebody else to the Nazis thereby increases. We really ought all to remember Godwin's Law, and not fling about such comparisons willy-nilly. This is not because such comparisons are never appropriate, but rather because we don't want to debase the currency. The comparisons are sometimes right on the money, and when they are we need to have something to say. That recognition made, I would simply urge a name change -- why don't we just call it the Von Balluseck Institute instead of the Kinsey Institute? That makes the connection for us, since Von Balluseck was both a Kinsey penpal and a Nazi perv, and we can then begin to work toward a restoration of sexual sanity. Even in a place like Bloomington.
Evelyn,
I appreciated your response to my posts. Before we go any further down the "scientific road," I do want to clarify my main point in what I have written thus far. Paul L. Vasey of the University of Lethbridge in Canada sums it up better than I:
"For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural. They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."
And if you've read my other posts you're no doubt aware of my concerns with homosexuals who try to use the following logic:
1. Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
2. Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
3. Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
4. Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
5. Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.
My main point is not to discuss what animals do, why they do it, what percentage of animals enagage in such practices, etc, but rather that we, as humans, should not generally take our cues from brute beasts. There are exceptions, of course, which I referenced in an earlier post regarding "ants."
Rather, for the Christian at least, we would offer the following logic in rebuttal:
1. There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
2. It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
3. Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
As a Christian, in spite of what some people think, I value science. I value the science behind what drove me to work this morning. I value the science that allows me to communicate to you right now. I value the science that will heat my dinner tonight. I value the science that allows planes to hurl through the air at great speeds and land safely (while still losing your luggage). And I value the science that took man to the moon, and may, one day, take him farther. But I do not value any scientific theory which proposes I'm a little higher than an ape, or just a little better than brute beasts. That's not science. That's a philosophical foundation; a presupposition; a slick pair of Ray Bans, which other "cool" scientists use to see the rest of the world in a certain way. I'm just not that hip. Christians see the world in the light of God's Word (or are supposed to at least). So when you say, "But to call it "unnatural" is somewhat meaningless, and to merely point out that it isn't the norm is even more so," I stand with Paul in his letter to Romans:
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged "natural" relations for those that are "contrary to nature;" and the men likewise gave up "natural relations with women" and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing "shameless" acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:26-27
The point of this passage is what man is doing in light of God's revelation. Men know better. Tropical fish are just being tropical fish. I'm sure God will excuse their behavior. ;)
Don
Don, I actually would like to contest some of your statements.
As a biologist, I disagree that we would or should characterize infanticide, filicide, incest, same-sex pairing, etc. in animals as "exceptional". Sometimes it is, but for many organisms those behaviors are very much par for the course of life. Mantises have been given as an example of sexual cannibalism, but less dramatically, many tropical fish regularly engage in same-sex pairing as part of reproductive strategy. There was actually an Italian study of families with homosexual sons and heterosexual daughters that found that the daughters in question were more likely to marry and more likely to have large numbers of children, suggesting that even among humans, homosexuality somehow enhances reproductive capacity (whether that is related to social pressures or a genetic trait that functions differently in men and women is immaterial, as socio-behavioral evolution is as much a factor in human reproduction as biological evolution).
I'm not a big fan of LeVay (he's a big "gay gene" proponent even though there's not a lot of evidence for that theory) and I don't know much about Pardo, but I would generally agree that imposing the "orientation" concept on non-human animals is folly. That said, behavior is inherently contextual, and under the same principle that makes me dislike the "gay penguin" thing, I would say we can't really apply a "homosexual" identity to anyone around before Magnus Hirschfeld started theorizing that same-sex love in humans was a consistent, lasting identity (he called it "inversion") as opposed to a fleeting behavioral anomaly (most sociologists thought of "sodomy" as an isolated act unrelated to identity) in the '20s.
But as the Italians demonstrated, same-sex pairings in human males either create, or are a byproduct of an environment that creates, a reproductively advantageous circumstance. We can argue all we want over whether or not that's "moral"--there are all sorts of reproductive behaviors we argue about in humans that at their core are about ensuring reproductive success (everything from parenting styles to sex-selective abortion). But to call it "unnatural" is somewhat meaningless, and to merely point out that it isn't the norm is even more so.
how do you know that the sexually immoral referred to in Corinthians means homosexuals? Sexual immoral could mean a lot of things.
Nick,
I will be the first to admit that I'm not and "expert" on animals, nor their behavior. My wife and kids can sit there and stare at an animal for hours and be fascinated, but it's boring to me. Still, anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are EXCEPTIONS to NORMAL animal behavior. Some homosexuals, as well those sympathetic to that segment of society, try to use the "animal behavior" argument as a way of saying, "See there! They're doing it! It's 'instinctual,' and since I'm an animal, then me engaging in that behavior is simply a matter of acting on instincts." But like I said before, this behavior isn't indicative or the norm in the animal kingdom, and the reasons it "sometimes" seems to appear otherwise in a tiny number of species, is not the same reason that humans engage in the perversion. But since I'm not really qualified to address the matter (according to you) you can check out the writings of Sarah Hartwell, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine, Frans B. M. de Waal, and Jacque Lynn Schultz, the ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects.
What i will do is leave you with a couple of quotes. The first one comes from a homosexual scientist (not one of those pesky, biased Christians), Simon LeVay:
"It seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
Secondly, (and NO I don't know his orientation) is from Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain. He explains it this way:
"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality."
Nick, I promise to read the article you linked to this evening. If I have a response I will give it.
Have a good one,
Don
Maggie,
You are absolutely right that we are all sinners before God, equally guilty and deserving of judgement. You are also right that the church is not to exclude people because they are sinners. Jesus came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). However, no one on this blog ever denied that we ought to welcome sinners into the church. The key here is that God does command the church to exclude UNREPENTANT professing Christians:
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.'"
Notice that Paul emphasizes that he does not mean for Christians to barricade themselves from those who practice various kinds of impurity. We are, however, to exclude someone who calls himself a Christian ("bears the name of brother") and refuses to repent of immorality.
In the case of Intervarsity's event, we are looking at a man who says "I'm gay and I'm a Christian, and that's ok." He is exactly who 1 Corinthians 5 is talking about when it says not to eat with such a one. Instead of repenting of homosexuality, he embraces it and celebrates his sin. He preaches a message that actually PREVENTS sinners from repenting of their sin and finding forgiveness in Jesus Christ. That's what's really excluding sinners from the true Church.
William Campbell led people astray when he condemned the biblical practice of excluding unrepentant, practicing homosexuals from the Church of Jesus Christ.
It can't be called "homosexuality" unless someone is trying to promote it? Really? Because all gay/homosexual people are trying to promote their sexuality? Unless you are an animal typing at a keyboard (which would be incredible) or have some certification, you can "assure" me all you want, that does not change the fact you are not an expert on animals. That doesn't make your argument more valid. We all react to things differently. this is the one thing I don't understand...if people who are gay do not believe in the same religious ideals as Christians, why should they have to follow them? Is this not a form of slavery? If that is the case, why is it limited only to people of different sexual orientation? Why not make EVERYONE just follow what the bible says? I leave you with an interesting article that has been circulating around the internet as of lately, clearly we see things differently and I highly doubt you will change your view just as I will not change mine. http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christian-unless-youre-gay.html
Animal "filicide" and "cannibalism" are also found in the animal kingdom. But yet when PEOPLE stand trial for such things, public opinion seems to be such acts are "unnatural." The accused could try the "but your Honor, praying mantis's do it all the time" argument, but I don't think we'd be swayed. There are reasons why you find some same-sex "hankey pankey" in a small, small minority of animal species. And I can assure you it's not for the same reasons humans engage in the practice. In fact, it can't be called "homosexuality," unless of course you have an agenda to promote perversion. But none of this surprises me because I'm not an animal and I don't get my cue on acceptable/unacceptable behavior from dogs. Still, we can look at the animal kingdom for insight into some areas. "Go to the ant you sluggard..." (Proverbs 6:6) So I can do that. Why? Because ants are workers. Man is to work. Work images man's Creator. Ants are one of those "reminders" God has provided, even though I inadvertantly step on them all the time.
"We all know what male organs are for, and where they go, and for what primary purpouse we have them. Anything else we deciede to use them for is unnatural. Nature itself confirms this."
And yet... homosexuality is found in the animal kingdom. Nature confirms this.
Yes you should take that verse literally. And no you shouldn't just leave people alone.
Racist Hater has given us a good example of what a "bigotted comment" looks like. Seriously RH, didn't you proofread your comment before sending it? Your comment is probably much like your worldview, incoherent and void of any sense. And because of that, you cope with your frustration by being, well...a "hateful bigot."
Good luck with that!
Don
"By definition if you can perform something that makes it natural - after all, you are a product of nature and the behavior is a product of your mind." - Emily
First, the problem with this, for the Christian at least, is that we do not accept the presupposition that people are "products of nature," or that "behavior is a product of your mind." So we would reject what flows from your argument from that point on.
Second, "If you can perform something that makes it natural," isn't correct. For example, I might use a hammer to beat a man, but that isn't the natural or intended use of the hammer. Hammers are meant for nails. That is the natural use of the tool. I might accomplish my purpose with a hammer in other areas, but it isn't the natural use for a hammer.
We all know what male organs are for, and where they go, and for what primary purpose we have them. Anything else we decide to use them for is unnatural. Nature itself confirms this.
Don
First of all, I would like to say that I appreciate the opportunity for fair discussion that your group is promoting. While I may wholly disagree with some of the ideas these lectures will undoubtedly present, I don't think there's ever a reason to shut down conversation. The kind of ridiculous rhetoric that is indicative of this kind of conversation (which can be found in your website's comments) is a huge problem - and it comes from both the religious and atheists. I'm a firm believer that the problem comes from the individual and their maturity, not from the beliefs they hold.
With that said, I'd like to comment on this video. I feel that it is highly misleading and unfair to the prompt used. It does, on the other hand, make people think: and I'm certainly not one to be down on that. I'd like to start by addressing the quote from Kinsey.
I tried to find a source for the quote in question in order to gather some context but evidently it's a free-floating quotation from some point Kinsey's life. I'm not familiar enough with Kinsey to comment on what he may've meant specifically, so instead I'm addressing the quotation as a thought in its own right. "The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform": well, certainly. By definition if you can perform something that makes it natural - after all, you are a product of nature and the behavior is a product of your mind. Kinsey was a scientist and I imagine that this distinction was very clear to him. Perhaps if you'd defined 'natural' or specified it as not being synonymous with 'moral' or 'right' you would've recorded fewer blank stares. This confusion becomes very evident at the end of the video when we can hear the interviewer explaining that Kinsey is "basically saying that all kinds of sexual behavior is okay." As explained above, certainly not. The quote in no way comments on the morality of sexual behavior, it simply states that the behavior is natural. I do realize that this explanation may contradict your religion, but as you're using a quote from a scientist I feel it can only be adequately and fairly explained using science.
Now, whether or not a sex act is moral is less obvious. I imagine this is the debate that you were intending to incite with this video . While I enjoy engaging in this type of debate I'm going to leave it for another time, as it's not the point of this comment.
With that out of the way, I would be remiss if I didn't point out why I felt the need to comment on this video. I'm assuming the best of your organization by explaining these things - that is, I'm assuming you weren't aware of the misleading nature of the prompt already. If you were, I would have to wonder if you were simply using the quote to manipulate people into questioning Kinsey's legacy. Making people uncomfortable with the scientific approach to sex makes them far more prone to look to a religious approach, because people tend to equate religion with morality, and science with a lack of it. I believe that morality comes from the person, not from their beliefs - as I alluded to at the beginning of this comment. I'm sure that no one in your organization, for example, would approve of rape, regardless of your religiosity (Gen 16:8, among others).
Please feel free to reply to this comment if I've made any errors, or if you disagree. I'd be more than happy to fix or clarify.
6. He then proceeded to condemn the biblical practice of excluding unrepentant, practicing homosexuals from the Church of Jesus Christ.
this seriously about made me cry. I understand that this groups belief is that homosexuality is a sin, but even then what gives you the right to exclude someone from a church because they're a sinner? I thought all sins were the same in the eyes of God, so that would make all of us on the same level as sinners. he who is without sin cast the first stone, right?
even if you truly believe that homosexuality is a sin, you can't ignore this blatant hypocrisy.
ClearNote Campus Fellowship is a ministry of ClearNote Church on the campus of Indiana University.