Homosexuality: nature or nurture? Part 1

In keeping with our theme of going Science Mad, and as a follow up to James’ post on homosexuality, I thought it might be good to examine this idea that homosexuality is a product of nature, a genetically determined behaviour, rather than a choice. But first – why are we doing this? Why the posts on homosexuality? It’s not because we hate gays, nor is it because we fear them. We believe that the homosexual lifestyle is not the one God intended for His creations to live in, just as He didn’t intend for us to live in drunkenness or addicted to drugs, or in any type of sinful lifestyle. We want to see all people fulfil the potential God has for them, and for some people what stands in their way is their sexual orientation. With that said, let’s move on!

The idea that sexual orientation is determined by genes is put about by many homosexuals and gay rights activists, but does it really hold water? I don’t believe it does for four reasons: firstly, the search for the so-called ‘gay gene’ has, as yet, proved unfruitful; secondly, children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be gay, suggesting that nurture, not nature, is at work; thirdly, it is possible for a person to change their sexual orientation; and finally because of the propaganda put about by the people behind the gay rights movement in the 80s. Let’s examine the first three here, and the fourth in Part 2.

The search for the ‘gay gene’:
Despite much fanfare in the media in 1993 when Professor Dean Harmer published his initial findings in the journal Science suggesting a link between homosexual behaviour and genetics, little more has been discovered in the intervening 16 years to support his claims. Indeed, the following year the same journal published this by Yale’s Dr Joel Gelernter (speaking about the repeatability of studies like Harmer's), “All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute.” In line with Dr Gelernter’s thoughts, a study done by the University of Western Ontario, again in Science, showed no support for “the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation”. In more recent times, the research is no closer to consensus. Dr Alan Sanders, a psychiatric geneticist, said in an article published in 2008 on the ABC news website that “the evidence is pretty convincing already that a substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from genetics”. Yet his colleagues at the American Psychological Association disagree. The APA publish this in their brochure “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality”: “no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles....", which is a revision of their position in 1998 that there is considerable evidence that biology plays a significant role. So it seems we have scientists on both sides, with neither clearly in the lead. Indeed, one needs to look not just at the data, but also the interpretation. For example, commenting on a study that found “if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases”, which the authors claim is proof of genetic link, Billings and Beckwith claim it is “strong evidence for the influence of the environment”. This is a good point with which to move on from the undecided genetics to my second point.

Children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be gay:
In a 1999 comparative study of 39 children in 27 lesbian families versus a control group of heterosexual families published in the journal Developmental Psychology, 15% of children in the lesbian families went on to have same-sex relationships compared with none of the children in the heterosexual families. Compare that 15% to less than 1% of the general population who are gay. Additionally, other children from the lesbian families stated that they had either already considered, or thought it likely that they would at some point in the future, having a ‘same-gender sexual relationship’.

A person can change their sexual orientation:
The most recent edition (March 2009) of Essential Psychopathology and its Treatment states, “While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003)” (p488). If it is possible that sexual orientation can be changed, not just ignored but changed, and that such a change does not produce harm in the subject, then that lends weight to the idea that it is not genetics at work. After all, how can one change a behaviour that is determined by genes? The genes cannot be changed, not by the methods at work here, in any case.

That brings us to the conclusion of Part 1. Stay tuned for Part 2, where I look at the way in which the gay rights activists have promoted homosexuality over the last few decades.

In this series Previous | Next

Science - part 1

Mad Science and Flawed Logic

An astrophysics student studying for his PhD went to his advisor concerning his doctoral thesis. “Ma’am, I have two theories I’d like to explore but I’d like your advice on which to choose.”
“Enough research will tend to support your theory,” the Professor said.
“But I haven’t told you what they are yet…”

It’s an old gag, sorry for not showing any originality there. And truth be told, that line of thought, i.e. whatever the idea, enough facts can be found to support it, is at least as old as Aristotle if not older, and certainly isn’t limited to the sciences. But we will notice that much of what we view as authoritarian (or just claims authority) has no sway over a matter save what we give it. Rhetoric can powerfully manipulate any audience. It remains a necessary and beneficial tool in presenting any argument, whether scientific, theological, cultural, etc.

So, in the end, we hope here to constructively and, at least insomuch as possible, objectively, demonstrate what can and cannot be attested to by science, what bounds are real and which are imagined, should we construct some, should we tear some down, which have been crossed and which should we cross? In effect, what claims are pseudo-science, which qualify as meta-physical and in the middle of all this, we are certain to find there are certain questions science cannot answer. Into the fray we venture.

Warp speed, Mr. Sulu.

Over the coming weeks, several interviews are lined up with some Christian scientists… wait, no, lemme rephrase that, with some scientists who are Christian. Yes, that is much better. Anywho, I hope they prove interesting. I know at least two are promising; the rest I cannot yet tell because we haven’t completed them. If they fall flat, we’ll throw in some more Futurama quotes and irrelevant humor. (Editor’s Note: No, none of that, we are going to be pointing out logical fallacies, not making them I hope.)

Boundaries?

There are certain rules of logic that are broken in debate, sometimes unintentionally, often quite intentionally. The logical fallacy has its place in speech and persuasion, and though it may be used in advancing a theory in the natural sciences, it should not display its head by thrusting those theories upon us as fact. Logical fallacy has many forms and some downright tongue-twisting names. When I was a wee lad, we had to study it though not as much as my old man did when he was a young man. Aristotle’s Rhetoric proves a good read if not difficult; a lighter and more enjoyable lesson would be Madsen Pirie’s entertainingly witty “How to Win Every Argument; The Use and Abuse of Logic.” In fact, go out and buy it now. I’m using the Jedi Mind Trick on you. Do it.(What? You mean it doesn’t work? And I spent all that time practicing!)

After studying up a bit, its easy to point out fallacies in argument. Why is that important? Well, let’s look at one example to start us off. To whet our appetite, some things propounded by one the world's best know atheist scientists, Richard Dawkins: Dawkins holds to “universal Darwinism,” meaning basically, as he so famously sums up, ‘[the universe] has no design, no purpose; no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference’ (Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. page 133) He avoids apparent fallacy (in this case, the ever-present petition principii, i.e. “begging the question”) by keeping “purpose” out of it in saying there are no 'ought to’s' in life. But on close inspection he has committed the same fallacy he wishes to avoid – and seemingly hates so much coming from “dyed-in-the-wool faith heads” – by expressing what cannot be empirically known. ‘There ought not be any oughts. How is it one man, or 6 billion men for that matter, would know if there is purpose or not in life, the universe and everything. If he is genius enough to know, let him answer, but I fear genius has nothing to do with it. Dawkins' vantage point would have to allow him, not only access to, but the ability to retain the knowledge of, all things, every action of every person, animal, atom, everywhere, for all time. In short, Dawkins claims omniscience. He claims to know what no mortal can. (Maybe he isn't denying God, so much as to who holds the job title...)

It’s a circular argument. Though for someone omniscient, he contradicts himself later in “The God Delusion,” saying that religion must be an ‘accidental by-product’ of some otherwise useful evolutionary process. (p.188) However, 'accident' denotes malfunction of purpose. Hmmm. No purpose, purpose. Looks like Dawkins should stay out of meta-physics and theology. (Maybe I should to, come to think of it.)

Is this the case for all science? Certainly not. Do not think for one minute that is where we are going. Fundamentalists on both sides, atheist and religious alike, will start to make statements that the other is evil and should be done away with. That is precisely the attitude we are trying to dismiss. But before we start, we need to know that we are on a level playing field. Next time I'm going to tackle what religion can and cannot say as well, focusing largely on Christian theologians and apologetics and absolute existential statements made by both sides.

This introduction to Science has turned out to be more of an intro to logic, but we shall see that logic, religion, theology, psychology and world view will all play very heavily in the next few weeks’ discussions. Stay tuned and we will delve deeper through the mire! Feel free to ask questions anytime, criticize where you see mistakes (‘cause I make ‘em a bunch) or just join in the fun. The question forum is at the right or you can leave comments below!

Homosexuality

"The fact that we are even in the same genus makes me ashamed to call myself "homo"" Prof. Farnsworth - Futurama

I hope no one took offense to that; I figured we needed a good joke to lighten everyone up as this will likely prove very unpopular. Popularity, though, does not decide truth, nor do I. Therefore my own views, whatever they may be, must be put away, and God’s Word come first. It has been asked (by numerous people in numerous ways) what is the “Christian view on homosexuality?” Well, aside from simply quoting scripture, which we should do, but would probably make us look like we-dislike-anyone-different-Bible-thumpers, we would like to give a few thoughts (we hope are worthy of your consideration).

Homosexual Lifestyle and Christianity

First, it needs be noted that we do not condemn anyone for homosexuality, so please do not read this as an angry rant against homosexual behavior. However we cannot condone it either. What we can do is love and accept everyone equally, despise and repent from every sin equally. We love you no less, no more than anyone else; we are all in the same boat. All fallen, all sinful.

That said, it is frightfully hard for us humans to work out this thing called sexuality in all its forms of subtle interest and raging libidos. Give an inch, it takes a mile; try to reign it in, it might pull you down like an anchor dropped through the center of a boat. In short, for many of us our sexuality is monstrously and disastrously confusing. For some it is not (however those people are confused as to why others are confused – so, at least in part, it seems we are all a little confused.) God is fair though, fear not; He knows what shackles may bind our conscience and what effects the Fall may have had on our particular make up. I speak not on what “nature” should tell us, for “nature” may mean, either of two things: that which our body parts show to be seemingly simple Tab-A-fits-n-Tab-B (sorry if that is crude, no way to say it euphemistically) as well as that to which our inner emotion, rational, instinctive and attractive desires point us. Our sexuality is never so easy, nor is the position that argues we are either homosexual or heterosexual. That is fallacious bifurcation (because some are (ahem) “bi.”) Humans are a mass of nerves and issues, desires and longings that are confounding for the best of us (but who is judging “best?”)

Therefore, speaking on purely “Christian” terms, there is no more wrong in the homosexual lifestyle than in, say, a fully heterosexual person who fulfills his/her every sexual desire for everyone of the opposite sex. That loose person doesn’t need a member of the opposite sex, simply the body parts the opposite sex is defined by. He doesn’t seek a woman, only the thing that makes her woman. It is to look on another human as mere meat and ignore the divine image in which they are made.

There are many arguments for homosexual partnerships and lifestyles, we are aware, but they all cannot stand for long. For example, one argument says that heterosexual promiscuity is denounced by Jesus because it denies “love” whereas a homosexual couple’s relationship is argued to be founded solely on love and God is love, therefore it cannot be wrong. However that argument denies many (if not all) other qualifications that go into a Judeo/Christian martial union as well as God’s other defining attributes. Love is important, indeed foremost, but to deny fidelity, mercy, justice, honor, purpose and diversification denies His purpose for making us two separate creatures. There are aspects of a relationship that can only be experienced when paired to our biological counterpart, for we are vastly different beings yet the same. Man is made in God’s image; woman is not made in Man’s image, but God’s as well, therefore there are facets of God’s wonder we will never begin to comprehend – important facets – should we create a homosexual joining. And, of course, denying any of God’s attributes is to make a god in our image, not His. We need the opposite sex, no matter what Bono says of women and men, fish and bicycles.

In this series Next | Last

Good for a Laugh

"Christian Oneliners." Enjoy

Don't let your worries get the best of you;
Remember, Moses started out as a basket case.

--------------------

Some people are kind, polite, and sweet-spirited;
Until you try to sit in their pews.

--------------------

Many folks want to serve God…
But only as advisers.

--------------------

It is easier to preach ten sermons
Than it is to live one.

--------------------

The good Lord didn't create anything without a purpose,
But mosquitoes come close.

--------------------

When you get to your wit's end,
You'll find God lives there.

--------------------

People are funny; they want the front of the bus,
Middle of the road,
And back of the church..

--------------------

Opportunity may knock once,
But temptation bangs on the front door forever..

--------------------

Quit griping about your church;
If it was perfect, you couldn't belong.

--------------------

If a church wants a better pastor,
It only needs to pray for the one it has.

--------------------

God Himself doesn't propose to judge a man until
he is dead. So why should you?

--------------------

Some minds are like concrete:
Thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.

--------------------

The key to a clean heart is dirty hands. – Len Sweet

--------------------

I don't know why some people change churches;
What difference does it make which one you stay home from?

--------------------

A lot of church members singing 'Standing on the Promises'
Are just sitting on the premises.

--------------------

Be ye fishers of men. You catch 'em - He'll clean 'em.

--------------------

Stop, Drop, and Roll won't work in Hell.

--------------------

Coincidence is when God chooses to remain anonymous.

--------------------

Don't put a question mark where God put a period.

--------------------

Forbidden fruits create many jams.

--------------------

God doesn't call the qualified, He qualifies the called.

--------------------

God grades on the cross, not the curve.

--------------------

God loves us all, from the "fruits of the spirit" to the "religious nuts"

--------------------

God promises a safe landing, not a calm passage.

--------------------

He who angers you, controls you!

--------------------

If God is your Co-pilot, swap seats!

--------------------

Don't give God instructions, just report for duty!

--------------------

The task ahead of us is never as great as the Power behind us.

--------------------

The Will of God never takes you to where the
Grace of God will not protect you.

--------------------

We don't change the message,
The message changes us..

--------------------

You can tell how big a person is
By what it takes to discourage him..

--------------------

The best mathematical equation I have ever seen:
1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.

--------------------

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.

Communitas Collective

F. L. Y. supahfly!
Click the pic for more know. Oh yeah...

How do we know? Part 1 - the Question

Why do all religions claim that they are the only way? How do we know which, if any, is right?

This is a very common question, one that is asked all the time. It’s also the one that gets a lot of Christians charged with bigotry and intolerance because we believe that Christ is the only way. But is it true that all religions claim to be the one true way? Not all, but certainly most. Why do they do it? I can’t speak for any other faith, but we Christians believe it because Christ said it. And why do we trust Christ? To borrow from Hollywood, “That, detective, is the right question.”*

But what is the answer? To answer this question, we must turn to history. You see, the Bible has stood the test of history, and it contains a huge number of verifiable (and verified, on many occasions) historical facts. The New Testament has never (to my knowledge) been proven wrong in any historical event it records. It is true that some of what it records has yet to be verified, but I believe it will, in time. Compare this to other holy books, like the Book of Mormon, that contain verified historical errors, and you find that what we have, in fact, are reliable primary source documents about, amongst other things, the life of Jesus. Four of them. They’re called by Christians “the Gospels”. Now, many tend to dismiss them or think of them as one document because they are bound together in one volume called the Bible, but that would be a mistake. Just because we collected the documents and published them together does nothing to undermine their historic reliability. Entire volumes have been written on whether what we have today is what was actually written, and a very strong case can be made in favour of their reliability, so I won’t attempt to do so here (the interested reader is referred The Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell, for a very thorough examination or here for a thumbnail sketch).

What it boils down to are a series of historical facts that are, according to Dr William Lane Craig, almost universally accepted by Biblical scholars, religious and secular alike. These are: Christ’s crucifixion, His honourable burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the empty tomb three days later, and the post-mortem appearances to His disciples. Now, it should be noted, that although most scholars agree on these facts, they differ in their interpretation. For example, with regards to the empty tomb, some say the disciples stole the body, or they went to the wrong tomb, etc. These four events will take some time to thoroughly discuss, so what I intend to do over the next week or so is post on each of these in turn. I’ll leave it a couple of days between each for comments and for me to prepare the next post. But, in case you can’t wait that long, let me fill you in on how it ends – the hypothesis that Jesus was who He claimed to be (the Son of God) emerges as the most probable explanation for these events. And if He was who He claimed to be, then we have good reason to believe him when He said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

P.S. For an extremely easy to read, cheap book on this topic ($6US), I recommend The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. I will be drawing heavinly on this book for the subsequent posts.

Part 2: The Crucifixion
Part 3: The Empty Tomb
Part 4: Appearances and Transformations

* I, Robot, (2004)

Be Ye Warned

President Obama landed in Turkey earlier this week speaking urgently in his attempts to pull the US and Turkey back into a more friendly accord. What did he say? Well, this may prove controversial, angry and narrow-minded, so please forgive me - I am not attacking the president whose speaking skills only perhaps Reagan matched, nor am I attacking anyone else (though it may sound like it). Inconsistent ideals and ignorance are my target. Ignorant and uninformed statements are not the same as stupid and foolish ones.

"Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam," he stated. (pdf of speech)

Ok, I was wrong. This is a foolish statement. I know of no other way to describe it. How in the world, how, please tell me, does the president know what will happen in the future? Let's look at the history of how Islam has spread. Does Mr. Obama think that being vague about who one's enemy is wise or perhaps, somehow noble? I embrace the idea of extending the hand of peace, but I am leery of shaking right hands with a man while his left is behind his back. Many (perhaps most) Muslims have no interest in duping anyone, but the Qur'an does. (1)
Islam is a conquering religion, as is Christianity, make no mistake. However, Christ meant to conquer the heart. Islam proposes to beat it into submission. It is a matter of history that Islam does this in two ways: by the sword or by mass immigration. Once the numbers are sufficient, "Sharia" (divine law) is established.

Not to say that Christianity has not done the same, but since we have (for the most part) returned to Biblical Christianity, we have not - as well, each culture is embraced, enhanced, made more full, richer. We are Jews to the Jew, Greeks to the Greek, Romans to the Roman.
Once Islam has rooted itself, it uproots all else; there is nothing left of the original culture nor any other beliefs.

If you doubt, or think me narrow-minded, let us look upon the entire Middle East and North Africa. Let us look at the countries that used to be so rich as to flowing with abundance. Let us look at what is left of the lands whose waters ran red with the blood of the opposition and still does to this day. Let us look at the poverty and abject humanity that surrounds Israel, a veritable oasis of freedom and wealth: a land truly flowing of milk and honey.

"Europe gains by diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith - it is not diminished by it," he said. Diversity can increase to the point that no one voice is loud enough to speak with clarity or strength. Dilute and mix to the point the glass is just not drinkable. I wonder if President Obama is speaking from ignorance (which I doubt, though not entirely). I wonder if he measures his words simply to pacify the masses while we ... what? I wonder how much of what Justin Webb, the BBC's North American Editor said is true,

"Obama is a seducer, in the nicest possible way of course. He smiles and refers to himself as Hussein and does all the other things that make Europeans swoon. Then he has his way. Or does he...?"

(1) The Qur'an refers to 1) "Taqiyya" (pronounced tark-e-ya) : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one’s convictions secret; and 2) a synonymous term, "Kitman": mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions...
Taqiyya and kitman or ‘holy hypocrisy’ has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: 'he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.’
Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty. (source)

A slight miscalculation

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." (1)
After bringing this up to an Atheist friend, he said, "No, its not that it doesn't have meaning, just not the meaning you think it has."
Ooohhh, that cleared it up. So I responded with another quote (why not quote my betters, these arguments aren't new),
"I expect a good deal of the problem is that you are busy disbelieving a different God than the one I am busy believing in." (2)

My friend was saying that life only has the meaning that you attach to it. There may be something to that. In fact, I would say it is exactly that. But which specific meaning you attach to life, in particular with regards to yourself, only determines the road you are going to travel into eternity.
Focusing your purposes toward your own end will get you just that: your own end. Even if it is something as noble as feeding the poor or as novel as solving hunger (which isn't very novel).
When it comes your time, you clock out so to speak.
But focusing on God, saying my "meaning" in life is to glorify Him, not only opens the door to eternity with God (there is a bit more theology involved though) but all other blessings are added as well; to you and to others. The hungry are fed, the poor clothed and the lonely loved. Forever.
My friend says he doesn't believe in God. Truth is, his god is not big enough even for him to notice.

(1) C.S. Lewis
(2)Larry Wall

Love until you forget yourself.

A great article by Will Braun from Geez Magazine covers some of the points I have been pondering of late. I often wondered - in light of recent political debates, activist acts, and mega-church programs - what happened to "love thy neighbor as thyself?"
Braun makes a very good point, "If my involvement in a conflict makes me a more bitter and caustic person – rather than a more humble and creative person – my approach is probably askew. As another test, I like to consider whether the way I treat my adversaries would make them likely to feel comfortable approaching me if they were ever to jump ship."
How often are we keen to note that about ourselves?And we wonder why there aren't more Christians.
As Brennan Manning said, "The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today are Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is simply what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."
Are we loving our neighbor? Are we loving our enemy? We say hi to the Jones next to us and ask them to tea and thats it? Of course not.
I'm writing this, not because I think Christians don't know it, but because we may need encouragement to get out and do it. Let us truly fear the Lord!
Visit the inmate, feed the hungry, clothe the poor. *
By the way, if there is a comfortable distance between you and "the poor," or you and your rainforest-cutting-fossil-fuel-burning-arch-nemesis, then lose it. Either saddle up right next to them or get off your high-horse and wallow in the mud together (its great for your complexion) - And I gotta practice what I preach, myself!
Let us be Christians or die trying.

*We are accepting donations for Myanmar cyclone victims - boxes of clothes and (food if we can get it in the country) and any other supplies the Lord puts on your heart. Please email me if you have anything.

More Questions

So this fella, Matt, a commentator on Lydia's blog has posed these 10 questions in response to her 10. (Which are answered on her blog at the bottom)
Here is what he wrote:
I have ten questions too. No need to answer them if you don’t want to. They’re not really challenges as much as points of personal puzzlement.

1. Regeneration. Does Christianity work? You can find just as many (probably more) Christians doing really bad things and leading really bad lives as you can find good Christians. In fact, being dogmatic about something or believing one’s self to be “saved” often makes a person haughty and insensitive.

This is true. You do. In fact, I find probably half or more of Christians that way. But I find ALL of those people who are vehemently opposed to Christianity to be in the same boat. Being a good person is not what Christianity is about though (Certainly Christ meant the church to change the world, and it has) but the point of "Christianity" is to bring Man to God and to restore that relationship.
That really is the point of what Jesus says in a nutshell.
‘Do what I have told you, and do it well. But don’t think that is what’s gonna get you into Heaven. That is the sort of people I want here with me, but that isn’t the key to the gate itself. I am the gatekeeper, I am the gate. Its my house. If you think you can get in on your own merit, you are sadly mistaken. No one is good enough. No one can storm the gates nor breach the wall. No one. I make the devils of hell quake in their boots. But all you have to do is ask, and I long to let you in. So come, ask.’

2. Redemption. How can one person (even a God-man) die in the place of another person (let alone a million)? The cross is a symbol of two wrongs (killing the innocent and freeing the guilty) supposedly making a right.

Wow. You just asked a whole two thousand years of theology in one go. For one, we are all guilty, and you just said that, so if I were you I would accept His offer. But the way it works? Rather a mystery I must say. The basics of it are this: God is the source of all life, time and space. You were made in His image, ie, given a capacity for reason and self-awareness that allows us to love freely (its our choice, we can turn away if we want). Well, we did. We do, every second. But the first time was with the sin of Adam. Adam having God's breath in him was a full, likely invincible creature. (I don't mean Superman invincible - more like Wolverine (that is a joke)) But turning from the source of all life means death and that is basically taking the breath of God back out of us. Turning us back to dust. From dust to dust and ashes to ashes.

Now, death being the fulfillment of sin, we have a need to return to God to be with Him - which is His desire for us. So God, in His mercy, takes Man into Himself (not just becoming flesh and not God putting Himself into Man, but the other way 'round) in the Incarnation -for more on this read Athanasius, "On the Incarnation" . Jesus, Y'eshua Messiah, a perfect man, never having turned from God, still retains the Breath of God so to speak and need not die. But in giving Himself up for you, and in our returning in submission through Christ, has paid the price we owe. It is a matter of one Man canceling the debts of another. Me. And for God, being outside of time, the cross of 2000 years ago is just as much present to Him now as it was then. And you may as well be the only one in the Universe with Him. He is infinite and that allows for you to be alone with Him at the moment of the cross as well as now, canceling your debt, personally. Forever.

3. Judgment. Why is God so insistent on punishing people? Why add the suffering of punishment to the suffering already caused by sin?

Well, a lot of our suffering caused by sin IS the punishment. God didn't make rules to keep you from having fun. He is just telling us how it is. Don't have pre-marital sex because a) you could end up pregnant and that is hard to raise someone singly, b) you are taking a pleasure out of context - missing the big wonderful picture that isn't self-centered and pleasure seeking. He isn't trying to keep you from having fun, He wants you to have more fun than you can possibly imagine without the troubles that come with breaking the rules. Those rules are more solid than the rules of physics.

God is not keen on punishing anyone. It gives Him no pleasure. In fact, He wants us to know Him fully and I think that may be one reason why we feel so much pain in this life. We experience terrible pain when a loved one dies. I think that may be a small taste of what God feels when we sin. We taste each other's death and that pain is no more hurtful to anyone more than it is to God, Himself.

When we turn from Life (Him) there is no other choice than death. God isn't going to send you to hell so you can get whipped. But there are certainly other creatures, namely fallen angels, that have turned from Him and reside in hell (hard to imagine a place "outside" of the presence of the all-encompassing-God) and will probably find great pleasure in causing you a good deal of discomfort. I don't know. I don't intend to find out. (Lord, by your mercy)

4. Sanctification. What is a righteous life? Is it holing up in prayer and meditation, dying as a martyr or missionary, or just being happy doing your own thing?

Loving. Loving so much that you forget yourself. Loving God and your fellow Man so fully that you reach perfect humility. Sanctification is believing in (and living for - what good is trusting a man if you don't take his advice?) God. You can then live your life in complete freedom, no worries (I didn't say, no troubles) and no fear, all excitement and wonder, for God is NEVER boring.

Doing "my own thing?" If I don't just happen to be one of the most 'awake' people, usually ends up being nothing more than what 'The Joneses' are doing. Whatever comes across my field of vision and catches my interest. For example, most of the girls you find attractive are ones that dress and act like what the media tells us is attractive. Now that isn't always the case, but it is an easy, ready example that is true for most.
On the other hand, that statement, "your own thing" is just about what makes YOU feel good, and feelings are always self-centered. It means you are ignoring, or not caring what is going on around you. Either ignoring a creation surrounding you that teems with wonder or ignoring the fellow next to you and his need (or not) who is made in the very image of God, Himself.

5. Epistemology. How do we know anything about God? How do we know God? If we trust the Bible, why? If we trust the church, shy? If we trust personal experience, why? People have trusted all these things and been horribly deceived and done horrible things.

Well, we can't know anything about Him unless He chooses to tell us. And He has.
Now many people claim to be conduits for that, as do many books. Test them. You will find that Christianity is the only religion that actually tells you to go to do that. All the others tell you to steer clear of anything "other" whereas the Bible says, "test all things." God is not afraid; if you seek Him with your whole heart and open mind, you will see the Truth and the Truth will set you free. Test the Bible to see if what it says is true. Now be warned: it isn't merely a matter of reading and thinking. It means DOING. Love your neighbor as yourself, unconditionally and you will see that what God says is unfailingly true. Do it for every account. Don't trust the Church unless you have tested it against the Bible. Personal experience is good, but like Jack once said, you can't get anywhere at sea by enjoying the wonder of the seashore. You need a map. But just looking at the map won't get you anywhere. You have to DO. Get on the boat, enjoy the ocean (and its tempests) and follow the map - lest you get lost at sea like so many others, and commit some of those horrible acts - and even then, you will be blessed if you never do. That is a trap men and devils alike lay themselves and fall themselves prone.

6. Sovereignty. If we know that all things work together for good to those that love God, God must be in charge of all things. Then how can we make real decisions?

God allows for it. Wonder of wonders as to why, I don't know, but He does. Check the Church Fathers, esp. Augustine on this, they explain better (and more concisely). Basically I think its like a parent who plans a day and then asks the child what they want to do. The child, like we, are given certain options and each falls within the plans I have laid for the day. God's plan book is far more organized than mine, for sure.

7. What is “The Kingdom”?

Here and now? In doing God's will, you find the kingdom is within you. It is being with God and finding Him within you. It is like kudzu, working small, slow and powerfully (enough to tear up concrete or cover a mountainside) one person, one heart at a time. In the hereafter? It is more than we can imagine.

8. Evil. Yes, the old problem. It ties to no. 6.

That's not a question... what do want to know? Why is there evil? As Good IS, Evil is not. As dark is the absence of light, so evil the absence of good.

9. Hamartiology. What is sin? If it is violating your nature, how can it exist (a sparrow can’t swim, but a human can sin)? If it is following one’s own will rather than God’s does that make god arbitrary?

A sparrow isn't a spiritual creature. Rarely is a physical act sinful in and of itself. It is the purpose behind it that is. Sex isn't sinful. Breaking the vow to your wife or causing another to do (or in the case of fornication, doing it without making a vow in the first place) is.

Sin isn't violating YOUR nature, its violating God's nature within you. The first part I understand, the second part about God being arbitrary, I am afraid you have lost me. How does following my own will make God arbitrary? It sounds as though you are skirting questions yourself. You don't want to define sin because once you see it, you're loathe to stop it.
We humans are a bit of an oxymoron: the spiritual beast. If you don't allow for room for choice, you don't allow for room for real love either. I think God gave us bodies so that we were not completely spiritual creatures (we are less than the angels, remember) were we to deny Him without this physical body to keep walking around (albeit by His great mercy) I imagine we would vanish like smoke. Its a blessing we don't now. ("That primitive sort of morality so prevalent among us: you do something wrong and the Maker smacks you one(1)")

10. Teleology. What is man’s purpose? People say it’s to glorify God. What is his “glory,” and how can we give it to him?

Read Weight of Glory by Lewis (pdf). I can add nothing to it.

(1) Garrison Keillor

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing." John 20:29

Asking for proof before you believe something, can stop you from receiving what God wants you to accept based on His Word. Thomas watched Jesus die. That's hard evidence to refute. As a result, Thomas decided to believe only what he could see and verify. When your faith's been shaken, you're inclined to cling to things that are practical, absolute and tangible. Jesus graciously gave Thomas the proof he needed, and said, 'You believe because you have seen ... Blessed are those who believe without seeing.' The fact remains, however, that if Thomas hadn't been permitted to see and touch Jesus, it wouldn't have changed the reality of the resurrection one iota. Thomas' problem wasn't lack of faith, it was misdirected faith. He trusted only what he could process on a human level. Sound familiar?
By contrast, when Mary Magdalene met Jesus at the tomb, He told her, 'Don't touch Me ... But go find My brothers and tell them' (Jn 20:17 TLB). Mary once washed Jesus' feet with her tears and dried them with her hair; touch was important to her. And touching Jesus at that moment would have confirmed what she'd seen and heard. This time, however, Jesus asked her to trust His Word and not His flesh; to be willing to testify without a touch.
Sometimes we feel 'the touch of God' calming us, strengthening us and reassuring us that He is still in control. The truth is, His touch has often kept us from giving up or going over the edge. But sometimes He asks us to trust Him without the crutch of sensory perception. That's faith at its highest level.
This message comes from "The Word for Today" UCB Australia.

Apologetics...

From JS
I'm new to Bible study, and can't offer much, but Catholic dogmas like the Papacy just don't have Scripture to back them up. The same with the perpetual virginity of Mary, mass, and so on. Indeed Catholics twist select verses to 'fit' their views, and to make their lies believable they go so far as to say the Pope is inerrant when explaining Scripture (a dogma also achieved through twisting verses). The Catholic church says if you don't believe what they say (their dogmas) then you are destined for hell. Hmm. OK, so imagine you gave a Bible to someone who has no idea what the Catholic church is. From reading the entire Bible it is utterly impossible for that person to even KNOW about these supposedly saving dogmas since Scripture backs none of them up. That suggests that the Bible is not enough to save a person, which contradicts many of the passages in it.

Why would God give us the Bible if it is useless without that additional material proposed by Popes? And if you accepted these additions which, as James points out, first came into being in the 300's, then what do you make of the final verses of Revelation which warn against anybody who adds or takes away from the Bible? If a Catholic thinks he can add stuff then that presumes that God lied in those verses, which contradicts the verse which says God is incapable of lying.

To believe the Catholic viewpoint is to believe in human knowledge being necessary to understand the Bible rather than God (as if God failed in being coherent, and without human intervention, we're all doomed). But the exact middle verse of the Bible is Psalm 118:8 "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."