Yes, in that I see a lot of very wrong motivations behind the dream.

No, in that I’m lost as to what to do now.

First, does it line up with the Bible?
Well, his whole approach and perspective does not, so quite apart from anything specific, that’s a big negative. Figuring out whether something is going to happen via astrology or various predictions of non-biblical religions throughout the world is expressly forbidden in the Bible. This really is enough for me not to take him seriously, but let me go on.

Second, what is this guy’s track record?
Well, he states that other prophecies or calculations have shown a catastrophic event at regular intervals throughout history, but his dates and views on these are not beyond dispute either.

Third, what is his character and life like?
Well, biblically, this is not divorced from doctrine and biblical thinking. I can’t tell whether he is an upstanding person, but his whole belief system is contrary to God’s Word. So, while I think you’d find my answer to that question a little too indirect, it gives him another negative in my view.

Fourth, does it ring true?
Honestly, no. Especially considering the answer to the fifth question…

Fifth, did it come true?
No. This guy predicts something for late 2012, and it didn’t happen.

So, I guess, we’re going to have to let that one go. It seems even he has because a link on his website to the 2012 warnings leads nowhere. Thanks for commenting.

Anyway, let me reply first of all to your last point first. You said …even if you believe that homosexuality is sinful this does not give Christians the right to make/influence government laws to control how non-Christian homosexual people behave (nor does the bible tell them to do so).

When it comes to rights, I think it fair to say Christians have the same right as anyone else to influence government laws in this country. (Making laws is a different matter, of course). If the issues were different, say, poverty, homelessness, racial oppression and so on, Christians could be criticized for not getting involved in influencing government laws. It really depends on how palatable the majority Christian view is to the person criticizing.

Your next assertion, however, has more force, i.e. that the Bible does not tell Christians to seek to influence laws. While many Christians would agree with you, and while it certainly is not the primary mission of the Church, individual Christians are part of the democratic system in Australia and as such have a voice. How they are to exercise that voice is a very important issue; that they are to exercise that voice is just the law of the land. I’ve actually written about this in the next post if you want to read a bit more about the biblical reasoning, but for now let me just say that the Bible’s teaching is a little more complex than you may think.

If you had said that Christians do not have a right to put across their viewpoint on homosexuality in a condemning and unloving fashion, I would totally agree. We often fail to speak and act in a Christ-like, biblical way when talking about this and many other issues. We need to be taken to task for this.

But our problem is not just sinful attitudes, actions and words. I see a widespread inability within the Church to even frame a Christian point of view in terms that are able to be understood in secular culture. That is why I have written this series of posts, as an attempt to communicate about homosexuality in a fashion that avoids cultural miscommunication. In many ways it failed in your case, but I rather think that’s because of a number of prior assumptions you made. If you were to read my post again you may be surprised to find that I make no appeal to the Bible, but appeal to generally accepted cultural understandings e.g. the distinction between genders and the categories of ill-health and whole-ness, freedom and oppression. Nor do I even refer to the moral categories of “right” or “wrong” because I don’t believe those categories communicate in our society and my intention is to communicate on the culture’s terms. So, while many of your assumptions are understandable, they are incorrect as far as the argument in the above post goes.

Of course, in your case you do not accept the cultural understandings of gender that were in place when I originally wrote the post, so I’ll be answering you on a different basis than I do in the original post itself.

Right, now let me move away from a Christian perspective and instead try to respond to some of your arguments on their own grounds.

In response to my appeal to different genders, you say, “From an evolutionist’s point of view…[t]here is no ‘true’ or ‘correct’ form, people are a spectrum of forms… Therefore just because a particular part of the body is particularly well suited to a specific activity (e.g. making babies), that doesn’t mean it can’t be used for other purposes just as successfully… So the idea that a person who is not using their body in the way it was ‘intended’ is in bondage to their desires, is very much a biblical concept, not a scientific one.”

I believe you are misrepresenting evolution here. While it is right to argue that there is no overarching moral framework in evolutionary theory, it is quite wrong to suggest that parts of the body are merely “particularly well suited to a specific activity” as though our bodies turned up one day and were utilized as fitted best. According to evolutionary theory, our bodies have developed over millions of years for the particular purposes for which they are “particularly well suited”. Whole branches of science are based on that premise. And this is not merely individual parts doing their own well-suited thing. Parts work together to function as wholes, and wholes work together to function as interdependent organisms that survive in the world and universe. According to evolution, when things change, those changes either work in with everything else to promote survival or, far more commonly, negatively effect the functioning of that organism, often to the point of its death. Doctors, and even people in your profession, determine the correct way to care for, compensate for and heal our bodies by looking at how our bodies are meant to work. Is that not a form of “right” and “wrong”? The difference is that the reasoning behind these forms has to do with what works toward the survival and continuation of a species rather than an overarching moral framework.

In the trial and error of evolutionary process, the human jaw, human eyes, sexual organs and everything else developed the way it did for a reason – they were the best adaptation of genes to environmental influences that allowed for the survival and continuation of the human species. Therefore, it is quite legitimate to state that body parts that are used in a particular way are used correctly or incorrectly, rightly or wrongly. I may be arguing from a different set of values (evolution has no room for the concept of “bondage to desires” for example), but the idea that a person who is not using their body in the way it is “meant to be used” is conflicted and unhealthy can very well be a scientific and evolutionary one.

You said: “I suggest you are confusing ‘sexual complementation’ with ‘sexual reproduction’. The statement that “the physical make-up of males does not sexually complement other males” suggests that the only form of sexual activity that is fulfilling is activity that directly involves the male and female sexual organs in reproductive activity. However, even amongst heterosexual partners, this is clearly not the case. Humans, heterosexuals included, are quite capable of having all kinds of enjoyable physical sexual interactions that involve using parts of the body in ways that are quite different to the ways they are typically used, and that have nothing to do with reproduction…”

I’m curious to understand where your reasoning here comes from. It’s not evolution. Evolution is the process through which organisms develop in ways that promote their survival, not their pleasure. In fact, contrary to your argument, a consistent use of the evolutionary theory would lead to reproduction being identified as the main (if not only) purpose for sexual activity, and an approach that elevated pleasure to the exclusion of reproduction would be a sad example of an “adaptation” that did not survive.

In my original (non-evolutionary) argument, I did not go so far as to say that sexual complementarity is synonymous with reproduction but contented myself with the basic understanding of what “fits” physically – and unconsciously did not limit this to genitalia. And yet, to answer what I thought was one of your better arguments, i.e. that humans use more than just genitalia in sexual activity, I will narrow in on reproduction and expand on how the use of other body parts serve this purpose in a way that supports both my argument, and one derived from the theory of evolution.

Let’s work from existing evidence. The vast majority of the human race is male and female. This seems to indicate this has been the most successful evolutionary development purely because there are so many of examples. It is illegitimate to appeal to the variety of physical, emotional and mental characteristics among human beings in order to break down the general categories of male and female when the defining characteristics of each are in most cases clear, and in evolutionary terms, successful. We don’t deny the general categories of ‘car’ and ‘bedroom’ because of the variety of characteristics that can be in either or both at the same time. For example, people can and sleep in both cars and bedrooms but some sleep only in a car and others only in a bedroom; there is usually a clock in both, but some cars have clocks and some bedrooms don’t and vice versa; people can listen to music in both…you get the picture.
But what about campervans? Does the existence of campervans (a combination of car and bedroom) mean the categories of car and bedroom are not useful, accurate and generally true? Of course not. In fact, returning to gender, unless a person somehow manages to reproduce without anyone else, any person who cannot be categorized as a male or female, according to evolutionary theory, is a negative change. (Campervans, on the other hand, are a positive good to my mind!)

Now, consider the male body. In fact, let’s get specific – the penis. What is its evolutionary purpose? Among other things, it gives pleasure and ejaculates. What for? There is no evolutionary purpose to be found until I look at the female body and see a purpose that fits in perfectly with an evolution – making babies.

But why pleasure? To encourage procreation and enhance the likelihood of a continued bond between the two? Maybe. But you have asked why sexual pleasure is not limited to sexual organs if it was to be shared only between complementing genders. Is there a way to see other parts of the human body being used sexually in order to fulfill that purpose?

Let me try. Let’s approach this with the hypothesis that involving other parts of the body encourages the male and female to consider more than the pleasure of the sexual act.
- male attraction to a female’s breasts provides a positive association of a different role played in nurturing children by the female.
- face-to-face kissing stimulates a consciousness of the personhood of the other which encourages the establishment of a bond that extends beyond the one sexual act to a shared parenting role.
- female appreciation of a male’s physicality or even character and personality speaks to the sort of protector and father he would be while she is vulnerable with children.
- the vulnerability of sexual climax builds trust between the male and female, even when not resulting in children, establishing a changed relationship between the two.

Now, admittedly, these explanations are rushed and could definitely be improved upon, but they illustrate that sexual activity involving the whole body can be explained through evolutionary theory to be tied to the conceiving and raising of children. In fact, it supports the logical conclusion that reproduction is the primary evolutionary reason for sexuality in the first place.

Of course, the Bible contains similar teaching, but from the basis of a God who desires the development of a relationship between male and female from which children are not only produced, but raised in a healthy and loving family context.

Do you see why I’m confused about where you’re coming from? You assume that sexual complementarity is synonymous with pleasure, which you seem to equate with sexual fulfillment, but this is not an evolutionary argument. Instead, you seem to be arguing from an atomistic, individualistic, hedonistic point of view. Atomistic, because your argument from evolution isolates the mechanics of evolution from the larger theory; individualistic, because your argument says the individual’s sexual preferences trump community (or the continuation of the species); and hedonistic, because your argument makes pleasure or fulfillment the definition of what is right.

Ironically, this viewpoint is abandoned when other issues are at hand. Western culture at large operates out of an atomistic, individualistic, hedonistic framework, and that is why, among other things, the environment is in such disarray. I find it difficult, for example, to see how arguments for sustainable living can be supported without abandoning such a framework, and yet I know this is an important issue to you. So what framework do you use to support sustainable living? I’m guessing it’s not the same one you use to support homosexuality.

This is too long, so let me answer the rest with bullet points – short on words, but hopefully satisfactory responses.

- The phrase ‘internal conflict’ as used in my post is not an existential idea, but a statement that conflict exists whether it is felt or not. Perhaps I should have used another phrase. That’s not to minimize existential conflict – it is an indication that something is out of whack, but not everything that brings relief reveals what the root of that conflict was.

- You are quite right that there are problems among heterosexual couples and how their children are raised. It is always possible to find heterosexual parents who are doing worse than homosexual parents. However, research (by non-Christians and Christians) consistently points to the families where the parents are the biological parents, are heterosexual and are married(!) as being the best for children. The studies I refer to do not necessarily refer to the issue of homosexuality, but, for example, the influence of fathers and of mothers, the impact of marriage as opposed to de facto relationships and so on. But this would take a while to unfold and I’ve run out of time. (Arghh, a soundbite!)

One last thing: I have answered your response mainly from an evolutionary perspective because that was initially the explicit supporting framework you gave for your argument. I moved away from my original “contemporary culture” argument in order to do so. However, as I attempted to show you, your argument was flawed from an evolutionary perspective. In fact, I would contend evolution argues against homosexuality. Instead, the basis for your support of homosexuality appears to be a framework that is atomistic, individualistic and hedonistic, a framework that must be inconsistently applied in order to come to “acceptable” conclusions in other areas of our lives.

But what I mean to finish on is this: even though evolution and Christianity both argue against homosexuality, the Bible presents an argument that teaches love for those we disagree with, whereas evolution suggests the abandonment of those who are not going to contribute to the continuation of the species. However abysmally Christians fail at living out Biblical teaching on this point, please recognise the difference.

Great to hear from you. I’ve sent you an email.

I think the last 300 years has witnessed more moves away from theological truth then towards it. With that in mind it seems to me that we have to return to the early reformation to a firmer foundation to move forward with.

I suggest that your statement that “the physical make-up of males does not sexually complement other males, nor females other females”, essentially stems from the biblical statement “male and female he created them” (and other similar statements), which has lead to the conclusion that people were created with a specific form and purpose and therefore any deviation from this designed purpose is an abomination/sin, and therefore will lead to ‘fragmentation’ of the individual. This belief could certainly lead to your conclusion that “homosexuality causes an unhealthy lack of integration between a person’s body and their sexual desires”, because those desires apparently deviate from the physical purpose God intended for their body. However, I think this is an over-simplistic view that doesn’t account for true human complexity.

From an evolutionist’s point of view, human bodies are the product of evolution and an individual human is a complex interaction between genes and environmental influences. So the idea that there is a single biological form that is the ‘correct’ one, or that a physical feature of a human has a specific ‘correct’ purpose and any other use of that feature is wrong/sinful, doesn’t make any sense. There is no ‘true’ or ‘correct’ form, people are a spectrum of different forms. This applies to their physical, mental and emotional characteristics. It is this variation that natural selection has acted on to produce new forms of organism. Organs that in one creature have a particular use, can evolve to have a completely different use in another organism. Therefore just because a particular part of the body is particularly well suited to a specific activity (e.g. making babies), that doesn’t mean it can’t be used for other purposes just as successfully. It certainly doesn’t mean that if that part of the body is used in a different way that the individual doing so, will be internally conflicted if he does, or that the activity is ‘wrong’. This is how new skills are learned and developed and how evolution occurs. So the idea that a person who is not using their body in the way it was ‘intended’ is in bondage to their desires, is very much a biblical concept, not a scientific one.

If you speak to homosexual people (as I do) they will tell you that they don’t have any trouble ‘sexually complementing’ each other. I suggest you are confusing ‘sexual complementation’ with ‘sexual reproduction’. The statement that “the physical make-up of males does not sexually complement other males” suggests that the only form of sexual activity that is fulfilling is activity that directly involves the male and female sexual organs in reproductive activity. However, even amongst heterosexual partners, this is clearly not the case. Humans, heterosexuals included, are quite capable of having all kinds of enjoyable physical sexual interactions that involve using parts of the body in ways that are quite different to the ways they are typically used, and that have nothing to do with reproduction (and which are not necessarily labelled as sinful). To use a relatively benign example, breasts have the practical function of feeding babies, but by your reasoning, a person that used them for sexual activity would be in bondage to their desires and internally conflicted because they were not using them for the purpose God intended (perhaps it is no surprise then, that Christians have indeed argued that that is the case). Kissing is another example of sexual activity that involves parts of the body which are not complementary sexual organs. Two people under the right circumstances can achieve sexual climax simply by kissing alone. Therefore two people are quite capable of having a sexually fulfilling relationship without ever participating in reproductive acts. For most people, having sex usually isn’t about procreation, but an expression of desire/affection/love/lust etc, and therefore does not require the sexual organs to be used in a manner that leads to a reproductive act. This holds true for heterosexual couples with physical disabilities who are still able to have enjoyable sexual relationships even though they have no way of procreating. Therefore if reproduction is not required to have a healthy sexual relationship, the separate male and female sexual organs that are required for reproduction are also not required for a healthy sexual relationship. So your suggestion that two people cannot complement each other sexually, just because they don’t have the required sexual organs to make babies with each other, does not ring true. That kind of argument is reminiscent of the idea that sex was intended by god solely for the purposes of procreation and should only be used for that purpose.

Again, I suggest that your comment that “those who identify as homosexual are encouraged to allow homosexual desires to trump physical attributes and to live with an unhealthy conflict within themselves” is based on the idea that God made us physically this way and therefore, if our internal desires are in conflict with this, then clearly our internal desires are wrong i.e. our physical attributes must trump our non-physical ones. Though in fact, as pointed out above, by this you actually mean a very particular use of our physical attributes (sexual reproduction) must trump any other use of those physical attributes and our non-physical attributes.

Your assertion that heterosexual expression is the only correct one is a biblical one. It assumes that everyone fits neatly into a heterosexual male and female categorization because God made us that way, because the bible says so. If infers that anything outside of these two categories is wrong. The reality is that a combination of genetic and environmental factors produce a very diverse range of individuals, none of which is more ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ than any of the others. The biblical idea that there are two very clearly defined heterosexual forms created by God, male and female, conflicts with the reality that people are born with, and develop, a diverse range of physical, mental and emotional attributes. This diversity amongst people, including the diversity in our sexuality, is a natural and expected consequence of our genetics. Each person has a unique combination of genes (identical twins excepted) that produces, in conjunction with a unique set of environmental factors, a very unique set of physical, emotional and mental characteristics. As a consequence, some men have very masculine physical features while others have very feminine features. Some people are born with very clearly male sexual organs, some are born with very clearly female sexual organs and some are born with sexually ambiguous organs to varying degrees. Some men are very strongly sexually attracted to women but are not at all sexually attracted to women, while at the other end of the spectrum, there are men who are strongly attracted to other men but have no attraction to women whatsoever, and in the middle of that spectrum there are those who are equally attracted to both. So in reality not everyone can be neatly defined by the male and female heterosexual categorizations that the bible says God created. This does not make them sinful/fragmented/conflicted/wrong, it just makes them atypical.

I have a number of close gay friends and I have not seen any indication that they are ‘in bondage’ or ‘fragmented’ because of their homosexual activities. The only evidence I see of conflict is as a result of society and religious groups telling them that they are abnormal/sinful/perverted/corrupt/inferior etc. When they come to accept who they are and embrace it, then they have peace. I have heard many accounts from gay people who felt a great deal of conflict when they tried to live as straight people, but this conflict disappeared when they accepted that they were gay and embraced it.

Whilst I am not gay, I can certainly relate to their experience. For the first 35 years of my life I was a dedicated Christian and attempted to live according to what the bible said was right and wrong. Throughout that time, to use your words, I was completely ‘fragmented’. When I abandoned Christianity and became an atheist, I felt completely at peace with myself and truly happy for the first time in my life and this has not changed in the 7 years since. You claim that your arguments are based on a desire to free homosexuals from the bondage of their homosexual desires as explained in the bible. However in my experience your approach has exactly the opposite effect; it causes bondage and internal conflict.

To finish, I will address your comments that homosexual rights cause an unhealthy fragmentation of society. I have several objections to this comment. Firstly I see no evidence of this. I have met a large number of gay people and have not found them to be any better or worse than the rest of society. I know many who are in long-term relationships and I also know several who are parents. The inference that heterosexual relationships are somehow superior to homosexual ones just is not supported by the evidence or by my experience. Domestic violence, dishonesty, unfaithfulness, jealousy, selfishness, child abuse etc., etc. all commonly occur amongst heterosexual married couples. Heterosexual couples face all the same challenges that homosexual ones do and they fail and succeed just as often. The same applies to parenting. Children of heterosexual couples also suffer in all manner of ways, all too often. Children of same-sex couples are actually more likely to be loved and cherished because there are no ‘accidental’ births amongst same-sex couples. I agree that it is important for every child to have healthy male and female influences/examples in their life, but to suggest that this should/can/will only happen in a heterosexual marriage completely overlooks the fact that it frequently doesn’t happen, because one or both parents are distant or dysfunctional or uncaring or abusive or neglectful or absent etc. It also overlooks the fact that these kinds of positive role models can be fulfilled by people other than the direct parents of the child, which is why children of single parent households, of which there are a great many, can still produce healthy, happy children. The primary determining factor is not whether the child is raised by its two biological parents, but whether they are raised by people who love and cherish them and do their utmost to provide for all their needs.

Finally, even if homosexuality was bad for society, according to the bible, our society is already completely corrupt “as in the days of Noah” but as far as I am aware, the bible does not admonish Christians to make our society ‘good’. What’s the point when God is coming back to destroy it in a huge firestorm? Instead, Christians are told to keep themselves pure and to try to convert sinners to Christianity but not to make secular society a Christian one. That’s what heaven is for. Therefore even if you believe that homosexuality is sinful this does not give Christians the right to make/influence government laws to control how non-Christian homosexual people behave (nor does the bible tell them to do so).