March 05, 2015

Why do we need to teach sex-ed in schools, anyway?

John RobsonArchive

As the debate rages about Ontario's new sex-ed curriculum, this may sound like a radical, heretical question:

Why do we want, and need, our schools to teach our children about sex in the first place?

Shouldn't this be the primary responsibility of families?

Here's a quick history lesson about how this state of affairs came to be, and what some great (and not so great) thinkers believed was the role schools should play in molding our children's' morals:

Ontario's sex-ed curriculum sexualizes young children, undermines parental authority and imposes the government's morality on every Ontario family. FIGHT BACK at

JOIN for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else:

GET INVOLVED in our 100% grassroots crowdfunding campaign and help us bring you more stories like this one:


You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-05-05 19:57:34 -0400
I say you are mistaken in your presumption that parents are as skilled as professional educators in providing neutral objective information. My own presumption is too many parents would teach them nothing at all about sex and evolution and math. Young people are far more savvy, and the educational system is adapting to it. I expect those students who are permitted an exemption from sex education and instruction in evolution be denied a graduation diploma. I need an educated, healthy society to pay taxes, not consume them due to ignorance of healthy sexual habits and fear of truth.
commented 2015-03-20 16:37:54 -0400
Adam, thank you for the compliment. I like Sarah Palin and I feel sorry for your children for the same reasons. Except that in your case, it actually applies. You see, like most atheists, you check your brain at the door of the deluded atheist science establishment, which, without God’s input, struggles to understand things that are beyond its ability to fathom, and you just blindly accept whatever they tell you as the ‘truth’. I don’t do that, either with the deluded atheist science establishment, or with messages from the pulpit. I have an inquiring mind that isn’t satisfied to just learn human doctrine by rote. I’m also not satisfied to just accept anything I’m told about God that isn’t backed up by Divine revelation, which I became convinced a long time ago, by very convincing evidence, is found only in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Therefore, I require a lot more than any fallible man telling me what his latest version of the ‘truth’ is this week. Yes, I have Divine revelation, backed by solid scientific evidence, to reach my conclusions. You’re placing your faith solely in the fallible opinions (and that’s all they are) of man. Good luck with that. It will fail you eventually, and you will find that you are in the dark. Not just a little bit, mind you, but utterly in the dark, lost without a scintilla of reality. You will realize that your entire world view (everything you believe about the origin and history of the universe, the Earth, life, and humankind and its purpose) is a delusion.

As to Sarah Palin, I know of her, of course, but I don’t know her well enough to know what her beliefs are concerning the age of the Earth, etc. But I suspect that, like other Christians (e.g. me also) who, unlike your ilk, often have inquiring minds, she quite likely has been given some insight into things like the age of the Earth and the universe, the origin of humankind etc., although, not knowing her better, I can’t say how much. I can be quite sure that it is a darn sight more insight than you have, because it comes from our infallible Creator God. So she and her kids are at least on the right track to find out the truth. Alas, your poor kids will undoubtedly just get the same restricted ‘education’ that you got. Which is a pity, because it is, by and large, utter delusion. I recommend you crack open a Bible and start learning the truth about the history of the Earth, the fallen state of people after sin entered the world through Adam and Eve, and the way (faith in Jesus Christ) that God made for lost people to be forgiven of their sins, find the truth, and be given the free gift of eternal life in Heaven. I recommend you start with John’s gospel in the New Testament. It will help you to know God and the truth. But if you want forgiveness and eternal life, you will need a relationship with Jesus Christ, which you can only get by humbly asking Him in prayer to enter your life and being. I don’t expect you to do this now, but hopefully at some point you will remember this and decide that a relationship with God through Jesus Christ is far better than the empty alternative, which is to live your entire life without even knowing why you were created.
commented 2015-03-15 08:13:34 -0400
“Jamie – in my case, I am bucks up and make my own hours in the entertainment industry”

Your sensitivity to a general statement not necessarily directed to you has been noted.

“I am also liberal and proud of it.”

Big L, Adam. Big L.

“Harper happily had Bush and Cheney’s balls in his mouth.”

Agreed. And now he has Turdo la doo’a in a vice.
commented 2015-03-12 21:22:00 -0400
Adam, (a) it’s indicative from your pathetic, omnipresent ad hominem attacks on me, in response to my simply making an intellectual case for the necessity of the existence of God to explain the existence of the Ten Commandments, and in place of any logical answers to my reasoned arguments, that you simply don’t have any, and that if either one of us is scary, it’s you, not me, because I haven’t reacted with the vitriol that you have simply over a difference of beliefs; (b) you absolutely changed your position, and now you’re unwilling to own up to it (what a surprise; go back and read your first remarks in this debate, in which you clearly stated that stealing is wrong, without any qualifications); © no one goes to hell for defending his family. Jesus made it clear that murder is a sin, not killing per se (and ‘kill’ is often used as a euphemism for murder, hence the confusion; it’s murder we’re really talking about), but since you are clearly Biblically illiterate, of course you wouldn’t know that; (d) Now let’s see, the age of the Earth: taking into account all the science that is available today, and not just the drivel that you have been spoon fed from the deluded atheist science establishment of our time, that would be, hmmm, yeah, about 6,000 years, give or take, say, a hundred. That’s it for now; I’m tied up with other things for a while; I’ll be back early next week.
commented 2015-03-12 20:35:54 -0400
Holy Mackerel. I tell you, judging by the amount of time some folks spend typing on these forums and blogs, it means that there are far too many people with government jobs, or, a lot of people with no life. You guys got to get outside more, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, and the sap is running.

And speaking of saps, a few days I mentioned that pervs and sneaks like Benny-the-Diddler and Wynne needed useful idiots to give credibility to their twisted schemes. And on that subject Joan, did you ever answer my question about whether you might have sat in on some of those Benny-the-Diddler’s study-groups or workshops as an advisor, facilitator, or “stakeholder”? ;)

Now, on to your silly statement that you don’t support Trudeau and Wynne. You certainly support Wynne, and you certainly support Benny-the-Diddler – because you support the program that Benny-the-Diddler drew up and you support Wynne’s plan to introduce it…and they are both Liberals. And, I’d be very surprised if you wouldn’t support little Justin – after all, he’s a friend of your friends, isn’t he? I’m sure he supports the same sex-ed program that your bud Benny-the-Diddler drew up, you know, the one your other friend Kathleen is going to introduce.

So, the only conclusion anybody could draw from your claim that you are a “card-carrying provincial and federal Conservative Party member” is that at least one card-carrying PC is pretty accommodating when it comes to Liberal perverts, liars, and fools.

Then you said that the reason 11 year old kids need to know about oral and anal sex is “to protect our children from pedophiles.” But if protection is really the issue (and you are adamant that it is), then you’d certainly be okay with teaching this stuff to nine and ten year olds, maybe even six, seven and eight year olds too – because let’s face it, they can certainly fall victims to guys like your pal, Benny-the-Diddler. But, that wouldn’t surprise me a bit, seeing how you took an unprovoked leap of fantasy in a previous comment you made about the prospect of 6 year-olds increasing their inter-and extra-family sexual assaults.

And I guess Adam Christie would be all for that too, because he said there is “a need for them to be educated at an early age.” Presumably, the earlier the better.

Here’s the skinny. Guys like Benny-the-Diddler always sniff out a place where they can have some kind of influence over children. Some of these creeps are eventually caught after spending years as sport coaches, scout leaders etc. Benny-the-Diddler was no different; he just operated on a different level of influence even though it was the same kind of perversion. The end game here for Levin is the normalization of the sexualization of minors so that some day in the future he and other deviants like him won’t risk being arrested at all. Every policy he had a hand in as deputy minister has to be consigned to the sewer. Take a bow Joan, you’re helping these creeps out.
commented 2015-03-12 13:13:06 -0400
Adam, my point was simply to demonstrate that only God could have created the moral code know as the Ten Commandments that western society has embraced for several thousand years, because only He has an absolute standard that is fixed and immutable. As you have demonstrated, no human being could or would come up with such a code. You changed your initial stated position that ‘stealing is wrong’ (something you learned from your culture and education) to ‘stealing is sometimes right and sometime wrong’ in no time. I only had to introduce a problematic situation and your initial position was collapsed like a house of cards. Yet you did say what you said at the outset (i.e. stealing is wrong) and you stated that that position was the result of your logic and common sense. But the fact that you caved on that within hours is proof that your human logic and common sense are inadequate to the task of designing a moral code that is so flexible that it might as well not exist. In effect, all you (and any of us, without God’s moral code) really have is an ad hoc set of rationalizations for whatever behavior you (or any of us) choose to engage in at any given time. Thus, if it was once considered immoral, for example, to kill a baby in the womb, well, a rationalization can be found to get around that, if it inconveniences someone. First, it will be thought to be okay if that human life is only in its first trimester. But then, someone will find a ‘logical’ reason to extend that to the second trimester, then the third trimester, then to partial birth abortion, then to infanticide, then to assisted suicide, and finally, mark my words, to anyone the state doesn’t want. That’s what happened in Germany in the 1940’s. It was later called the Holocaust. What’s my point? Simply that sinful, self-serving human nature ultimately governs what kind of ‘morality’ is concocted by the human mind (the Holocaust was certainly considered to be morally justified by its perpetrators, just as abortion on demand is by Canadian society today), and without an immutable standard, as you yourself demonstrated is not within human ‘logic’ and ‘common sense’, any behavior can ultimately be ‘justified’ by human beings.Therefore, the very concept of an absolute moral code such as the Ten Commandments could not have arisen from the human mind, and if by some fluke of thought that countered our self-serving nature, it did, it would be thrown out in a matter of a few hours, as soon as a situation developed (e.g. a starving family) that made it inconvenient. In fact, I dare suggest that I can imagine a circumstance in which your initial stated adherence to the idea that killing is wrong would crumble, and in fact it already has. What’s next? Will your profession that adultery is wrong be next? For example, if your spouse were to commit adultery first, would you then consider yourself justified doing the same? I dare say a lot of people would. So I maintain that the very concept of an immutable morality is anathema to the human mind and would never have arisen a human source. So what you consider obvious, i.e. that human common sense and logic invented the Ten Commandments, I consider to be a complete impossibility. Only a Mind that is far above our self-serving nature could have done it. That Mind is the Mind of God, the Creator of the universe and of us. And that is the ultimate source of the moral concepts, however corrupted they have become, that you thought were the product of your own or some other human’s mind, i.e. their supposed common sense and logic. I can guarantee you that that is not the case. And you have now demonstrated that yourself. You couldn’t even hang on to “stealing is wrong” (i.e. Thou shalt not steal) as an immutable principle for more than a short debate with me. How could you ever, then, have thought your brain invented it? That it was just your human ‘logic’ and ‘common sense’ that told you it was valid? You see, the truth is, you can’t adhere to the Ten Commandments, and neither can I or any other human being. It is outside our nature to do so, or even to maintain the idea of its validity as a code to live by, in the face of the situations we go through in life. So let’s not kid ourselves, it didn’t come form us. Not from our puny, self-serving, rationalizing minds. It could only have come from the Mind of God. And not any god, but the God of the Bible, where that code is written. I fully well realize that I have in all likelihood wasted my time telling you this, because your ‘education’, such as it has been, has told you that there is no God (the universe just miraculously popped itself into existence from nothing, there’s logic for you) and have lived with that as your guiding ‘principle’ so far in your life, so you just can’t deal with the idea that that is wrong and that there is a God who created us and to whom we are accountable for our behavior. I understand what a daunting concept that must be to you; I was also an atheist for some years before Jesus Christ revealed the truth to me. I hope the same will happen for you, because I would like you to know the truth also, and to know the joy that I have experience in knowing it. It is a rock in this shifting world. And we either stand on the rock of God and His authority or on the shifting sands of man’s folly. I choose the rock of God and I hope that one day, you will too. One more thing: You did at least attempt an answer to my challenge, so I’m going to honor my end of it. I will tell you the age of the Earth if you like, but right now I am written out and have to take a break. Let me know if you would still like to converse (because I won’t keep debating you if you don’t want to), and I’ll hold up my end.
commented 2015-03-11 19:19:53 -0400
Go for it! My last comment on the subject.
commented 2015-03-11 17:58:13 -0400
Maurice – you mean, let you have the last word?

Come on. Let them/us play. They/we are having so much fun!!
commented 2015-03-11 17:38:37 -0400
Adam, This theological debate has gone on long enough! The original post was about the radical sex education in Ontario’s schools. It has deteriorated now to the point where it’s all over the map. Look, as far as creation and the Universe are concerned none of us were there!!! Why do you believe what you believe? Why do I believe what I believe? Someone taught us. You and I accept what we believe based on some kind of authority. What was the source of that authority? How do we know that source was right? We don’t! We accept it on faith; not blind faith, mind you! We weigh the alternatives and embrace the one that seems most persuasive to us. If your rational and mine are different, that doesn’t mean that yours is superior. But it does mean that, while we both may be wrong, at least one of us is wrong. We can’t both be right! There are only three possibilities for the origin of the Universe (and therefore, us): 1. God created it from nothing for His purpose; 2. It just spontaneously popped into existence for no particular reason, and; 3) It has existed from all eternity. – (of course, if the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, number 3 is out). For us, stuck here in the three dimensional mass/space/time continuum called the Universe, each one of these scenarios seem ludicrous and illogical, but since we cannot deny the existence of the Universe, or ourselves, one of these scenarios is necessarily true. Of course, there can be know evidence for the nonexistence of God. That’s a given. One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, any more than I can prove that a large, hairy inter-galactic comic muffin that roams the galaxies in search of a giant pickle doesn’t exist. All I can do is demonstrate that there doesn’t seem to be one where I’ve been looking. Those who believe in God (myself included) come to that conclusion based on what we believe is evidence; from divine design (I know that’s been lambasted but humanist scholars but I find their rationale unconvincing), archeological evidence that seams to confirm Old Testament history, and personal experiences. When it comes to personal experiences, this is where the secular humanists often revert to ridicule and name calling. However that strikes me more of hubris than deductive logic. If we are tempted to dismiss all proclamations of divine encounters as either self-delusional flights of fantasy, or out-rights lies, it is then incumbent on us to disprove them. After all, those who go through an experience are far better qualified to evaluate the authenticity of that experience then those who have not. A person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person who just has an argument. You can believe what you want to believe, but truth is objective. Truth simply is! Neither you nor I have the power to affect objective truth by our belief about it. The best we can do is to be either right or wrong. And we can never know with 100% mathematical certainty whether or not we’re right, at least not in this life time. So why don’t we all just agree to disagree, wish each other a great day and move on to the next post.
commented 2015-03-11 16:42:50 -0400
Adam, kenneth wants to know how you became the arbiter of morality.

I guess you haven’t told him yet that you are God … (-:
commented 2015-03-11 16:30:43 -0400
Adam, and here I thought you were finished ‘wasting your time’ talking to someone of my limited intelligence. I guess not, eh? I’ve been making lots of reasoned arguments, but you just ignore them and call me names. Therefore, I can only assume you don’t have any logical answers to my reasoned arguments. I’ll tell you what: When you tell me when and how you became the arbiter of morality, enabled of your own superior intelligence, without external input, operating only in your flawless logic, to determine when murder or theft are right or wrong, I’ll tell you how old the Earth is. Fair? I think so. I have to go out for a few hours now, so when I get back I’ll be waiting breathlessly for your next round of name-calling in lieu of an actual answer to my reasoned proposal. Ciao.
commented 2015-03-11 15:08:40 -0400
Your loss, Adam, not mine. I feel the same way about your comments, but I bear with them (along with your gratuitous insults and name-calling, which indicate your big superior brain doesn’t have any logical answers to my reasoned arguments) and keep speaking the truth because, although I know you can’t accept it, given the level of delusion you operate within, I believe speaking truth to ignorance and arrogance improves society over time, or at least slows its decay, if ever so gradually. Ciao.
commented 2015-03-11 10:43:49 -0400
Agreed totally.
commented 2015-03-11 09:33:19 -0400
Aye, Bill, we have moved rather close to eugenics which perhaps should not be taught in grade schools. Although a lesson in high school history and/or biology on the topic would not go amiss.

I’d like civil debate taught in schools, starting in grade school, so children are taught to understand and to argue all sides of topics. That and skills to compete with the offspring of the mujahideen.

And I don’t suppose that is goal of the sex-ed curriculum; the opposite, perhaps, in fact …
commented 2015-03-11 08:57:50 -0400
I meant “neuter” metaphorically,but maybe there could be efficacious application here. :-) We’ve moved a long way from sex ed in schools.
commented 2015-03-11 08:20:42 -0400
Bill, so the fix is low-cost community spay/neuter clinics to separate mosques from states. (-: i’m good with that. Sigh.
commented 2015-03-11 05:15:40 -0400
Joan, RE: “So, Bill, your definition of “God” is “a creator who does nothing”? Fair enough.” Absolutely. Judeo-Christian religion changed from a God who does miracles, proving his presence, to a God who will only let you into heaven if you believe without proof – faith. God seems to have changed his mind about doing miracles about the time that man was beginning to learn about natural phenomena. No God has ever done anything tangible – feed the 5,000? I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Christianity is pretty much harmless now, as separation of church and state has neutered them, stopping them from burning folks at the stake. Sadly, Islam has always been both church and state, and has no such restrictions.
commented 2015-03-11 03:41:36 -0400
Adam, you are not only wrong, but your resorting to gratuitous insults reveals that you can’t maintain the simplest logical thought on morality without internal contradiction. Your big brain has told you, without any external input (so you think in your delusion), that murder and theft are morally wrong, but there are exceptions, so then again, it’s only wrong when you think it’s wrong. And so, who made you the arbiter of right and wrong? You? Apparently. Sorry, but you’re just not up for the job. Someone with your hubris is the last person I’d ever want deciding what is right and wrong. And frankly, I haven’t found anyone else, including me, who is any better qualified for the position than you are. We’re all just as flawed as you. I looked and looked, and for a time I believed in this or that person, but in the end, everyone was just as flawed as you and me. But then I found Jesus Christ. He was and is the only person without any flaws, because He is the eternal God who brought the universe into being. And He wants to replace flawed human logic with His immutable morality. And He is working on it, one person at a time. Hopefully, He will get to you eventually. Well, I’ll leave you now, feel free to foam out some more nasty insults against me if it makes you feel better. Ciao.
commented 2015-03-10 18:25:38 -0400
Adam, sorry but you’re just wrong. There is nothing inherently logical about considering stealing to be morally wrong. Ever read ‘Les Miserables"? A man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. Is that wrong? Lots of people would say no. Are they illogical? How about you? I bet your morality on stealing could bend with the circumstances. And are you so sure that your giant atheist brain that is so superior to mine would have invented your attitude about theft without any external input? Sorry, I’m not convinced. Jean Val Jean didn’t arrive at that conclusion. In fact, I don’t think mankind would ever have come to that conclusion if it hadn’t been for God’s input in the form of the Ten Commandments. I think the natural tendency for mankind is to serve one’s self at the expense of others. Certainly this is what the majority of the human race is doing at any given time. Now as to my belief in Jesus Christ depending on my life circumstances: wrong again. I wasn’t raised in a Christian atmosphere, I was raised in an atheist atmosphere and became a Christian while I was traveling, and I was the friend of Sikh man and an atheist at the time. You remind me of how two-dimensional I was as an atheist, and how glib my assumptions about other people were before I found Jesus Christ. And BTW, lots of people in Pakistan have become Christians. They are subject to great persecution and therefore don’t become Christians easily, but nevertheless, it does happen, so there goes another one of your glib theories on religion. One day you’re going to realize that your brain (which God designed) is no more capable of getting you through life without God’s help (whether or not you realize you are receiving it) than anyone else’s. I look forward to that day, not so I can crow about having a bigger brain than you, but because the sleeper will have awakened and you and I will be related in the forever family of Jesus Christ. You don’t think that will ever happen; I didn’t either. But God has His plan and I’m believing for you that He will one day lift the veil and come into your life and being and you will know the joy of knowing Him and not just being alone with your big brain that figures everything out ‘logically’ except who your real Creator is. Cheers.
commented 2015-03-10 15:19:47 -0400
Adam, you say that we don’t need God and religion to know the difference between right and wrong, and then you affirm that you believe stealing is wrong. But where did you get that concept from? As I pointed out, it wasn’t from nature. And it obviously wasn’t from some thief who thinks stealing is just fine. I didn’t say your parents were religious, only that they got a moral code from some external source, as you did (in your case your parents) and that it wasn’t nature, because nature is rife with killing and stealing, and it certainly would not produce a moral code in which killing and stealing is wrong. There are many different moral codes in the world, and they contradict each other, as I also pointed out. So you have a moral code and have no idea where it originated, do you? That’s what I am trying to make you understand. You think your big brain came up with it. But if that were the case, we would all have your marvelous moral code, since we all have a human brain. No, it came from an external source that transcends nature: God. Without God as the ultimate source, all each of us has is an opinion, and nothing is written in stone. So you believe stealing and murder are wrong? So what? Without Divine authority behind that moral code, it is just your subjective opinion. Someone else has a different opinion. IS believes killing anyone who doesn’t believe what they do is justified, i.e. is morally right. Do you believe that? No? What makes your belief any better, any more valid, than theirs?, If yours is not grounded in Divine revelation, but is only a human construct, it ultimately carries no greater authority. Without God, everything in the moral realm is just opinion and is relative and shapeless. Either God gave us true morality, including Thou shalt not Murder, or there is no absolute standard and your code of morality is just your subjective opinion, in which case you have no business teaching it to your children as truth. BTW, your fallen human pride keeps showing in the way you differentiate yourself from “weak” people who you say need religion as a crutch for life. In other words, you are just so superior than those poor “weak” people who make up most of the human race, i.e. those who are not atheists like you. That’s pride and arrogance. And here’s some good advice from God’s word, the Bible: Pride goes before a fall. I hope you will lose that pride, and gain a relationship with God through faith in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, before that happens. But being a realist, I doubt it.
commented 2015-03-10 14:48:03 -0400
I thought this forum was about the radical sex education curriculum in the Ontario schools. Why is everyone turning it into a theological debate over whether or not God exists? Logically, there are only three possibilities; 1) God created the Universe and mankind from nothing for His divine purpose , 2) The Universe just spontaneously popped into existence for no particular reason, or 3) It has existed from all Eternity. Each one of these scenarios seems ludicrous and illogical from a human perspective, but since we cannot deny the existence of the Universe or ourselves, obviously one of them is necessarily true. Since each of these scenarios mutually excludes the others, only one of them can possibly be true; The others must necessarily be false. Regardless of which one of these we choose to believe, faith is a prerequisite. To believe that Science can explain everything requires at least as much faith as believing in God, and it also dismisses personal experiences as irrelevant. That seems to be a very arrogant attitude to me, requiring more hubris the intellect. Who am I, or who are you, to judge someone else’s experience? You can if you want, but your judgment is meaningless. It says more about you than it says about the one being judged. You’re not going to resolve anything here, so why can’t you all just agree to disagree, or move the debate somewhere else. Your clogging up my inbox.
commented 2015-03-10 14:13:05 -0400
Indeed Joan, it is all a matter of belief/faith and Albert Einstein sums it up it well, “That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
commented 2015-03-10 14:02:49 -0400
Adam, if mankind’s brain is sufficient to provide him with an understanding of right and wrong, why do concepts of right and wrong differ radically in different cultures? Clearly, everyone learns a concept of right and wrong from outside influences, and not, for the most part, internally. We have an internal conscience, but not internal specific information on right and wrong. That’s why IS fighters think it is right to commit acts that we consider wrong and barbaric, and they consider our way of thinking wrong. And BTW, I consider your ‘progressive’ morality wrong in the areas in which you part company with Biblical morality. Which brings me to my next point: Where did your parents, from whom you say you got your basic training in morality, get theirs, and where did those sources get theirs? I submit that if you do sufficient digging, you will find that the source of our basic “Thou shalt not” (kill, steal, etc) morality originated with the teachings (“fairy tales”, as you deludedly put it), that were given to us by God. Because killing and stealing are natural behaviors in the animal realm, from which you would say we descended. Therefore, it this is true, that should be our ideal morality, just as it is for the shark. So why isn’t it? Where did we get the opposite idea? It didn’t come from nature. I submit it could only have come from an outside source: our true Creator, the God who told us in the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus Christ, that He has a standard of morality that transcends nature, that is in fact, Divine; and that is the source of your parents’ teaching to you, and therefore of your own moral code, or rather such part of it as it has not yet been corrupted by our current twisted culture that has walked away from God’s teaching and embraced the law of the jungle.
commented 2015-03-10 13:36:56 -0400
Ken, your focus on the Helen Kellers ignores the growing numbers whose struggle with suffering has landed them in prisons and wars and natural disasters where they have lost all hope and despaired utterly of any good.

Leaving alone free will, a truly good/kind/compassionate God would/could have created life that is not required to eat its fellow creatures to survive.

To be or not to be, that is the challenge we all must face in passage from infancy to adulthood.. If we choose to live, we choose sin. End of. We eat. We kill.

You may be right, Ken. Or wrong. No way to know for sure.

It’s all a matter of belief.
commented 2015-03-10 13:24:10 -0400
So, Bill, your definition of “God” is “a creator who does nothing”? Fair enough.

I don’t believe in that god either. (-:

I’m not sure that the concept of creator is even relevant in a world without either beginning or end … and by “world” I mean what is.

Maybe, though, creation is not necessary to consciousness or to conscience or to absolutes of good and evil, yin and yang. Maybe such realities, if they be but fantasy, are attributes of a world with neither beginning or end.

Maybe it is such a world that Jesus spoke of as “eternal life”.

In the church I went to (both my parents were non-believers but held church office as it was good for business) the service always ended with “World without end, Amen.”

So I’m quite sure I say nothing heretical. Although it is possible the image that phrase evoked in my 7 year-old brain is no different, qualitatively, than the images others developed of grouchy old men with long beards and lightnimg-bolt fingertips.
commented 2015-03-10 13:22:46 -0400
In a response he made in the Sidney Morning Herald David Attenborough states, “Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind. And [I ask them], ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy”.
Again in the same article Attenborough is quoted, “as far as I’m concerned, if there is a supreme being then He chose organic evolution as a way of bringing into existence the natural world.”

Based on my understanding (take it for what it is worth) of the origin of death (spiritual and physical) and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as described in scripture, we can discern why this world is the way it is and how there can be a loving God in the midst of tragedy, violence, suffering and death.

We are either the product of a mindless universe, a sadistic cruel God, or an all merciful God. A belief in scripture would eliminate the first two options, a mindless universe is only compatible with atheism, and a sadistic cruel God fits with Attenborough’s definition of a supreme being who chooses to use organic evolution as a way of bringing into existence the natural world. The latter would suggest that death and sufering existed from the very beginning and that that which God created was not very good.
According to scripture however death was not a part of God’s original plan when he created us. In creating man with a free will God knew very well man’s potential and clearly recognized what was in store for mankind if he chose to acquire certain types of knowledge which a free will necessitates. As C S Lewis states, "Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself”.
Lewis dealt extensively with the topic of pain and suffering he states, “Tribulations cannot cease until God either sees us remade or sees that our remaking is now hopeless.” Hence Revelation chapter 21, verse 4 expresses the hope of what is to come: “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away”.
Hellen Keller sums it up well, “I can say with conviction that the struggle which evil necessitates is one of the greatest blessings. It makes us strong, patient, helpful men and women. It lets us into the soul of things and teaches us that although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcomings of it. My optimism, then, does not rest on the absence of evil, but on a glad belief in the preponderance of good and a willing effort always to cooperate with the good, that it may prevail”.

She further states, “I thank God for my handicaps, for through them, I have found myself, my work and my God.”…“I can see in what you call the dark, but which to me is golden. I can see a God-made world, not a man-made world”.
commented 2015-03-10 13:06:10 -0400
Ken, the logic of that argument is flawed.

Today is a human construct. As are yesterday and tomorrow. As are all measurements of time and space. As are time and space themselves. They don’t exist outside the ideology adopted by the organism that posits them. In this case, humans.

Constructs like time and space are posited by the discrete sensing mortal organism in order to balance and orient to surrounds. The constructs are functional.

Like other beliefs, constructs of time and space are highly specific to situation and may not, as has been observed, be functionally useful even as close to us in the universe as outer space in the proximity of Earth’s moon, for example, or Mars.

And don’t expect them to apply to or hold in Orion’s sphere or in that black hole at the centre of the Milky Way or beyond in what some believe is an expanding multiverse but which belief may be but an illusion specific to mortal creatures such as we.

commented 2015-03-10 12:56:01 -0400
I’m a figment personally Joan. Have we all noted that when man knew nothing, everything was attributed to God? How about how God stopped with the miracles when man’s understanding evolved to be sufficient to spot a trick, and now it’s all on faith? It is impossible to disprove the existence of a creator who does nothing, and is undetectable on any sensor, but it is possible to see the con trick hoisted on mankind by religion. that’s not to say the founders of the religions were bad folks, with the exception of one, all were stellar people.
commented 2015-03-10 12:48:59 -0400
Bill, indeed, are any of our minds conscious? Truly conscious? Or do we dream?

Jung hypothesized that what we experience as consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg of mind.

So what is mind?

Never mind. It doesn’t matter … HA!
commented 2015-03-10 12:46:02 -0400
Joan, Due to our inability to observe the past, the universe is increasingly being expressed in a metaphysical context, which implies a belief about the world or about the universe, “which may seem reasonable but is ultimately not provable.” Models that express the above belief such as the Quantum Gravity Model proposed by Hartle and Hawking and which suggest an infinite universe are “highly abstract and increasingly difficult to understand”. Many scientists view such a perspective as “incomprehensible.”

I’m partial to this argument by Kalam in “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”, by Geisler and Turek which states, “If there were an infinite number of days before today, then today would never have arrived. But here we are! So there must have been only a finite number of days before today. In other words, even though we may not be able to see, as we look to the left, where the line begins, we know it had to begin at some point because only a finite amount of time could be passed for today to arrive. You can’t traverse an infinite number of days. Thus time must have had a beginning.”