Asexuality

Don’t let anyone tell you that asexuality, the lack of sexual attraction and/or lack of interest in sexual activity, is abnormal. In fact, everyone on Earth was born asexual and remained so for years of their childhood.

Some adults are asexual too, women far more often than men because of being built differently. Outside of men who are so old that their bodies are worn out, you might have asexual men due to medical conditions, or being eunuchs. A eunuch is a castrated man, having had his testicles removed, which are the chief factor in sex drive. (Matthew 19:10-12).

Some men might call themselves asexual as a defense mechanism because they cannot find a suitable partner. I wish I was asexual because it’s impossible for me to find anybody long-term at this point in my life. I do not recommend repression. But I advocate ignoring a hurtful aspect of your life so that you can concentrate on things that can work to your betterment.

Noticeably, numerous asexual people have joined themselves to LGBTQ causes, and even have a flag designed to resemble an alternative sexuality flag. But it is abnormal and unnatural for any person to have strong desires to be anyone or anything other than a human of their birth gender. It is abnormal and unnatural for anyone to have stronger sexual attraction to someone of their same gender rather than the opposite.

Asexual, like heterosexual, should be considered straight. And instead of dismantling traditional values, asexuality among us works like a saltness to help preserve old fashioned values.

*****My posts organized according to subject=

https://wordpress.com/settings/taxonomies/category/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com

A Woman Must Marry Her Rapist?

Consider the most popular Bible translation on Earth: The New International Version (NIV). In its Old Testament book of Deuteronomy, chapter 22, verses 28-29, it clearly states that if a single female is raped, she is to marry her rapist. Read it yourself. Also, the official position of all major church groups is that the Bible is God-authored. All religious Jews consider Deuteronomy holy Scripture too, which they call Sefer Devarim or an antecedent term. Although a believer, my authority is neither the Old Testament nor the NIV. However, this is still extremely significant. Now Christian leaders understand that the general liberal society is offended if women are denied equal rights. They also know that some are especially outraged that Deut.22:28-29 seems to indicate that a woman must marry her rapist. For example, Atheists scream about this as another reason to deny God’s existence.

Therefore, some church leaders simply ignore and/or skip controversial passages. Others use convoluted acrobatics to make such texts suit modern society. For example, they point to Deut.22:23-27, where a rapist is to be put to death. Since that’s not the case in 28-29, some conclude that it refers to consensual sex. Instead, 23-27 are different because adultery called for the death penalty (see v.22), and betrothal was considered equal to marriage. Someone cried “Notice the words ‘And they be found.’ ” Yes, and if not found, the man would also get away with not paying the fifty silver shekels. And they conveniently avoid vs.20-21, where a woman earns the death penalty just because she was not a virgin before marriage. The NIV took liberties by using the word rape which was never found in previous translations.

But this neither proves nor disproves it, since older translations never use the word sex either, though we know that various texts refer to people having sex. What is significant is that other modern translations, along with the historical King James Version, use terms such as: lays hold on her, seizes her, or takes her, indicating force. For vs. 29 they use such terms as hath/has humbled, violated, or deflowered. In response, some theologians point to Exodus 22:16-17: “If a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall endow her to be his wife. If her father refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.” Due to their similarities, they say the Exodus text interprets the Deuteronomy text. Yes, Scripture often interprets Scripture. But here’s exactly how: 1) filling in details, 2) context, 3) comparing word usage, 4) type and antitype, 5) historical interpretation.

Now these points in detail: 1~ If one text, the other, or both is missing a detail, then one, the other, or both fills in the blank. But here the Exodus text does *not* fill in a blank for the Deuteronomy text’s question of consent or force, since Deuteronomy has its own detail (“lay hold on her”) instead of “entice”. The Exodus text does however imply that the maiden need not marry the man if her father refuses in the Deuteronomy text, because she need not marry the man if her father refuses in the Exodus text when it was only enticement. 2~ I like to call context the sandwich effect. Some significant words are within small sections of one or two paragraphs like a McDonald’s quarter pounder, while others are within large chapters like a Dagwood sandwich as portrayed in Blondie comic strips. And Deut. chpt.22 is comprised of numerous small sections, one being vs.28-29, which has the ability to stand alone.

In other words, the rest of the chapter does not interpret it. What is truly sandwiched is “thy neighbor’s wife” in Exodus 20:17, right between what we know to be a neighbor’s possessions. This demonstrates that a man’s wife was considered his possession, and also explains why single women were bought from their fathers. Also, Genesis 19:8 is clearly sandwiched between Genesis 19:4-7 and Genesis 19:9-11, which are easily understood. Consider the protagonist Lot’s flippant willingness to allow his daughters to be raped to avoid shaming men with homosexual acts. And since this is a more detailed narrative, it helps shed light on Deut.22:28-29. Also consider that the LORD is never recorded as reprimanding Lot for his suggestion. 3) By comparing word usage, we see that throughout the Bible, “lay hold upon” and similar terms indicates applying force without consent.

And “entice”, “beguile” and similar terms indicate transgressing via influence and are used wherever they are appropriate. So, Deut.22:28-29 (KJV) should be clear, especially in light of Genesis chapter 19. Jewish scholars, who are fluent in the original Hebrew text, all translate it likewise. 4~ Type and antitype simply do not apply here. 5~ Consider Tertullian, founder of Western theology. In Tertullian Against Marcion Book IV chapter XXXIV (AD 208), Tertullian commented on Deut.22:28-29 thus: “Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have in his power to put away his wife. Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement!” Yet I should not have needed to engage in verbal jiu-jitsu over something that was clearly understood long ago.

It’s that today’s culture is on a different planet from normal society throughout history. Now I do not believe in a God-authored book. But Jesus was God, and He quoted the OT, including the Torah’s book of Deuteronomy, around a hundred times. Jesus showcasing such an anti-women’s equal rights book should have completely prevented or annihilated any feminist type Christianity. Instead, almost everyone has been exposed to the FIV virus (feminism) which has sometimes caused the FAGS disease (men’s defeat by women). This has made many organizations, including some religious groups, worthless. If you are a religious leader, why aren’t you telling them bluntly? Stop! Every day you don’t tell them, more and more people are infected with FAGS. And don’t just be a sympathetic wimp who calls me a brother in Christ who sadly has disagreements.

Don’t be on my side or pretend to. I don’t need you on my side. Make your side shape up. Sympathizers make it sound like it’s nothing worse going around than measles, when FAGS can destroy all societies. That is, destroy the family, society’s basic building block. Human patriarchy and male authority are basic laws of Nature. Rejecting it is like ripping the oxygen atom from water molecules, leaving volatile hydrogen. That is, it rips women away from men. Without the submissive feminine influence of women, society will revert to barbarianism and the work of the Prince of Peace will be undone. So, if others wouldn’t accept what you would say, then get out of professional ministry and find another job. If you lose all your friends over speaking up, then good riddance to them.

My posts organized according to subject:

https://wordpress.com/settings/taxonomies/category/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com

Philosophy 2: Ideas We Must Consider

{ Natural VS. Unnatural?: Proclaiming that the natural should always take precedence over the unnatural is an antiquated, unsupportable idea. First, nothing can be truly unnatural. Since nature encompasses all of existence, everything that exists is automatically part of nature. Suppose that everything that wasn’t *originally* part of nature should be considered unnatural, and therefore wrong. That would condemn wholesome and beneficial things such as glasses, hearing aids, medicine, organ transplants, prosthetic limbs, and most machines. Even beaver’s dams, beehives, bird’s nests, hornet’s nests, and termite mounds, let alone houses and skyscrapers, would be unnatural, since they are all designed to seek shelter from nature and therefore defy it.

Also, “natural” life forms such as the HIV virus are logically considered enemies to attack, not something that should thrive. So natural trumping unnatural postulations must be discarded, unless we mean what benefits nature overall verses what harms nature overall. Then it should be foundational. So instead, we must define and formulate that everything is governed by universal laws, discover what they are, and live accordingly. Neither must we acrimoniously believe that we have mastered Nature or humanity’s disordered desires. We must be grounded in reality, never acquiescing to wishful thinking or relying on others to behave as expected. Everything should be based on the Universal Order, and geared toward what is best for everything around us as a whole. This principle unifies every subject that I cover.}

{ Genetic Reasoning (or Origin) VS. Genetic Fallacy: Genetic fallacy is misappropriating any position or phenomenon solely in terms of its origin, and dismissing it summarily. Furthermore, it is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on past rather than present merits or demerits, unless it past somehow effects its present value. Genetic fallacy occurs whenever an idea is evaluated based upon *irrelevant* history. Some examples of fallacious reasoning are: someone is judged by how they acted at age three, someone’s parents taught them this or that, so they assume it must be true, and assuming that a credible source is *always* true, while an un-credible source is *always* false.

However, genetic fallacy is only committed when someone dismisses another’s position based on its origin alone. Genetic reasoning is not fallacious when evaluating someone’s idea based on that person’s overall background or the overall background of that idea. Someone’s ideas are ALWAYS influenced by others and the outlook of those people. We don’t gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles. And fountains do not send forth both fresh water and sewage; neither do apple trees bear oranges. Therefore, genetic reasoning is an important premise of mine; please remember this.}

{ Compromise Fallacy, Point/Counterpoint, Persuasive Writing: The compromise fallacy (or golden mean fallacy, grey fallacy, or fallacy of moderation) is an assertion that the most valid conclusion is one that reflects the best compromise between two competing arguments, and “extremes” are always wrong. However, many who insist that others must compromise refuse to compromise. Secondly, this fallacy allows any position of compromise to be challenged by deceptively presenting another more radical position to oppose the one you disagree with, forcing the middle ground closer to your desired position. Most importantly, sometimes only extremes are acceptable. For example, shooting dope in any quantity is always wrong.

There is a trend of having two opposing viewpoints presented and explained in a book to supposedly be fair and honest. However, by presenting both black and white, we get grey. Now if someone who is undecided on an issue (in the grey zone) reads the book, how can that help them decide instead of just giving more greyness? I see the value in reading a debate book, where two men argue an issue, because one man often does a better job of arguing his point. But this doesn’t happen when purposely trying to make both sides seem equally viable. So I only discuss issues I’m passionate about. Using persuasive writing, I make an argument to support a particular viewpoint or position, then present a clear stand and follow up with supporting facts and examples.}

{ Logic: Logic is the criteria for valid conclusions, principles of reasoning, science of correct reasoning, rational deduction, and something that convinces or proves. In other words, a complex way of saying common sense. Whereas common sense takes the most basic forms, such as when it is twenty below zero, we conclude that it won’t rain, logic often takes the form of two premises and a conclusion. Example: if there’s a quarter in my hand, and that hand is in my pocket, concluding that there’s a quarter in my pocket is simple logic. Even with complicated examples of logic, such as the Pythagorean theorem, valid premises always have an inescapable conclusion.

Many people, realizing that their position is illogical, claim that “God is greater than logic.” Yet that’s like saying “God is greater than common sense.” If there is a god, the most complex logic would be to him as simple common sense. So you measure the outside of a door; it’s 2 meters tall. I wouldn’t open the door to measure its other side. Yet someone may say “The other side could be three meters tall; with God it is possible.” Despite the temptation of wringing the person’s neck, I would simply avoid such unreasonable people. For Christian believers, the Christian god supposedly cannot lie or deceive. If he was outside of logic, he would be a crook.

In fact, EVERYTHING is either logical, or illogical and therefore automatically false. Being unable to determine something does not create a third possibility. The necessary information to decide exists somewhere. Since the nonreligious cannot use an Appeal to Heaven fallacy, when their position is illogical and they won’t concede, they may change the subject, make personal attacks instead, claim that only science is valid, or cut off dialogue completely.

Regardless, logic must replace the platitude “You never know until you try.” We must not try things that are extremely harmful or will likely waste precious time and/or resources. We must focus on what is likely to produce desirable results; applying logic helps achieve this goal. If we use persuasive argumentation which demonstrates superior logic, others should concede their position and adopt our better one. And vice versa.