Search the Community

I have often heard the argument that without proper faith in God one cannot discern the truth about anything. For example, postmodernist sexual degeneracy is often blamed on a lack of faith in Divine revelation. I have pondered this notion for some time and, while seeing some truth in it, find it problematic. It posits that reason in and of itself is incapable of discerning, much less interpreting, the laws of nature (i.e., natural law), which are also God’s, being created. If this were the case, then people would not even be able to understand human physiology on its own terms, and would end up promoting things like sodomy, bestiality, and other unnatural (deviant), unhealthy sexual practices. But is this really the case? One can easily observe the workings of the natural world—the behaviour of organisms, bodily functions, and the individual components of ecosystems—and thereby conclude that species-specific pairings are needed principally, or at the very least primarily, for procreation. Successful reproduction is evolutionarily advantageous and therefore likely to be much healthier than any alternative, i.e., sterility. One does not need to defer to revelation to conclude, based on empiricism, that biology is an objective factor and that sex is meant to ensure the survivability of an organism. This would rule out the whole notion that biological sex is a construct (“gender”), that same-sex “intercourse” is appropriate, etc. One also has the tools to confirm that sexual organs indeed aim to generate viable offspring. One can observe embryos, discern the relationship between sperm and egg, and so on. All this is testable. By contrast, one cannot prove that a particular claim to Divine revelation, and hence a specific form of ritual observance, is correct, given that a) miracles typically cannot be tested and b) many creeds lay claim to exclusive truth on a similar, untestable basis. (Of course, neither can the existence of God be proven, but this does not necessarily disprove a particular faith or the existence of God.) Nor can one defer to “science” to justify the whole LGBTQ+I nonsense, which has more in common with religion, or religious justification, than empiricism. My point is not that religion or belief in God should be disparaged per se, but that one does not necessarily need religious faith (i.e., in Divine revelation) to come to a conclusion about reality that may be in tune with a Designer’s intention. A counterargument is that a purely material basis leads to a belief in evolution, and that this presupposes human imperfection, thereby leading to attempts by man to alter himself, often surgically, for some subjective “higher“ end, as in trans-humanism. But a belief in evolution, coupled with an understanding of world-systems, can also be used to oppose artificial interference in a complex system such as the human body’s, given the incompleteness and imperfection of science. This would be both prudent and scientific. After all, if complex systems developed over time, one should not go about willy-nilly altering its most fundamental processes, for even a slight change can affect the whole natural world, or civilisation itself. And, as has been mentioned before, belief in evolution does not presuppose atheism. (Nevertheless, I am rather convinced that such an intricate universe could not have randomly developed on its own, without external guidance and/or initiation. This is why I believe in a Higher Power or Creative Intelligence, that is, God.) So, as noted before, one does not need Divine revelation as a referential basis to come to viable conclusions about the world as it is. One does not necessarily lead to the other. LGBTQ+I can be opposed on science and reason alone. Thoughts?

Getting Drunk Was Considered a Sin in Medieval Christianity بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم TIL that getting drunk was considered a sin in Medieval Christianity. Alcohol itself was considered permissible, but drinking to the point of inebriation was considered a subset of the deadly sin of gluttony. The full reddit thread on r/askhistorians can be found below, although I’ll quote the relevant parts: Click here to continue reading.