How are journalists deceived?
Is the communication based on facts?
Is communication based on facts or imagination? Learn how journalists and the rest of us are being deceived in the field of science and morality
In modern times, there is talk of the importance of fact-based communication. For example Helsingin sanomat, the largest daily newspaper in Finland, has advertised on its website: “There is a greater need for facts now than ever before”, and this is a good idea. However, the media do not understand that we can be deceived by Satan. My own argument and the teaching of the Bible is that each of us has at some point been more or less a victim of this deception. Only when we turn to God and Jesus and allow ourselves to be saved will our spiritual vision gradually begin to heal. We begin to understand what is true and false.
In what area do lies lie? In general, they concern God, his existence, right and wrong, and the person of Jesus. For example, in the name of science, it is claimed that God’s creation work has never taken place. Likewise, it is claimed that life has been on Earth for hundreds of millions of years and that it all started with a simple stem cell itself. Through these things it is tried to deny the existence of God, and I personally (as a former atheist) see them as great lies as well as fables and fairy tales. I consider them the lies of the soul enemy in which he tries to turn people away from God and doubt his existence.
Modern moral conceptions, which are increasingly divergent from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, I see as similar lies. In them it is often talked about human rights, love, and tolerance, but is not taken into account what new perceptions of morality cause for children. They greatly increase the suffering of children as well as the costs to society.
How do new moral notions take root in society? In general, the following formula can be seen in them:
1. A few loud individuals will proclaim new moral that abandons behavior which for centuries has been considered right.
2. The media gives way to the representatives of the new moral considering them as some kinds of heroes:
3. Gallup polls enforce the shift. When more and more people begin to support the new practice, it affects others reading the polls.
4. The fourth phase happens when legislators confirm the new practice as the new norm and right way to act.
The following letter relates to the subject. Its purpose has been to open up the spiritual vision of journalists, even though it seems almost impossible. Journalists like other people are in spiritual blindness, and only God can open their spiritual eyes, even if He uses people as intermediaries. In any case, the following is a letter I sent. It addresses two areas: 1. science / 2. morality
Hey! This is Jari Iivanainen from Lahti.
I believe in Jesus and I have prayed for years that lies in our society would break. I have prayed for spiritual revival, and that people would understand to turn to Jesus.
The subject I write about is spiritual blindness and madness manifested in journalists in two areas: science and morality. Namely, many journalists (and others of us) think they themselves are sensible and advanced, but in reality, they may believe ridiculous lies or drive things that are harmful. They repeatedly bring up these views in their writings and thus mislead others. For example, Helsingin sanomat has advertised on its website: “There is a greater need for facts now than ever before”, and this is a good idea. However, if journalists are ruled by spiritual blindness, they drift into believing and writing things against factual information. They have become blind leaders of the blind, of whom Jesus warned: “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch. ” (Matthew 15:14)
How, then, does spiritual blindness manifest itself in the realm of science? I will deal with it first. I argue that it manifests itself precisely in a way that forbids God’s work of creation and that is believed that all evolved of itself from the same stem cell over millions of years.
Of course, I understand that most immediately think that my claims are false. However, it is worth considering the teaching of the Bible on how Satan, or the enemy of the soul, can deceive people. This teaching appears e.g. in the following verses:
- (2 Cor 4:3,4) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.
- (Eph 4:17,18) 17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you from now on walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
The Bible also shows how the wisdom of this world is foolish and how Paul warned against false information passing by the name of knowledge. It is precisely atheistic theories of world and life birth that I consider to be such misinformation.
- (1 Cor 1:19,20) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
- (1 Tim 6:20,21) 20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.
I can also justify my views on the spiritual blindness that Paul wrote about. I will cite a few examples of how atheistic views are contrary to common sense and also contrary to real science. I will start with the Big Bang, which is usually mentioned as the standard explanation for the beginning of the universe.
Big Bang-theory is the notion that it all started in a small dot whose volume was the size of a pin. In his book Big Bang, Joseph Silk explained this (bold added):
All material that we know to be in billions of galaxies was pressed to a point the size of a pinhead. Our own Milky Way was smaller than an atom inside this pinhead.
This thing and its rationality can be thought of. For example, if we look at the above drawing, it can be used as an example of an assumed initial state. For atheist scientists seriously believe that it all started with such a small point or even a smaller space.
However, can such a small space become the present universe? If this pin-sized space becomes just one meter high stone, it can be considered a great miracle. However, the same small dot is also said to have become millions of galaxies, hundreds of millions of stars, the earth and its moon, flying and chirping birds, big cliffs, talking and thinking people, tall trees with leaves, jumping kangaroos, elephants, fish and the sea around them and good tasty blueberries and bananas.
A good reader, take the pin on your hand and think about this idea seriously! I argue that such an idea makes no sense. It is impossible that all the present complex and big things would have in themselves appeared from an empty space or a space smaller than a pin. This theory is against common sense and against real science.
Many scientists have also taken a stand on the Big Bang. They see that it is completely contrary to the evidence and common sense, as it is:
There has been considerably little discussion about the possibility of the Big Bang theory… many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelisti [nobelist] H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)
As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)
Physicist Eric Lerner: ”Big Bang is merely an interesting tale, which is maintained for a certain reason” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991).
David Berlinski: ”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)
Did hydrogen and helium gas become human? One assumption is that in the beginning there was only hydrogen and helium gas in the wake of the initial explosion. In fact, it has formed all the things we perceive today. This is assumed in this atheistic explanation.
Next, a simple question. If the universe consisted of hydrogen, how did the hydrogen change to the fish and sea around them, rocks, birds, people, flowers, trees, butterflies, lions, strawberries, and all the specialties of nature? Have scientists ever proven that hydrogen or helium can spontaneously turn into complex life forms? Does hydrogen behave in the same way today, ie has hydrogen given birth to man and all other life forms? Hydrogen and helium balls floating in the air have also been made, but have they become a life that could multiply on its own, move, eat, and feel emotions? Or is it not a fact that such is not observed? Instead, it is known that substances can at most be converted to solids, liquids or gases with changes in temperature. No forms of life are born through it. This is real science and practical observation.
Was life born of itself? One atheistic assumption is that life was born of itself. Here again, it is worth paying attention to the facts. One of them is that only “life brings about life”. No exceptions to this rule have been found. What does this refer to? It refers to God in the first forms of life. That is, stone and other inanimate matter never become self-alive, begin to breathe, eat, feel emotions, and multiply. The only thing that can happen is the conversion of inanimate matter into a solid, liquid, and gas with changes in external temperature. Nothing else happens. This is real experiential science.
Or if you are scientific and do not accept God’s work of creation, prove the birth of life by itself. If the birth of life by itself is possible, it should not be difficult.
To make this clear, we quote J. Morgan’s interview about Stanley Miller in the rest of his life. He has become known for life-related experiments. J. Morgan recounted from the interview how Miller admitted the origin of life is obscured. He was indifferent to all suggestions about the origin of life and considered them ‘nonsense’ or ‘paper chemistry’. This is understandable because the birth of life by itself is an impossibility.
He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (1)
Are all current species from the same stem cell? One assumption is that all current species originate from the same stem cell. This is called the theory of evolution, and it is worth distinguishing it from ordinary variability and adaptation to conditions, which is a fact.
But is the inheritance of modern species from the same stem cell true or not? If that is true, it should show up in fossils. However, although hundreds of millions of fossils has been excavated from the country, no gradual evolution can be observed. This has been acknowledged by several well-known paleontologists and scientists. The first of the comments is from Darwin, who himself stated that if the fossil material was perfect in his day, it overturned his theory. Another of the comments is from Richard Dawkins, who also acknowledged in his book Sokea kelloseppä (The Blind Watchmaker) that there is no gradual evolution in fossils. He appealed to the inadequacy of fossil material as Darwin did in his day, but there is no longer any basis for this argument because of the abundance of fossil material.
Darwin (The Origin of Species): Those who believe that the geological narrative is more or less perfect will of course reject my theory
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Since the times of Darwin, scientists researching evolution have known that fossils arranged in the order of time do not form a sequence of small and barely noticeable change. … Regardless of their school of thought, all the evolutionists agree that in this area there is a huge gap in the fossil discoveries.
It is not possible to even compile a distorted picture of an organism's evolution based on paleobiological facts. The fossil materials gathered are so perfect now that the lack of intermediate forms cannot have been caused by insufficient data. The gaps are real, and can never be filled in. (A statement of Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson approximately 50 years ago. )
It is strange that the gaps in the fossil material are consistent in a certain way: fossils are missing from all the important places. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 19)
None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution )
Stephen Jay Gould: I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (4)
Niles Eldredge: We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (5)
The assumption of millions and billions of years is one of the cornerstones of the theory of evolution. Even in the media, the idea that there has been life for hundreds of millions of years is often lightly thrown into the air. However, this idea is easy to refute. Radiocarbon timing is the most important method in the scientific world for measuring the age of organic organisms, showing that radiocarbon is present in fossils of all ages. As early as the 1960s, Radiocarbon-magazine reported how radiocarbon had been found in Cambrian fossils and other fossils that have been thought to be as old as hundreds of millions of years. Thus, when radiocarbon is present in these fossils, they must be at most some millennia-old.
Radiocarbon, which has an official half-life of only 5,730 years, is also present in carbon deposits that have been thought to be 300 million years old. According to the journal Radiocarbon, no coal lacking radiocarbon has been found (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C free background material, Radiocarbon 31 (2): 117-120, 1989). What does this mean? When the half-life of radiocarbon is only 5,730 years, there can be none left of radiocarbon after one hundred thousand years. The findings suggest shorter time periods.
Human-related findings are also an indication of the young age of carbon deposits. Once a gold chain, iron pot, other goods, and human fossils have been discovered in the “300 Million Years Old” carbon deposit, there can be no question of hundreds of millions of years old deposits (Glashouver, WJJ, So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert / February, 1975, pp. 36-39).
In his book Time Upside Down (1981), Erich A. von Frange listed more objects found in coal, such as 1. a small steel cube 2. an iron hammer 3. an iron instrument 4. a nail 5. a bell-shaped metal container 6. a bell 7. a child's jaw 8. a human skull 9. two human cheek teeth 10. fossilized human foot. Findings of this type show that the thoughts of hundreds of millions of years of stratification and the evolution of organisms from the same stem cell are unfounded scientific tales. You shouldn't believe them.
Dinosaurs and dragons. As for the lifespan of dinosaurs on Earth, we are repeatedly told in TV shows and magazines that they became extinct more than 65 million years ago.
However, this notion cannot be true. Dinosaur fossils have a lot of internal metrics that testify against millions of years. Blood cells have been found within these bones [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993], hemoglobin, soft tissues, and fragile proteins. None of these substances should survive in nature for hundreds of thousands of years, let alone millions of years.
Radiocarbon has also been found in dinosaurs, although its official half-life is only 5,730 years. In August 2012, a team of German researchers reported at a meeting of geophysicists, a joint meeting of the Asia Oceania Geoscience Society and the American Geophysical Union, on radiocarbon measurement results made from many fossilized bone samples of dinosaurs. According to the results, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! (http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html.)
In addition, DNA has been isolated from dinosaurs and their eggs [Sarfati, J. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation (1): 10-12, 2013; creation.com/dino-dna, 11 December 2012], which is not always met even from old human mummies or mammoths. The half-life of DNA has been calculated to be only 521 years, so it is impossible for it to occur in fossils that are millions of years old. (The half-life of 521 years was reported in the news: DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta raukesivat (the deadline for DNA survival became clear - dreams of cloning dinosaurs waned); yle.fi> Uutiset> Tiede, 13 October 2012).
What about human descriptions of dinosaurs? This name - dinosaur - was not invented until the 19th century, but old folk tales tell of great dragons and lizards resembling dinosaurs. The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265) narrates these accounts: “The dragons of legends are, miraculously, like real animals that have lived in the past. They resemble much of the large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the earth long before man was supposed to have appeared. Dragons were usually evil and destructive. Every nation knew them in their mythology. ”
One example of how dinosaurs may have actually been dragons is also the Chinese horoscope. It is known to be centuries old. Thus, when the Chinese horoscope is based on 12 animal signs that are repeated in 12-year cycles, 12 animals are involved. Of these, 11 are still familiar today: rat, bull, tiger, hare, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and pig. Instead, the 12th animal is a dragon that does not exist today. The good question is that if 11 animals have been real and well-known everyday animals, why would a dragon be an exception and a mythical creature? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that in ancient times it lived at the same time as humans, but has become extinct like numerous other animals? It is good to remember again that the name dinosaur was not invented until the 19th century by Richard Owen. Before that, the name dragon was used for centuries.
The Bible also mentions dragons several times (e.g. Jer 51:37: And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling place for Dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.). In this regard, an interesting commentary on the subject can be found in the esteemed late fossil scientist Stephen Jay Gould, a Marxist atheist. He noted that when the book of Job talks about Behemoth, the only animal to which this description fits is the dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist, he believed that the author of the book of Job must have gotten his knowledge of the fossils found. However, this one of the oldest books of the Bible clearly refers to a living animal (Job 40: 15-17: 15 Behold now Behemoth, which I made with you; they eats grass as an ox.…).
What about the Old Testament apocryphal books? They also refer to dragons several times and are considered real animals and not mythical creatures. In Sirach’s book, the author says he would rather live with a lion and a dragon than with an evil wife. Additions in the book of Esther tell of the dream of Mardoch (Mordecai of the Bible) when he saw two great dragons. This indicates that these animals could grow to large sizes.
- (Sirach 25:16) I had rather dwell with a lion and a dragon, than to keep house with a wicked woman.
- (Wisdom of Salomon 16:10) But thy sons not the very teeth of venomous dragons overcame: for thy mercy was ever by them, and healed them.
- (Additions to Esther 1:1,4,5,6) Mordecai, a Jew who belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, was taken into exile, along with King Jehoiachin of Judah, when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia captured Jerusalem. Mordecai was the son of Jair, a descendant of Kish and Shimei.
4 He dreamed that there was great noise and confusion, loud thunder, and an earthquake, with terrible turmoil on the earth.
5 Then two huge dragons appeared, ready to fight each other.
6 They made a dreadful noise, and all the nations got ready to make war against God's nation of righteous people.
News about human evolution. The media repeatedly raises the assumption that man has come from some ape-like creatures over the course of a few million years. It is assumed that the theory of evolution is true, although it has already been stated above that it contradicts the evidence.
So why not believe in human evolution from ape-like ancestors?
The main reason is fossil material. It has already been stated above that the remains and belongings of modern man have even been found in carbon deposits and deposits considered to be ancient. What does this mean? It shows that modern man must be much older or at least as old as its supposed ancestors. This cancels out human evolution from primitive ape-like beings.
Another reason is that in the fossil record, only two groups are actually known from this area: monkeys and humans.
One class of human ancestors has been considered the Australopithecus class, but it is clearly an ordinary monkey. Its skull is monkey-shaped and only about a third the volume of modern human brain (the volume of the brainstem of Lucy, the most famous representative of Australopithecus, has been measured just over 400 cm3). In addition its physique is monkey-like:
Solly Zuckerman: Our discoveries leave hardly any doubt that (…) the Australopithecus does not resemble the Homo sapiens; instead, it resembles the modern guenons and anthropoids. (6)
Well-known fossil scientist Richard Leakey talks more about this in his book The Origin of Humankind. He cites studies related to the movement of Australopithecus. Studies have shown that Australopithecus (southern monkeys) were ape-like, while the structure of all human species is human-like:
A few years ago, Robert Martin’s colleague, anthropologist Peter Schmid from Zürich, got the opportunity to study the famous Lucy fossil. Using fiberglass casts made from the fossilized bones, Schmid began to construct Lucy’s skeleton. He expected it to be shaped like a human skeleton. Schmid was astonished by the result: Lucy’s ribcage was a conical shape; it made her look more like a primate than a human, whose ribcage is barrel-shaped. Lucy’s shoulders, body, and waist also had strong ape-like features… Modern primates are heavily built in comparison to their height: they weigh twice as much as a human with the same height. It was now also possible to put fossil measures into two clear and already familiar groups. Southern apes’ body structure was ape-like, and all the Homo species’ body structure was human-like.
If Austalopithecus was an ordinary monkey, then the Homo Habilis, Homo erectus, and Neanderthal remain. However, Habilis has always been a questionable discovery because only a few fragments of bone have been found in it. Many scholars do not consider Homo habilis to be a genuine class but think it is a mixture of different classes. According to some estimates, it may have been even more ape-like than Lucy, the best-known representative of the genus Australopithecus.
What about the Neanderthal? In his rather recent book “Neandertalin ihminen, kadonnut lajitoveri” (2015), Juha Valste has highlighted how the image of Neanderthals has changed among researchers all the time. Before them were considered a bit ape-like, but no longer:
My early one-sided perception of the Neanderthal began to change, when later in the 1960s I got a hold of some new books addressing human evolution. They had heeded Boule’s mistakes in describing the structure, posture, and intellectual capabilities of Neanderthals. In France Neanderthal’s reputation was “cleared” already in the middle of the 1950s. They had become real humans… When writing books and articles about human evolution and giving lectures in Helsinki university in 2002-2011, I had to redo all my parts about Neanderthals every year.
… Almost nothing that “everyone knows” about the Neanderthals is true. Those rare facts that still are relatively accurate, are being interpreted differently today than they were interpreted up until the mid-20th century. Researchers have had to change an assumption after another since the mid-20th century… We can as easily see, however, that we are the same species with the Neanderthals. This species is called humans – modern -and Neanderthal humans are two subspecies, which both are equally far away from the chimpanzees.
Homo erectus. If Homo habilis was an ambiguous class and a Neanderthal ordinary man, as the findings show, Homo erectus is an only questionmark. However, several factors suggest that that too was an ordinary human being. Its brain size is the same as that of modern humans, it walked humanly upright, plus there have been tool and cultural discoveries made about it, so it was definitely a human being.
Another interesting feature is that several fossil scientists have considered Homo erectus to be an ordinary human being. They have proposed the incorporation of Homo erectus into the species Homo sapiens because the boundaries between these groups are artificial and do not correspond to practical observations. That means that Homo erectus has actually been a real modern man.
Gabriel Ward Lasker: Homo erectus deviates from the modern human (homo sapiens), but there is a tendency to exaggerate the differences. Even if we exclude all the intermediate forms and otherwise hard-to-categorize individuals and limit our investigation only to the Java and Beijing populations, the range in many Homo erectus’ features are still acceptable in modern human range. (7)
Donald C. Johanson: It would be interesting to find out, whether a modern man and a Homo erectus woman from million years ago could have a baby together. A strong feeling says that they could. Evolution likely was the kind that would prevent successful procreation. But this does not falsify the authenticity of the above species definition, because these two cannot procreate. Time separates them two in the sense of procreation. (8)
The last comment refers to Milford Wolpoff, who has also proposed the inclusion of Homo Erectus in the Homo sapiens class. What makes this statement of an evolutionary paleontologist significant is that he is said to have seen more than anyone else the original fossil material of hominides.
Wolpoff has been one of the loudest evolutionists who have demanded that the Homo erectus class should be connected to the Homo sapiens. He writes together with Wu Xin Zhin (Institute of Paleoanthropology, Beijing) and Alan G. Thorn (National University of Australia): “According to our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the boundary between Homo erectus / Homo sapiens is arbitrary and use a non-morphological (or chronological) criterion for its defining, or Homo erectus should be connected to [Homo sapiens].” (9)
Connecting Homo erectus to Homo sapiens means that all “classes” in evolution-theoretical line from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens. These would include the early Homo sapiens, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo ergaster and the Neanderthals. (Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä)
What can be deduced from previous data (e.g. on the discovery of human fossils and goods from carbon depositions)? They suggest that modern man has been on earth from the beginning and that the inheritance of all species from the same stem cell has never occurred. These are lies, fables and fairy tales that are believed in vain.
Instead, it makes much more sense to rely on the teaching of the Bible and the words of Jesus. According to them, man was created at the beginning of creation, and from that is not millions of years. This is consistent with the fossil record. Jesus taught:
- (Matt 19:4) And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
- (Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
We still look at Paul’s prophecy, which can be linked to the same subject. Paul predicted that people would turn to fables, and this is exactly what I see happening in the doctrine of evolution when people have abandoned faith in God as creator:
- (2 Tim 4:3.4) 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables.
SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS - MEDIA DEFENDES KILLING AND ABUSE OF CHILDREN. It was stated above how there is no basis for believing in that the universe and life were born by itself, that all species have come from the same stem cell, and that there has been life on Earth for millions of years. These things are easy to refute because they are contrary to real science and evidence. People believe in these things because of their spiritual blindness and because the devil has betrayed them. They believe they are scientific, but are actually deceived because of the devil’s lies.
How does spiritual blindness affect morality? One indication of this is that society accepts things that are clearly harmful and against the will of God. Many immediately think of something like Nazi Germany, but they do not see a clear evil in modern times. Here are some examples:
Tolerant people support child murders
- (Mark 10:19) You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother.
Report: Once upon a time there were two groups. Both groups spoke in favor of human rights and love. Both of these groups also agreed that 10-year-olds were genuine children who were not allowed to be killed. The groups were very agreement on this issue.
Instead, the difference between the two groups was evident in attitudes toward 5-year-olds. Group 1 considered them as equal people to 10-year-old children. Group 2 members, on the other hand, thought that 5-year-olds were not real children but some kind of lumps of tissue. Therefore, their lives could be ended if the parents so wished.
How does this relate to the topic being addressed? In short, it is precisely a similar issue in abortion. All journalists and other people generally consider a child outside the womb to be a real person, and say that children’s rights should be defended. However, when it comes to smaller and younger children inside the womb, they claim else. They say it is no longer a human being, but a lump of tissue or part of the mother's body. However, it must be taken into account that a child in the womb is a different matter from his/her mother and has the same body members as e.g. 10 year old or 5 year old children have; i.e. head, eyes, nose, mouth, hands, feet etc. A person who has done many abortions says:
One cannot perform abortion eyes closed. One must be sure that everything has come out of the womb and one must count that there are enough of legs and arms, rib cage and brain that is coming out. Then when the patient is waking up from their narcosis, and asks, whether it would have been a girl or a boy, my resilience has reached its limits and that is when I usually walk away. – If I perform a surgery, where I clearly kill a living being, I think it is folly to talk about destroying nascent life. It is killing, and I see it as killing.” (10)
It is good to move from this to tolerance. That is, many journalists often appear tolerant, progressive, and moderate. However, it fails in this one thing, which is that they are in favor of killing children. They are pleased that unwanted children can be killed. They consider it a human right of parents that a child may be killed in the mother’s womb.
One may ask, however, whether this is any difference from how Hitler killed people in the gas chambers or how the Canaanites burned their children in a fire that aroused the wrath of God (Ps. 106: 37,38: Yes, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to Devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the Idols of Canaan…)? The only thing how this can be denied is saying that a child in the womb is a not real person, as the following quote shows.
If it is so that a developing fetus is morally equivalent to a child, then abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. Only a few think that the government should let parents decide on their own, whether they want to be responsible for killing their child… Those, who are willing to defend women’s right to abortion, should make a statement on the argument that a developing fetus is equivalent to a human being, and then try to demonstrate, why the argument is wrong. It is not enough to say that the law should be neutral when it comes to moral and religious questions. Defending the right to abortion is equally as unneutral as demanding to ban it. Both parties await for an answer for this moral and religious dispute, which lies in the background. (11)
Tolerant people and children
- (Mark 10:19) You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother.
- (1 Cor 7:2) 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
We discussed about abortion, which can be considered murder because it clearly ends the life of a developing child. The fact that it is a child is a scientific and biological fact that cannot be denied. This was acknowledged in a recent study asking 5,577 biologists around the world when life begins. Of these, 96 percent said it begins with fertilization (Erelt, S., Survey asked, 5,577 biologists when human life begins. 96% said conception; lifenews.com, 11 Jul 2019). Similarly, the Geneva Declaration of the World Medical Association in 1948, when the unethical behavior of Nazi doctors had been exposed, stated that human life begins with fertilization.
What about other developments in society? Today, many journalists and “modern” people arrogantly reject the Christian faith. They say we are now living in the 21st century and we have made moral progress from previous generations. They think that the current generation is morally wiser than, for example, our grandparents were. It manifests itself especially in relation to sexuality, where the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in these areas are ignored in modern times. So now there is an increasing positive attitude towards divorce, cohabitation, premarital sex and homosexuality. Before, these things were considered wrong, now right.
But has society moved forward morally, as many rejecters of the Christian faith think? That is, if progress has been made, it should have been made in all areas. However, the following news shows that people’s behavior towards each other has deteriorated and nausea in children and young people has increased. The direction of development is clearly negative, which also results in a huge increase in society's costs:
Almost a billion euros used in institutional care for children and youth
Problems with children experienced strong rise since early 1990s
…The institutional care of one child can cost up to EUR 100,000 per year while proactive supporting measures in outpatient care could be offered with a couple of thousand euros. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 31 October 2010)
Child violence is becoming more common… The aggression of young children has increased in Finland. (Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 20 November 2013)
Youth referrals almost doubled
Psychiatry: The mental health problems of young people have increased in recent years across the country. In Päijät-Häme, the number of referrals of young psychiatry increased by 40 per cent per year. (Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 30 May 2017)
The minds of young people are shaken. Mental health: Referrals to adolescent psychiatric specialist care have risen sharply… (Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 25 September 2018)
… As a professional of healt care, I bring to your attention the behavior of patients. When I was on call in the central hospital in the emergency room in 1974, it didn’t even come to mind that a patient would be violent or make threats. Today it occurs continuosly in the emergency room. They must have learned it from somewhere. What happens, when no one (from Finnish people) doesn’t want to serve – or teach?
With the loss of discipline, we have also lost civilized behavior. Giving discipline is simple if you want it to be. Volition seems to incline towards adapting to unruliness.
More resources, more resources, more debt. Well, that is what the undisciplined policymakers will do.
Jyrki Joensuu, a specialist doctor in general medicine and psychiatry, Lahti (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 17.10.2016 / Lukijalta [Etelä-Suomen sanomat 17.10.2016 / from the reader])
Violence experienced by the local council workers increased
In under ten years violence and its threats to local council workers have increased immensely, which comes apparent from the indicator of working conditions of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (TEM)… (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 15.2.2017)
Increased hate speeches disturb people’s ordinary life
Hate seminar: Muslim women must avoid going out. “Any one of the well-dressed Finnish people could spit in your face.”…
- The atmosphere has changed and hate speeches have increased immensely over the last year, says project coordinator Habiba Ali, who came to Finland from Somalia when he was six years old, from the Foreign Aid of the Church.
He used to know, who are the people to be wary of in public areas: skinheads and drunks. Now any one of the well-dressed Finns might spit on him… (Etelä Suomen Sanomat 30.11.2016)
A father hits his child and a son hits his mother more and more often. Violence performed by parents towards children has more than doubled in ten years. (ESS 3 October 2019)
The heading of the front page:
School: ESS poll reveals, teachers subjected to violence, vandalism, threats and parents’ rage
The poll that the teachers took part in:
How do you think the behavior of students has changed over the last few years?
2,6% it has gotten better
23,1% it has stayed the same
74,4% it has gotten worse
The poll of OAJ: Students are the worst bullies to teachers in the whole country
according to the poll 50% of elementary school teachers have experienced bullying over the last year. (ESS, 23.10.2016)
Intoxicants take younger and younger into institutions. The number of notifications and the cost of institutional care have increased enormously. (ESS, 7 November 2019)
Divorce is costly for many
Economist Pasi Sorjonen of Nordea Bank wonders why the financial impact of divorces is not discussed much even though divorces are very common and the financial impact caused by a divorce can be great for the people involved.
A study by Nordea Bank suggests that a divorce can lower the living standard of a family even more than unemployment. It is a very extensive social phenomenon: almost half of the marriages now end in divorce.
"Divorces are very costly to the society," says Executive Director Heljä Sairisalo of the Finnish single-parent family association . (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 25 January 2011)
The rate of giving allowances is accelerating in Finland…
Housing allowance is being paid at a more and more rapid rate. In November Kela paid public housing allowances for over 93 million euros, when the same amount last year in November was a little under 87 million euros and in the year before that it was 65 million euros. The total sum of the money that goes into public housing allowances has doubled in the 21th century.. (Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 8 January 2017)
Thus, nausea in children such as human misconducts have increased all the time. In addition, the social costs to society have increased enormously, as previous news showed.
But what is the reason for the increase in child nausea and misbehavior?
I am convinced that the cause is abandoning of God and Christian values, which began in the 1960s. The following couple of facts show the direction of development:
• Back in the 1950s, couples who lived together without marriage and commitment were considered wolf couples. In addition, only 5% of children (in Finland) were born out of wedlock as late as the late 1960s. This shows how the Christian teaching on marriage and its permanence was respected during the time of our grandparents and parents. It also benefited children who were allowed to grow up in intact families.
Then the sexual revolution began in the late 1960s. It emphasized, by no means the amount of sex, but that one can have sexual intercourse without commitment and marriage. This was the first aggravation for the children, as the children could be born in a situation where both parents were not present at home.
The second deterioration occurred in 1987, when divorce in Finland was made easier. It no longer required the consent of both spouses, but either spouse alone could apply for the divorce and enforce it. Thus, the result was a drastic increase in the number of divorces, and most of the divorces concerned marriages where there were no serious problems.
The following quote is related to the topic. It describes how development started more than 50 years ago. In his book (Avoliitto, avioliitto, perhe, p. 12-14), Matti Joensuu, who worked in family counseling, described how people who suggested that it is right to have sex without commitment and marriage came to the fore. At the same time, free abortion was called for and there was talk of homosexuality, so the seeds for current development were sown then. Now we get to reap the harvest of what these people accomplished. They were considered by the media as some kind of hero, so the media has had a big impact on the break-up of families, the increase in child nausea, and the increase in the cost to society (bold added):
I was away from my homeland for three years, the years 1965 to 1968. When I returned in the autumn of 1968, I was very surprised at the change that had taken place in the atmosphere of public conversation. This concerned both the tone of conversation and also the framing of questions.
(...) In the world of high school, those who demanded justification of sexual relationships were the ones blowing their trombones loudly. They insisted, for instance, that boys and girls should be allowed to live together in university dormitories even though they were not married.
It seemed as though the Teenager Union had been conquered by new leaders, who announced not only socialism and school democracy but also an idea of free sexual relationships.
All in all, what was new with the situation was that there were reference groups speaking about sexual questions much more openly than it had been normal in public. These groups accused the society and the church of double standards.
The tone of the conversation was to a large extent ethical. Morals were regarded as bad and were blamed. However, a new moral was simultaneously announced, often very moralistically and intolerantly. It was discussed earlier that the sexual behavior of young people must be understood, but now some groups announced that it is right to have free sexual relationships. The institution of marriage and real genuine love were even set aside. Illegal couples were interviewed in public, as though they were some kind of heroes of a new moral standard, who had dared to rise against the morals of the bourgeois society. Homosexuals were interviewed in the same way and people demanded abortion to be legalized.
The following quotations further show how important it is that both parents are in the family. Indeed, this was still the case in the late 1960s, when only 5% of children were born out of wedlock (in 1990 the figure was around 25%), but now the figure is over 50%, meaning parents are not properly committed to each other. More and more children are growing up in single-parent families, which in some areas is the most common form of family. Especially the father is missing from the family. In addition, a new trend is fertility treatments for single women or female couples. This separates the child from his or her own father from the beginning of life, which can be considered very detrimental to children, especially boys.
So the following quotations show how important it is that both parents are in the family. The first quote tells of children who are having difficulties in school. However, the reason is most often that the father is absent from the family:
When I was speaking at a certain men's camp in Hume Lake in California, I mentioned that the average father spends only three minutes of quality time with his child a day. After the meeting, one man questioned my information.
He scolded, "You preachers only say things. According to the latest research, the average father doesn't spend even three minutes daily with his children, but 35 seconds."
I believe him because he worked as a school inspector in central California. Actually, he gave me another startling statistic.
In a certain school district in California there were 483 students in special education. None of those students had a father at home.
In a certain area on the outskirts of Seattle, 61% of children live without a father.
The absence of a father is a curse nowadays. (12)
If we were asked to design a system to ensure all children’s basic needs are being taken care of, we would probably end up somewhere, what is similar to the ideal of having two parents. In theory, this kind of plan does not only ensure that the children get two adult’s time and resources, it also provides a controlling and balancing system, which promotes high-class parenthood. Both parent’s biological relationship with the child increases the probability that the parents are able to identify themselves with the child and are ready to make sacrifices for the child. It also decreases the probability of the parents exploiting the child. (13)
“Modern” people defend the abuse of children and young people. It was noted above how journalists and progressive people accept the murder of children and have favored the kind of sexual behavior that has actually been adult selfishness towards a child. One of the consequences is the increased costs to society and the increase in child nausea. The trend has been getting worse in this area.
One of the currents of modern time is also the favoring of homosexuality. It appears repeatedly in the media.
But what is the reason for this current trend? When trying to understand why many in today’s society advocate homosexual behavior, the main reason is certainly that many see the homosexual tendency as an innate trait, just like skin color. It is thought that if it is a congenital trait such as skin color or left-handedness, is it not right then to defend a homosexual lifestyle and people who have such a trait? Isn’t it right to support people in their sexual choices?
Many representatives of the Christian gay movement have also invoked to the notion that homosexuality is inborn. Liisa Tuovinen, the director of the Yhteys-liike, presented this general idea in a TV discussion as early as 2002:
Paul doesn’t understand the concept of homosexuality, which is an innate trait in humans, that it cannot be changed. (14)
But what is the truth about the subject? Many homosexuals themselves deny the idea of inborn feature. Some may argue the matter innate, but many admit that the sexual seduction of the same sex and conditions have played a big role in birth of their tendency. These were also common notions in psychology a few decades ago. The following are quotes that have interviewed homosexuals (bolds added afterwards):
Ole does not believe, however, that there is some kind of a "homosexual gene". He believes that homosexual feelings stem from a more complex pool, and he mentions, for instance, that he knows many pairs of identical twins of which only one of the pair is homosexual.
Ole believes that many factors contributed to his behaviour, such as his complex and poor relationship with his father when he was a child.
Ole does not hold back when telling about his relationship with his father as a child. He felt that his father was never there and he feared his father. The father sometimes had a raging fit, and Ole felt a few times that his father intentionally humiliated him in public. Ole says bluntly that he hated his father. (15)
Harri is interested in the discussion about homosexuality in the media and studies about homosexuality. He is convinced that homosexuality has very little to do with congenital factors. He bases this view on, for instance, the fact that it is often easy to find out why people have homosexual inclinations. They have usually been subjected to sexual violence or have a difficult relationship with their parents or peers.
"This has convinced me that it is not first and foremost about genes. However, I don't think that it is impossible for some people to have some genes that make them more susceptible to homosexual inclinations," Harri says. (16)
Tepi believes that her homosexuality has been caused by some sort of an emotional vacuum she is trying to fill. Tepi says that she feared her father as a child and is still "kind of freaked out by men". Tepi says that she is looking for a mother in women. Even though Tepi wonders why she is a lesbian, she also says about being attracted to women: "It has been somehow so natural that I've sometimes wondered how this could be." On the other hand, she believes that there is some reason for this, too.
Tepi does not believe that homosexuality is caused by genes or that a person could be a gay or a lesbian since birth. She believes that a person grows into a gay or a lesbian, and this can happen also without any special incident. (17)
I have – and many other homosexuals – wondered what causes homosexuality. I think that the personality of a child is formed during his or her three first years, also in terms of sexuality. This is influenced both by the environment and human biology. I don't believe that homosexuality is hereditary. Many of my male relatives have trouble dealing with my being homosexual just because they are afraid that it runs in the family. (18)
Bill Hybels: I read an interesting study by an expert: it was a survey to find out how many actively homosexual people believed they were born that way. Eighty-five percent of the interviewees were of the opinion that their homosexuality was a learned way of behaving caused by destructive influence early on in their home and enticement by another person.
Nowadays, my first question when meeting with a homosexual is usually, “Who gave you the inspiration for it?” All of them can answer me. I will ask then, “What would have happened to you and your sexuality if you hadn’t met your uncle, or if your cousin had not come into your life? Or without your stepfather? What do you think would have happened?” This is when the bells start to toll. They say, “Maybe, maybe, maybe.” (19)
Dear reader of the message! If homosexuality is not an innate trait, then what is it? That was evident from the last quote. It referred to how most homosexuals felt that the devastating impact of the home and the seduction of another person were the biggest reasons. Thus, there is often in backround mental violence, sexual exploitation and the absence of a father or mother from a child (The absence of father and mother is indicated by an extensive study. It found that 27% of lesbians and 2% of heterosexual women had experienced the loss of a mother before the age of 10. The ratio is thus more than ten times higher). All of these point to the effect of conditions and the human response to them.
So what does the previous one mean? When many defend homosexual behavior and are on Pride-marches, they are actually supporting the fact that children and young people have been treated bad or even sexually exploited. Isn't that the case? That is, if it is not a congenital trait but a traumatic experience, these people indirectly give their support to human abuse. Surely no one directly supports the abuse of children and young people, but indirectly they do support it when flagging for a homosexual lifestyle.
Thus, a person’s past can affect his or her current attitudes and lives, as it manifests in the lives of homosexuals. It has also been found that criminals, prostitutes or, for example, alcoholics often have a broken background and growing conditions. They may come from difficult circumstances, but it is not the circumstances themselves that cause their behavior, but their own choices and how they react to the past. Thus, no one should justify their misconduct by past circumstances. Jesus' teaching to all of us is, "...except you repent, you shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13: 3). This applies to homosexual practitioners, prostitutes, criminals but also other sinful people like we all are by nature.
What about trans people? Many of them have the kind of background that being small they have been wanted to be the opposite sex, and this has affected them. It is difficult for them to accept their own gender. The fault is not in the body or that someone was born into the wrong sex (as is often falsely portrayed in the media), but in an inner attitude.
Dissatisfaction is common in other areas as well. Someone may be dissatisfied with their appearance, their muscles, or experience feelings of inferiority and strive to win the acceptance of others and themselves through accomplishments, drugs, or alcohol. Similarly, the eating disorder anorexia nervosa originates from dissatisfaction, i.e., a person’s dissatisfaction with their current weight, even if they are quite lean. The fault is not in his/her body, but that he/she does not accept himself/herself as such and believes he/she is happier when being leaner. In this way, past experiences and a person’s dissatisfaction with themselves can affect everyone’s life. The fault does not have to be in anyone’s body or appearance but in internal thinking, i.e. dissatisfaction with the current body.
The concluding remark from the previous is that it is good for us to understand different people and not to judge them. However, everyone must admit that his/her thinking may go astray and be wrong. Jesus also taught about false inner attitudes and lusts and how they come from within man:
- (Mark 7:20-23) And he said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Dear reader! I went through the most common lies I see in society. The first of the lies was to deny the existence of God and that He is the Creator. It is impossible and irrational that all the celestial bodies, the earth, and the complex life of the earth were born without God. The evidence clearly points to his existence and work of creation, as Paul wrote. Only spiritual blindness can prevent us from seeing this clear fact:
- (Rom 1:19-21) 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
The second area dealt with morality, which I see diverging further and further from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. This has been evidenced by the acceptance of sexual relations outside the marriage of a husband and wife: premarital sex, common-law marriages, and homosexual sex. These things are increasingly accepted, and is not respected the teaching of traditional husband and wife marriage, which has been found to be the most viable model for children and the most socially economic way to care for children. Other options are more expensive and worse.
Second, the change in morality is reflected in the deterioration of behavior toward others, as the news mentioned earlier showed. Jesus taught to love even enemies (Matt. 5: 43-48); likewise Peter taught, “Honor all men” (1 Peter 2:17), but from these teachings have also been drifted away further and further. The direction seems to be getting worse all the time.
Then the most important thing. Spiritual blindness is also manifested in the most important thing: man does not see how Jesus, the Son of God, is the truth and the only way to God. While man himself may consider himself tolerant, in reality he may be intolerant to Jesus Christ, who is man’s only chance to experience the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
However, as Jesus himself taught, there are no other ways to God, and if a person rejects Jesus, he himself will have to pay for his sins in hell. For though Jesus has borne the sins of us all on the cross, this does not benefit the man who rejects Jesus. Such a person rejects his only chance of salvation. It’s a similar thing like giving a drowning person a chance to get into a lifeboat, but he doesn’t care. As a result, he drowns. So, dear reader of the message, do not reject Jesus, that you will not have to pay for your sins in hell! Consider the following words from Jesus:
- (John 14:6) 6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
- (John 5:39,40) 39 Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.
- (Rev 3:20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Finally! I urge you to take a step in the direction of God and Jesus. If Jesus is the way to God, then why not wish him into your life? You should definitely do it, that is, to give your whole life to God and put your trust in Jesus in the matter of salvation. So you can say a prayer like this, where it happens: “Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.”
1. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley
2. Heribert Nilsson: Synthetische artbildung, 1953, p. 1212 – Quote from "Evoluutio - tieteen harha-askel?", Mikko Tuuliranta.
3. Quote from "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19.
4. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
5. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution
6. Solly Zuckerman: Beyond the ivory tower, 1970, p. 90 – Quote from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. wit. p. 94.
7. Gabriel Ward Lasker: Physical Anthropology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), 284
8. Donald C. Johanson ja Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 144
9. Milford H. Wolpoff, Wu Xin Zhi ja Alan G. Thorne, ”Modern Homo sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving the Fossil Evidence From East Asia”, teoksessa The Origins of Moodern Humans, toim. Fred H. Smith ja Frank Spencer (New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1984), 465-66.
10. Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970
11. Michael J. Sandel: Oikeudenmukaisuus (Justice. What’s the Right Thing to Do?), p. 283,284
12. Edwin Louis Cole: Miehuuden haaste, p. 104
13. Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur: Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, p. 38
14. Liisa Tuovinen, ”Synti vai siunaus?” Inhimillinen tekijä. TV2, 2.11.2004, klo 22.05.
15. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 104
16. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 131
17. Lesboidentiteetti ja kristillisyys, p. 87, Seta julkaisut
18. Sinikka Pellinen: Homoseksuaalinen identiteetti ja kristillinen usko, p. 77, Teron kertomus
19. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!