|
|
|
The following is a message I sent to a few journalists in Helsingin Sanomat (a Finnish newspaper). The topic is the impact of Helsingin Sanomat on society. However, this newspaper is not the only media that affects people. Yes, others do. Also, I understand that many journalists believe they are doing a good job, and I don’t blame anyone. I myself have thought about many things before in the same way they do, so I can’t point anyone’s finger. Indeed, it is only intended to make everyone think more closely about the developments and thought patterns in society and how they may be harmful. There may have been talk of love and other good things, but in reality it is often a matter of selfishness, which results in increased suffering and the cost to society. Some things are also outright lies. Anyway, here's the message I sent:
Helsingin Sanomat increases people's suffering and society's costs and supports lies?
Responsible or irresponsible journalism?
Hey! I am a former atheist and value liberal, now a Christian who believes in Jesus, that is, I look at the world and its evolution through my own worldview and how legislative decisions affect the work of churches. Here is why I am writing. Namely, I am concerned about Helsingin Sanomat's years-long line against traditional values such as marriage and family (except for new and rainbow families), the traditional teaching of sexuality, and the Christian faith in general. It is not taken into account that this practice, which has been going on for years, increases the suffering of people and the costs to society. In addition, some things are clearly wrong or a lie. Helsingin Sanomat claims to represent responsible journalism, but that does not seem to me to be the case. When a newspaper constantly attacks proponents of traditional values and ignores all well-founded counter-arguments and factual arguments, I think this shows a bad way of doing things. In addition, it is worth remembering that public opinion has often erred throughout history. Even if some ideas and thoughts have been popular at some point, it does not guarantee that the ideas are correct and useful. For example, in the late 1930s, more than 90 percent of young people in Germany belonged to the Hitler Jugend youth organization, but they were certainly wrong. Although they were popular at the time, history has shown that they were badly mistaken. Likewise, public opinion condemned Socrates and Jesus to death, so public opinion and the popularity of the people do not guarantee that the right things will be pursued. What are the wrong things that Helsingin Sanomat supports (either directly or indirectly and there are differences in the reporters as well) or which things it drives that increase society's costs? I will list them below. You may be wondering whether the allegations I make are true or false:
1. Helsingin Sanomat supports the killing of children
1. Helsingin Sanomat supports the killing of children
Firstly, the issue of abortion, which Helsingin Sanomat has supported. I understand that due to years of brainwashing in the media, people’s attitudes have been very stuck in this matter. They will feel hostile if the opposite arguments are put forward on this issue, which I myself have put forward. In this matter, however, the truth must be adhered to, not a lie. The first lie is that, in the context of abortion, there is talk of self-determination or of a woman's right to decide on her body. Yes, these are good things, but they don’t fit into this context when the baby is already growing in the mother’s womb. For the fact is that human life always begins at conception, not just at birth. This is a scientific fact that is undeniable. This was also acknowledged in a recent study asking 5,577 biologists around the world when human life begins. 96 percent of them said it starts with fertilization (Erelt, S., Survey asked, 5,577 biologists when human life begins. 96 % said conception; lifenews.com, 11 july 2019). In addition, aborted children have the same body members as adults: hands, feet, eyes, mouth, etc., so it is certainly a child and a human, only smaller in size than a newborn child or adult. This is factual information to which e.g. the following quote refers to:
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.” (Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970)
What if the own logic of abortion supporters is followed? In that case, the killing of children who are a couple of weeks old, a couple of months old or 5 years old should also be allowed. Why has this not yet been done, because the child is both a child and a human being both inside and outside the womb? In both cases, there may be the same reason: the parents do not want the child, but want to get rid of the child. Fortunately, no such legislation has been enacted, but if you think logically, both options should be allowed or both should be banned. However, it is difficult to imagine how a change could take place in the West on this abortion issue because people’s attitudes are so locked in and because each of us (including legislators) fears criticism from others and wants to be popular with people. We act like the people of Jesus' day: These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. (John 12:41-43)
2. Helsingin Sanomat has weakened the position of children by favoring wrong behaving
Characteristic of this time, and which Helsingin Sanomat seems to be driving, is the notion that the current generation is more morally advanced and better than previous generations. It is thought that we are wiser and morally ahead of the generation of our parents and grandparents. However, an indication that the current generation is no better than the previous ones, is increased aggressive and bad behavior towards others. It is already evident in the behavior of children and the inferior behavior of adults towards others. Although there is talk today of tolerance, I do not see any real increase in tolerance. On the other hand, in a few things only the line between right and wrong has been changed (as Helsingin Sanomat has done in sexual matters), but now people are becoming more and more narrow-minded towards people thinking differently and they are not respected. So here are some examples of how people's behavior has deteriorated significantly in recent decades:
Violence of children is becoming more common… The aggression of young children has increased in Finland. (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 20.11.2013)
The heading of the front page: School: ESS poll reveals, teachers subjected to violence, vandalism, threats and parents’ rage
The poll that the teacers 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.
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)
A father hits his child and a son hits his mother more and more often. Violence perpetrated by a parent towars child has more than doubled in ten years. (ESS 3.10.2019)
Discipline or cell phones Schools: Disciple to replace verbiage Eetelä-Suomen Sanomat (13/10/2016) had news about incidents in a school in Lahti. The subtitle on page A4: “teachers experiences even more bullying.” Alarming content glared at me in the end: “41 percent of answered teachers had experiences inappropriate treatment or bullying over the last 12 months.” … Let modern parents turn pale in horror. The classes of us baby boomers had over 40 pupils. In the 1950s, the grammar school of Tammela had 44 pupils on the third and fourth grades. I remember a lot of things, but not disruptions during class. There were no cell phones, people were not aware of ADHD. Pupils used to learn in school, because Finland was poverty-stricken and needed generations that could create a welfare state with their labor. In the 1960s, in Tampere lyseo high school, one was not allowed to say a single word in mathematics and physics classes! Expect when answering the teacher’s questions, of course. People focused on the teaching. As a result of strict discipline, my peers did not become disturbed adults, but instead professors, graduate engineers, judges, and doctors. ... As a professional in health care, I bring forth the behavior of patients. When I was on duty in the emergency room in the central hospital in 1974, there was no fear that patients could be violent or threatening. Today, it is a constant phenomenon in the emergency rooms. They learnt it somewhere. What happens when no one (from Finland) wants to be on emergency duty – or teach? As we’ve lost discipline, we’ve also lost civilized behavior. Restoring discipline is simple, if wanted. But the will of people seems to steer towards adapting to the consequences of unruliness. More resources, more resources, more debt. Well, unruly administrators will get exactly that. Jyrki Joensuu, specialized doctor in general medicine and psychiatry, Lahti (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 17/10/2016 / from reader)
Another area is mental disorders in children and adolescents. They have exploded over the years. This is shown by the following news before corona disease:
Almost a billion euros used in institutional care for children and youthProblems with children experienced strong rise since early 1990s
The expenses arising from institutional and family care in child welfare are currently increasing by more than 10% per year. This year, institutional and family care for children and the young will cost around EUR 670 million. If the sum continues to increase, it will exceed the billion-euro limit in five years. The number of children in institutional care has doubled since the early 1990s. Problems with children have increased to such an extent that most custody decisions are now urgent. …The institutional care of one child can cost up to EUR 100,000 per year … (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 31 October 2010)
Intoxicants take younger and younger to institutions. The number of notifications and the cost of institutional care have increased enormously. (ESS 7.11.2019)
The minds of young people are shaken. Mental health: Referrals to adolescent psychiatric specialist care have increased dramatically… (Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 25.9.2018)
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. (ESS, 30.5.2017)
What are the causes of increased mental health problems in children and young people? I consider the main reason the breakdown of families, and that the father in particular is missing from the family. The situation is illustrated by the fact that at the end of the 1960s only 5% of children in Finland were born out of wedlock, while in the early 1990s 25% of children were born out of wedlock, and now the figure is over 50%. Bad ideology and its acceptance has been a tragedy for children. That is, if the parents are not properly committed before having sex, the position of the children being born is awkward. How does this topic relate to the activities of the media and Helsingin Sanomat? In short, if we go back decades, the media then brought out people who were in sexual intercourse without committing to marriage before. They were considered in the media as a kind of hero. Matti Joensuu talks about the development decades ago, when new morality was introduced. Sex was separated from marriage, and this contributed to an increasing number of children being born in unsafe situations when they were born to parents who had not properly committed to marriage before sexual intercourse. In addition to the suffering of children, the social costs to society have increased at a time when parents have been weakly connected to each other (bold added).
(...) 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. (...) Even though, according to my observations, the atmosphere of public conversation in Finland had changed surprisingly much between the years 1965 and 1968, the topical questions discussed everywhere else in the world were the same as in Finland. The difference was only in the vehemence of conversation and perhaps in the fact that in a small country like Finland, small active groups can almost overpower the media. In addition, we are probably still unaccustomed to public conversation. So the simple attitude of being right becomes dominant in a small country like Finland much easier than in larger countries. (1)
Thus, free sexual relations and cohabitation were supported by Helsingin Sanomat and other media. Before sex, between only a husband and wife were considered right, which was the best situation for children. However, when the media gave space and support to the representatives of the new morality, this had catastrophic consequences for children. More and more of them were born out of wedlock. The change has taken place over the years. As noted, in the late 1960s, only 5% of children were born out of wedlock, and in the early 1990s, 25% of them were born out of wedlock, and now over 50%. The ever-weakening commitment of parents to each other has been a tragedy for children. But this was not the only case. Another deterioration was the Divorce Act of 1987, which made it easier to obtain a divorce. That, too, originated from a debate on the media side that eventually affected lawmakers. Without the activities of Helsingin Sanomat and other media, this law would hardly have been changed. That law greatly increased the number of divorces, and many marriages that did not have major problems broke up. The development is illustrated by the fact that at the beginning of the last century there were only just over a hundred divorces a year in Finland; now almost every other marriage ends in divorce. The media has contributed greatly to the breakdown of families and the deterioration of the situation of children. The costs of family breakdown and divorce are also raised. When Helsingin Sanomat and other media have supported a positive attitude towards divorce and extramarital sex, this has increasingly affected the break-up of families. While Marriages have disintegrated as a result of media involvement, society’s costs have risen. I will first take the news of how divorces are becoming costly for many and for society as a whole:
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 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)
Another piece of news relates to housing subsidies (Another, recent piece of news reported that the state already pays a third of all rents.). As families break up, more and more housing benefits will have to be paid, which have steadily increased. Part of the reason for the increase in subsidies is also that politicians removed rent regulation from Finland twenty years ago:
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, 8.1.2017)
3. Helsingin Sanomat supports the fact that children do not have both biological parents
Then to modern time and the position of children. Now Helsingin Sanomat supports the same harmful model as the media in previous decades. This is evident in the fact that Helsingin Sanomat talks about rainbow and new families or polygamy in a positive light, but attacks those who defend the usual family model: father, mother and children (a matter advocated in Finland by, among others, the Aito avioliitto Association). It is argued that defending the ordinary family model, in which, however, the majority of people have grown up, would represent some kind of repression against other family models. The fact is, however, that children need both a father and a mother. A new family, a rainbow family (two fathers or two mothers), or orphanages can never be as good options as having a child grow up with both of their biological parents. In other words, there is no discrimination in this matter but a statement of the facts. Of course, there are no perfect parents, but thousands and thousands of examples have shown how children who grow up without both parents have more mental health and other problems. If orphanages, where children may have many parents, were the best options for children, then children raised in orphanages would have the best conditions for life. However, statistics show the opposite. They clearly have the most mental health problems, crime, substance abuse and other problems. In contrast, children raised in ordinary families (own father and mother and children) have the least problems:
Research clearly shows that the structure of the family matters for children and that they are best supported by a family structure, that has two biological parents in marriage leading the family, and that the parent’s level of conflict is low. Children in single parent families, children born to unmarried women, and children in blended or unmarried families have a greater risk at developing bad habits - - That is why it is important, for the child, to promote strong and stable marriages between biological parents. (3)
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. (4)
The following example shows the significance of family breakdown and when a father is absent from a family. It leads to social and other problems. In families with both parents, such problems are less severe.
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. (5)
If we mention the rainbow families (two mothers or two fathers) that Helsingin Sanomat reports positively about, then of course we should love these people. You can't ignore this. However, the question arises as to why a child is intentionally made fatherless or motherless and why Helsingin Sanomat supports such an ideology (Helsingin Sanomat's support for Pride marches, etc.)? Why is it preferred that children acquired either through temporary heterosexual relationships or through artificial methods (fertility treatments, uterine rental) should not live with their other biological parent? This is not a good situation for children, as they are separated from their other biological parent from birth. Similarly, one may ask why gender is considered important to an adult but not to a child? Anthony Esolen has drawn attention to this inconsistency, where the feelings and desires of adults are more important than those of children:
We cannot at the same time say: ‘Gender of a child’s parents does not matter’, and immediately say that adults’ sleeping partner has so much importance that there is no way they can adjust their lifestyle to be more natural. A son does not need a father, since gender does not matter. But his mother needs a ’wife’, and we cannot expect her to take a husband, because in this case gender does natter more than anything else in the entire universe. (6)
Those who have themselves grown up in a homosexual family have criticized the practice of depriving a child of the right to a father or mother in this way; invoking equality between adults. They are deprived of the right to one of their parents. Jean-Dominique Bunel, who grew up with her lesbian mother and this female partner, tells how she experienced it. He suffered from his father's lack. He, on the other hand, also says that if a gender-neutral marriage had already been in place during his growing up, he would have sued the state because it allowed his child’s rights to be violated:
Not having a father left like amputation to me… I suffered from being fatherless, from the lack of his daily presence and not having an example of masculine character, which would have balanced my mother’s relationship with her lover. I was aware of this deprivation from early on. (7)
The second comment continues on the same subject. The lack of a father or mother is the reason why children raised in a homosexual environment find it difficult. The point is not that an individual homosexual parent could not function well in his or her role as a parent, but that in this setting the child is left from the beginning and on purpose without the presence of another biological parent. There is often talk in this area of love and equality, but is it not really a question of selfishness because the right of children to a father and mother is being denied? Growing up in a lesbian home, Robert Oscar Lopez has drawn attention to such rhetoric:
We can often hear that same-sex couples have loving homes and that they love their children. This does not convince me, because love means making sacrifices for the one you love, and not excepting the other to sacrifice for you. If you are a homosexual and you love your child, you will either sacrifice your homosexuality and raise the child in a home where they will have a mother and a father, or you will give up your dream of becoming a parent and accept the fact that adoptive children will be given to homes which have a mother and a father. If a child is an orphan, a special needs child, or an abandoned child in social institution, they need both a mother and a father more than anyone, because they need stability, and normality because of the traumas they have had. You cannot ask a child to sacrifice something so universal as a mother and a father for you own sake. (8)
One related area is the acquisition of children through artificial methods such as infertility treatments - an activity that can be used by both female couples and single women. (Male couples can have children through uterine rent, which is also problematic because the child has to live without the mother’s presence). Many children born through this have openly told about their identity problems and longing to meet their biological father (a sperm donor) that they have never seen. The following quote shows how children’s identity problems and the longing to meet their missing parents are not taken into account in this matter.
Katrina Clark was born to a single mother who used artificial insemination and an unknown donor. The mother always told her daughter openly about it, and they had a close and loving relationship. However, as she grew older, the daughter began to struggle with identity issues and began to observe her friends who had both parents. In a column he wrote for the Washington Post at the age of 20, he writes: “That’s when the feeling of emptiness took over. I realized I was in a sense a weirdness. I would never have a father. I finally understood what it means to be a child produced with the help of an anonymous donor, and I hated it. ” (9)
Helsingin Sanomat has strongly supported the Pride marches and the related ideology. It includes same-sex sex but also transideology. But what are the consequences of transideology and if a person does not accept his or her own sex at birth? Helsingin Sanomat does not take into account the health disadvantages of this ideology at all. Often the result is the so-called gender reassignment surgery, in which is amputated healthy limbs and is used hormones for the rest of your life. These people become lifelong patients, lifelong users of hormones, as a result of which they can suffer serious bodily ailments such as bone loss, cancer, infertility, heart disease, venous thrombosis, blood clots, liver damage… The risk of suicide in adulthood is almost 20 times higher than in the rest of the population. This has also been found in Sweden, where gender ideology has been most advanced (10). Based on the above, it is remarkable that Helsingin Sanomat and other media criticize the circumcision of girls for good reason, but at the same time support transideology, which can lead to the same type of outcome. This is an obvious contradiction. The following quote tells the sad story of where this ideology, supported by Helsingin Sanomat, leads. This is a blogger named Musta Orkidea. She sees that transgender is a mental problem, not a physical problem. She compares it to anorexia, in which a person's image of himself/herself is distorted:
“Some of my body parts have been removed. I have no breasts, because they were removed, and there are scars in my lower stomach that were wounds, through which other parts of my body have been removed, parts that were naturally a part of me. My face shape has changed. Hair grows on my face. My voice has changed into something completely unrecognizable… I cannot conceive a child, and I am entirely sterile even as a woman… My current name is not my real name. My identity is a made-up identity and I have the wrong papers. I am not a man but a mutilated woman… For years, I have lived in a lie, and made myself think that I am something I’m not… I have crossed a line and there is no coming back. I can never get back something that has once been cut off. Sex change surgeries are irreversible. Once the body is broken, you can never repair it. I am completely unfixable. Nothing can be done… It is not possible to be born in the wrong body. The human body has existed long before there has been any awareness, or formation of identity. The body and mind are not separate from each other, nor do they exist as separate or singular entities. They are always one. The thought of the possibility that one could be the opposite gender on the inside is ridiculous. Trans-sexuality and identity disorders and this disorder exist between the ears, not in the body. Sex is a physical quality of the body like height, shoe size, or hair color. One cannot change their sex, like you cannot change your race or height… Trans-sexuality is very much like anorexia. It is like having symptoms of the same condition but in a different form” (Musta orkidea: Viimeisen muurin takana on totuus. [The truth lies behind the last wall])
5. Helsingin Sanomat supports the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and other diseases
Then there is the issue of homosexuality, which Helsingin Sanomat often reports about and always considers homosexuality a good thing. Helsingin Sanomat has also written positively about Pride marches, in which homosexual behaving such as transideology has been highlighted. But but. When Helsingin Sanomat supports homosexuality, it leads people on a path that destroys the physical health and lives of many. Even if the purpose of the journalists is good, their writing will lead to the opposite. In addition, Helsingin Sanomat's operations significantly increase society's costs. The reasons are as follows:
• Sex- and other diseases (including Korona) are spread through sex, which homosexuals have more than average. For example, AIDS, which costs about € 20,000 a year per patient, is one such disease. It started in the United States in the 1980s mainly among homosexuals. Changing lifestyles makes this disease easier to avoid and people themselves benefit from it. Professor David Deming has written on:
The fact that two-thirds of cases of syphilis and AIDS concerns one percent of the population clearly shows that homosexuality is not a safe choice ... I am disturbed by hypocrisy. Many ardent supporters of the homosexual agenda condemn opponents of mandatory vaccinations. They remind us that vaccinations serve the common good by reducing disease. But they do not accept that the reduction in homosexuality achieves the same goal ... We are constantly told about the costs of gun violence, smoking and obesity. What are the costs of homosexuality? How much does it cost to treat syphilis, AIDS and a whole host of other diseases? What price do we have to pay for the fact that syphilis, which was almost defeated, has now been allowed to spread again? (11)
• What about alcohol and drugs, which cost society hundreds of millions of euros (Kauppalehti reported on 16 September 2011: "Alcohol costs society around € 1 billion a year. Indirect costs are as much as € 5 billion")? Millions and millions who have turned to God and Jesus can tell how they have been freed from these substances as well as from crime. In addition, they have begun to heal from the wounds of the past, which are often behind the use of substances. Many homosexuals have the same problem. Many of them have an alcohol or drug addiction for which God’s transforming power and encountering His love would be a good help. That is, when a person understands God’s grace and love, he begins to heal from the burdens and weighty things of the past. Sometimes God can change a person’s innermost at one moment, but usually change and healing is a process. However, the operations of Helsingin Sanomat, for example, push these people deeper into the use of substances and the wrong lifestyles. In “Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health” (1998), Robert P. Capaj describes how chemical abuse is common among gay men and lesbians:
Most studies (...), reports (...), surveys (...) and healthcare professionals who have worked with gays and lesbians estimate that around 30%, varying between 28 and 35%, of homosexual people abuse some chemical substance. Among the general population, around 10–12% of people are substance abusers. (...) The figures are significantly similar in urban and rural areas, among different socioeconomic groups, in the United States and other countries – even though some differences in substance abuse do occur. (12)
• What about life expectancy? It is a fact that it is very much affected by lifestyles: tobacco, alcohol, drugs, overeating and mental health problems, etc. If a person gets rid of these addictions and problems, his or her lifespan is likely to be longer. In addition, there are a wide variety of associations (AA movement, Get Off Drugs…), courses, and advice on how to get rid of these issues. Indeed, some can succeed in their goals, and that will increase their life expectancy. Many homosexuals and bisexuals have the same problem. Their life expectancy is also lower than normal. Part of the reason for this is AIDS and other diseases that are spread through sexual intercourse. (Fortunately, the situation has improved due to AIDS drugs). The following quote tells more about the subject. Helsingin Sanomat claims to be concerned about these people, but it doesn't seem to be because the newspaper's line is pushing people further and further into a lifestyle that is detrimental to health and can shorten people's life expectancy.
The probability of bisexual and homosexual men living from the age of 20 to 65 ranged from 32 to 59 percent. These figures are significantly lower than for other men in general, who had a 78 percent probability of living from the age of 20 to 65. Conclusion: In a large Canadian city, the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men in their 20s is 8 to 20 years lower than that of other men. If the same trend in mortality continued, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men now 20 years old will not reach their 65th birthday. Even according to the most liberal expectations, gay and bisexual men in this urban center currently have the same life expectancy as all men in Canada in 1871. (International Journal of Epidemiology Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay andBisexual men; International Journal of Epidemiology; Vol 26, No 3, s. 657)
6. Helsingin Sanomat supports the abolition of religious freedom
When studying history, that is, communism and Nazi Germany, it was characteristic of these societies that only one kind of opinion in favor of governments was allowed. People were imprisoned and taken to court for other opinions. The birth of totalitarianism, which was in these countries in the last century, is basically a simple matter. It requires only the following conditions:
1. Strong opinion and perception. 2. It is not wanted to give others the right to a different opinion. People are becoming more and more negative towards dissidents, the last step of which is “zero tolerance” where other opposing opinions are not tolerated. This can be both a secular and a religious notion (religious coercion is represented by, among other things, modern-day Islam, where those who reject Islam are killed, as well as medieval papacy), which does not give others the right to be a different opinion. 3. Last is the power that these people attain and begin, from their position of power, to harass those who think differently. Once freedom of opinion is abolished, totalitarian power extends to new and new areas of life. This was the case in communist countries and Nazi Germany. In Germany, for example, this all happened in a democratic way, so the same development is very possible and probable even in Western countries today. It is worth remembering that before the Nazis, Germany was one of the most developed states of its time. There were published e.g. more books than in other European countries.
How does the former relate to the operations of modern time and Helsingin Sanomat? In short, Helsingin Sanomat has for years created an atmosphere that allows for the emergence of similar totalitarianism as in communist countries and Nazi Germany. Back then, it was wrong to criticize rulers in particular, but now “wrong opinion” can be the biblical teaching on sexuality. Homosexual forced programming, represented in Finland by Helsingin Sanomat in particular, has led to a situation where “wrong opinions” about sexuality lead to a burst of criticism (eg. the bisexual case of Ann, who was heavily attacked and wanted to silence), the workplace (eg. the case of Aki Ruotsala) and reputation loss or litigation (the trial of Päivi Räsänen would certainly not have taken place without years of brainwashing by Helsingin Sanomat and other media). A gender-neutral way of life and ideology is accepted in the name of tolerance, while refusing to tolerate the traditional Christian teaching of sexuality. It is refused to consider any reasoning. It is a different kind of coercion than the coercion of the last century. The 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” and “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”, but Helsingin Sanomat does not seem to respect this Declaration of Human Rights, which was drafted immediately after the Second World War. So what to expect? Although Helsingin Sanomat does not directly talk about the abolition of religious freedom, in practice the line of Helsingin Sanomat leads to it. As a result, we will see more and more trials and informers in the churches, just as in the communist countries of their time. Is this what Helsingin Sanomat's journalists want? I see it as an inevitable consequence of current developments. Of course, Jesus himself warned in advance that going to court could be one of the consequences of following him:
- (Matt 10:19) But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what you shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what you shall speak.
7. Helsingin Sanomat follows in the footsteps of the Communists
If you read Helsingin Sanomat and other major newspapers, they claim to represent responsible journalism. But, as has been said, the same newspapers and media have played a key role in advocating false currents and attitudes that have increased the cost to society and the suffering of people. It is not just a matter of modern time, but of the decades-long practices in the media that claim to represent responsible journalism. The media has had an impact on legislation so that at some point the laws have changed in a harmful direction. Examples of this are free sex, cohabitation, and easier divorce (the 1987 Divorce Act in Finland). These issues and related changes in the law came into force with the help of the media. All of these things increased the suffering of the children because many of the children were born out of wedlock or the parents divorced as a result of the eased legislation. In addition to children's suffering, society's social costs have risen at the same time as the parents are not properly committed to each other. (the aforementioned news reported: ”The number of children in institutional care has doubled since the early 1990s. Problems with children have increased to such an extent that most custody decisions are now urgent …The institutional care of one child can cost up to EUR 100,000 per year…”). Another example is abortion, or killing children ("You shall not kill" Exodus 20:13). Prior to its legalization, it was preceded by a media rush that affected lawmakers to change the law. There are now an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 missing people in Finland who would still be at working age. In addition, the skew of the population pyramid has led to an economic problem. There would probably be no pension problem or it would be much less severe if these people were still alive. There would be more young working taxpayers, more tax revenue would accrue and it would be easier to manage pension and other social spending if there were more taxpayers. Why does the media work like this? Personally, I see the reason that journalists believe they are working for love and human rights and that they are fighting discrimination. For example, the sexual revolution that began in the late 1960s was nominally based on love. It was said that if only both love each other, they can have sexual intercourse without committing to marriage. However, it led to more and more people coming parents in situations where they were not properly committed to each other. This was a tragedy for children as has already been said. The same approach continues today in the matter of homosexuality. It is said that if both love each other, that is a great thing. It is also argued that if someone calls homosexual intercourse a sin, it represents discrimination against people. In this way, the matter is explained in the media, even though it is only a matter of differences of opinion on right and wrong. Before, homosexual behavior, like ordinary heterosexual sex outside of marriage, was considered misconduct, but no longer. With the help of the media, moral perceptions have changed in these areas. What about the teaching of history? One of the lessons of history is that history often repeats itself and nothing is learned from the past. This comes to mind when comparing today’s currents to what happened in the last century. For example, opposition to the Christian faith and morality was characteristic of both Nazi Germany and the communist countries, and Helsingin Sanomat has largely followed the same line. In 1937, Himmler, a second man of Nazi German, wrote about how their ideology was in conflict with the Christian faith:
We live in an era of ultimate conflict with Christianity. One of the tasks of the SS is to provide the German people in the next half century with the non-Christian foundation on which the people can live and shape their lives. This task does not only consist of defeating the ideological opponent, but should be accompanied by a positive contribution at every step: in this case, it means building the Germanic heritage in the broadest and most comprehensive sense. (13)
One interesting example of how the same kind of harmful morality has been driven in the past as in the present is the family experiment of our neighbor, the former Soviet Union. Matti Joensuu has written in his book “Avoliitto, avioliitto ja perhe”. In the Soviet Union, the early communists, after coming to power, carried out exactly what is marching for today and which Helsingin Sanomat has been pushing for. Among other things, divorce was made easy (it took place in Finland in 1987), abortion was legalized, sexual relations outside a man's and wife's marriage were accepted, homosexual relations were treated favorably, and even gender reassignment surgeries were performed. In the Soviet Union, these changes in the law were implemented in a short time, when everything here has been slower. What was the outcome of the Soviet family experiment? It only lasted 10-15 years, because it was found to be harmful to society. Social problems increased, financial costs increased, birth rates decreased and crime increased. As a result, in the 1930s, the atheist regime again changed its legislation and began attacking abortion and free sex. The practice showed how the rejection of proper sexual morality causes confusion in society. Here is a quote from Joensuu's book (bold added):
Very extensive experiments connected to the family institution was carried out in the Soviet Union since the revolution. When in Oneida Community it was a question of 300 persons, in the Soviet Union it is a question of at least 200 million people who also represent perhaps 170 nationalities. (…) In 1917, in the second month of the new governmental power, laws concerning marriage were published. Marriage in church was replaced with civil marriage. Divorce was permitted if one of the spouses asked for it. The following year these laws were complemented by imposing the birth of a child as the basis of marriage. There was to be no difference between children born in or outside of wedlock. (…) A more radical change came into effect in Russia in 1926 and immediately after also in other parts of the Soviet Union. According to this change, the registration of marriage was not necessary. (…) Thus, none of the responsibilities and rights of the spouses or children were dependent upon the registration of the marriage. In 1926, divorcing was made even more easy. Either both spouses or one of them could apply for divorce without giving any justification. (…) At first, there were no laws concerning sexual behavior. In 1920, abortion was legalized. Another law made adultery, bigamy, and incest acts not requiring punishment. The prevailing attitude was that there were to be no hindrances to free sexual relationships and no reactionary morals. Attempts to take contraceptives into use were taken and the idea was to abolish all shame concerning illegitimacy. (…) The consequence was that divorces became more common (…) the number of illegitimate children increased. (…) The number of abortions, according to some statements, ‘horribly’ increased. Women were in many cases forced to choose between their social status or maternity. (…) When the number of abortions increased, the birthrate in towns decreased. Worried statements concerning this were presented already in 1926. It was assessed in 1922 that the number of homeless children rose to about nine million. (…) Obviously, however, the breaking up of family relations caused an increase in juvenile delinquency. Many newspapers wrote about this phenomenon, called hooliganism, in the late 20s and in the early 30s. In 1929, hooliganism was deemed the most difficult problem. The number of juvenile delinquents was said to have doubled between the years 1929 and 1935. Groups of young people hanged around the towns and did all sorts of bad acts, such as attacked helpless citizens. There was talk about vandalism, thefts, burglaries, rapes, even murders that had increased over a short period of time. A turning point in the family politics of the Soviet Union took place in 1934-35. (…) There is no need to clarify here in what way the official way of thinking changed. The main point is that the social defects and decay were acknowledged and powerful propaganda against hooliganism, irresponsible sexual behavior, and abortions was begun. ... (14)
8. Helsingin Sanomat supports a lie
Helsingin Sanomat has advertised on its pages: “There is a greater need for facts now than ever before”, and this is a good idea. However, I see that many media outlets, including Helsingin Sanomat, falsely teach about the origin and age of the universe. They forbid creation and bring out views based on an atheistic worldview and imagination, not scientific knowledge. They teach outright lies about these things. The naturalistic or atheistic conception of the beginning of the universe and life and of millions of years cannot be true. Or, if the naturalistic or atheistic view of the beginning of the universe and life and of millions of years were correct, clear and science-based answers should be given to the following questions:
1. 1. How could the universe appear from nowhere, as is supposed to have happened in the Big Bang? Several astronomers consider this notion unscientific. David Berlinski has stated: ”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) 2. How were galaxies and stars born? Some animations and popular books may explain that they were born of themselves, but numerous leading astronomers admit that they have no knowledge of how they were actually formed. 3. What about the birth of the solar system and the earth? This is not known either, although some think they know. All known naturalistic theories are imaginative, and numerous scientists have been honest enough to admit this. 4. What about the birth of life? If life had been born of itself, this matter would have been resolved a long time ago. However, there is a stalemate in this matter, and a solution will certainly not be found because God’s creative work is not recognized. The fact is that only life brings life, and no exception has been found to this rule. It refers even more clearly to the Creator in the case of the first life forms. What if someone believes in the birth of life on their own, as I used to believe? It is a matter of pure imagination, not scientific knowledge. Here are some more quotes from scientists, and what they have said on the subject.
I believe that we should go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this thought is ostracized by physicists and, actually, by me as well, but we should not reject it only if empirical data supports it and we don’t like that. (H. Lipson, ” A Physicist Looks at Evolution”, Physics Bulletin, 31, 1980)
Scientists don’t have any evidence against the notion that life came to be as the result of creation. (Robert Jastrow: The Enchanted Loom, Mind in the Universe, 1981)
The following quote is also related to the topic. Stanley Miller was interviewed at the end of his life. He has become known for his experiments on the birth of life, which have been repeatedly presented on the pages of school and science books, but these experiments have nothing to do with the birth of life. J. Morgan has narrated an interview in which Miller considered all proposals for the birth of life to be nonsense or paper chemistry. This paper chemistry also included experiments by Miller himself decades earlier, pictures of which have adorned school textbooks:
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. (15)
5. If the theory of evolution is true, why has it never been observed in rocks? Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist (atheist) of our time, has admitted: ”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. (...)” (The Panda’s Thumb, 1988, s. 182,183). If the theory of evolution is true, why is there no evidence of intermediate forms in natural history museums either? The following quotes are related to this topic. Natural history museums should have evidence of the existence of intermediate forms required by the theory of evolution, but they do not have this evidence, even though hundreds of millions of fossils have already been excavated:
Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum: In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (16)
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. [17])
The following statement continues on the same subject. The late Dr Colin Patterson was a senior paleontologist and fossil expert at the British Museum (Natural History). He wrote a book about evolution - but when someone asked him why his book didn’t have any pictures of intermediate forms (organisms in transition), he wrote the following answer. In his reply, he refers to Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist in the world (bold added):
I agree completely with your opinion concerning the lack of illustrations in my book about organisms which are evolutionarily in the transitional stage. If I were conscious of any such, of a fossil or of living, I would have willingly included them in my book. You propose that I should use an artist to illustrate such intermediate forms but from where would he get information for his drawings? Honestly saying, I could not offer him this information, and if I should leave the matter for an artist, would it not lead the reader astray? I wrote the text of my book four years ago [in the book he tells that he believes in some intermediate forms]. If I were to write it now, I think that the book would be rather different. Gradualism (changing gradually) is a concept in which I do believe. Not just because of the prestige of Darwin but because my comprehension of the genetics seems to require it. However, it is difficult to claim against [famous fossil expert Stephen J.] Gould and other people of the American museum when they say that there are no intermediate forms. As a palaeontologist, I work much with philosophical problems when recognizing ancient forms of organisms from the fossil material. You say that I should also at least 'present a photo of a fossil, from which the certain organism group evolved.' I speak directly – there is no fossil that would be a watertight piece of evidence. (18)
6. Helsingin Sanomat, like other media, constantly mentions for millions of years. However, if millions of years are true, why dinosaurs, considered the best representatives of millions of years, are found to have substances that should not survive for millions of years. Radiocarbon has been found in dinosaur fossils (http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html), with an official half-life of only 5730 years. DNA, with a half-life of only 521 years (yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13.10.2012, DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta raukesivat), has been found in them [Sarfati, J. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation(1):10-12, 2013; creation.com/dino-dna, 11 december 2012]. Similarly, blood cells have been found in dinosaurs [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993], soft tissues, and proteins [Schweitzer, M. and 6 others, Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis, Science 324 (5927): 626-631, 2009] which should not last more than 100,000 years (Bada, J et al. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354, [1379]). Why is it that human tradition also repeatedly speaks of dragons resembling dinosaurs as normal animals (the name dinosaur was only invented in the 19th century)? The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265) has referred to these accounts: “The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology.” What can be deduced from the above? It is pointless to talk about millions of years, as dozens of dinosaur fossils refer to a short age, as do references to dragons in human tradition. Dinosaur fossils do not have labels of their age, but at least they cannot be more than 65 million years old. Many of them are at least as well-preserved as mammoths, so there is reason to believe that millions of years are a lie. There is no way they can be true.
Closing remarks. Dear readers! In some places I may have written quite heavily. The intention has not been to be sharp and not to stand above anyone. Instead, I’ve been trying to get people to think more about these things, and where they lead. Above all, I challenge everyone to research the validity of the Christian faith, which I have written about on my website (www.jariiivanainen.net). The following words of Jesus also call for this study: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17).
Sincerely yours and best regards Jari Iivanainen
REFERENCES:1. Matti Joensuu: Avoliitto, avioliitto ja perhe, p. 12-14 2. David Popenoe (1996): Life without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society. New York: Free Press. 3. Kristin Anderson Moore & Susan M. Jekielek & Carol Emig:” Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We do About it”, Child Trends Research Brief, Child Trends, June 2002, http:www. childrentrends.org&/files/marriagerb602.pdf.) 4. Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur: Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, p. 38 5. Edwin Louis Cole: Miehuuden haaste, p. 104 6. Anthony Esolen: Defending Marriage: Twelve Arguments for Sanity (2014), Charlotte, NC: Saint Benedict Press, p. 149 7. Jean-Marc Guénois: “J’ai été élevé par deux femmes”, Le Figaro 1.10.2013 8. Robert Oscar Lopez, p. 114 9. Tapio Puolimatka: Yhteiskuntakoe lapsilla?, p. 109 10. Dhejne C et.al: Long-term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery - Cohort Study in Sweden.” Plos ONE 2011; 6 (2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neurosciene, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 11. David Deming: The Gay Agenda and the Real World, American Thinker, December 19, 2015. 12. Robert P. Capaj: ”Substance Abuse in Gay Men, Lesbians and Bisexuals” teoksessa Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, toim. Robert P. Capaj ja Terry S. Stein. 1998, 783-784. Washington, London: American Psychiatric Press Inc 13. Peter Longerich: Heinrich Himmler, p. 270 14. Matti Joensuu: Avoliitto, avioliitto ja perhe, p. 85-91 15. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley 16. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94 17. Sit. kirjasta "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19. 18. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 15,16
Read how the Christian faith has improved human rights and conditions of people
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
Read how the Christian faith has improved human rights and conditions of people
|
