9/3/15

From Mark Copeland... "GOD’S WILL FOR YOU" In Everything Give Thanks

                          "GOD’S WILL FOR YOU"

                       In Everything Give Thanks

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous two lessons, we saw that it is God’s will...
   a. That you rejoice always
   b. That you pray without ceasing

2. As we return to our beginning text (1Th 5:16-18), we learn that it
   also God’s will...
   a. That we give thanks in everything - 1Th 5:18
   b. "give thanks in all circumstances" - ESV
   c. "be thankful in all circumstances" - NLT

[Not only are we to be thankful in everything, but for everything (Ep
5:20)!  To understand why this is God's will for you, let's consider...]

I. THE NEED TO GIVE THANKS

   A. INGRATITUDE DISPLEASES GOD...
      1. It is included among other sins that would be prevalent in
         "perilous times" - 2Ti 3:1-5
      2. The wrath of God will be revealed against those who are
         unthankful - Ro 1:18-21

   B. WE ARE TO HAVE THE ATTITUDE OF GRATITUDE...
      1. Thankful for what the Father has done for us - Col 1:12-14
      2. Abounding in thanksgiving - Col 2:7
      3. A part of the "garment" we are to put on - Col 3:12-15
      4. A complement to our prayers - Col 4:2; 1Ti 2:1

   C. THANKFULNESS IS KEY...
      1. To overcoming anxiety - Php 4:6
      2. To obtaining the peace of God which surpasses understanding
         - Php 4:6-7
      3. To pray without ceasing, and to rejoicing always - 1Th 5:16-18
         a. When we give thanks in everything, we will pray without ceasing!
         b. When we pray without ceasing, we will rejoice always!
      4. NB:  thankfulness in everything -> praying without ceasing ->
         rejoicing always!

[If we desire to have the peace which passes understanding, that joy
which is inexpressible (1Pe 1:8), then we need to develop the attitude
of gratitude, being thankful in everything!  Some thoughts on...]

II. HOW TO BE THANKFUL IN EVERYTHING

   A. REMEMBER THAT ALL THINGS WORK FOR GOOD...
      1. If we love God and have responded to His call - Ro 8:28
         a. Loving God presumes obedience to His will - 1Jn 5:3
         b. Responding to His call presumes obeying the gospel - cf. 2Th 2:13-14
      2. We can therefore glory in tribulation - Ro 5:3-5
         a. Knowing that it produces character
         b. Which in turn produces hope
      3. We can therefore rejoice in persecution - Mt 5:10-12
         a. Knowing that the kingdom of heaven is ours
         b. Knowing that our reward in heaven will be great
      4. We can therefore rejoice in trials - Jm 1:2-3
         a. Knowing that trials produces patience
         b. Knowing that patience produces perfection and completeness (maturity)

   B. EXPRESS THANKS IN EVERY PRAYER...
      1. We are to include thanksgiving with our prayer requests - Php 4:6
         a. Every time you pray for something, first thank God for something
         b. "Count your many blessings, name them one by one,
            And it will surprise you what the Lord hath done."
            - Johnson Oatman, Jr., 1856-1922
      2. Even when we are facing hard times - e.g., Dan 6:10-11
         a. Daniel made the giving of thanks part of his daily prayers
         b. Even when facing life-threatening crisis, he gave thanks as always

CONCLUSION

1. William Hendriksen has beautifully expressed the importance of giving thanks:

   When a person prays without giving thanks, he has clipped
   the wings of prayer, so that it cannot rise.

2. Do you want...
   a. The full benefit of prayer in your life?
   b. The ability to rejoice always, in every circumstance?

Then take the time to thank God in everything, indeed, for everything
(Ep 5:20), knowing that God can use it for your good (Ro 8:28).

Do this, and you will not only do what is God’s will for you, but you
will become "more than conquerors" through the love of Christ and the
love of God...! - cf. Ro 8:35-39

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011


Proof of Bible Inspiration: Shaking the Head by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1674

Proof of Bible Inspiration: Shaking the Head

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Can mere humans predict future events? Not in actuality, since no human being knows the future. Only Deity can do so, or empower a human to do so. For example, living at the beginning of the 21st century, who could possibly provide very detailed, very specific information about the execution of an individual in another country and culture a thousand years into the future? Such ability is beyond human capability. Yet, the Bible portrays just this quality, thereby demonstrating its divine origin.
For example, in a clearly Messianic psalm, King David quoted the Messiah as saying: “All those who see Me ridicule Me; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, ‘He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him; let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!’” (Psalm 22:7-8, emp. added). In another psalm, a similar allusion is made: “I also have become a reproach to them; when they look at me, they shake their heads” (Psalm 109:25, emp. added). The individual or individuals who wrote these statements had been dead for centuries when Jesus came to the Earth and fulfilled their predictions. Historical fact verifies that the Psalms were complete centuries prior to the first century A.D. And the actions that were fulfilled were not fulfilled by sympathetic persons, but were, in fact, fulfilled unwittingly by hostile enemies of the Messiah. Consider Matthew’s account of what happened at the cross:
And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing (Matthew 27:39-44, emp. added).
How in the world could anyone predict that those who attended the crucifixion would “shake their heads” at Jesus? Lucky guess?
Well over 300 prophecies are scattered throughout the Old Testament that refer specifically to the Messiah. Such a number could not be gleaned artificially from the Old Testament and made accidentally to match the host of circumstances that characterized the life and death of Jesus Christ hundreds of years later in the first century A.D. This point is especially weighty when one sees the specificity of the predictions, from His birth village to His tormentors spitting on Him. Jesus’ disciples were scattered and hiding in fear (yet another feature predicted—Zechariah 13:7), with most of them likely not even attending the crucifixion (Matthew 26:56; John 16:32). They lacked the facility, opportunity, and wherewithal to identify hundreds of minute details about Jesus’ life and death, and then find matching components in the Old Testament text. A few coincidences might have some counterweight, but 300+ such predictions that entail minute details of Jesus’ life on Earth are overwhelming proof of the supernatural element. Indeed, there is an unprecedented cumulative impact of so many details converging into one Person. Only one conclusion is possible: the only way a writer could pinpoint such specific details is if he was guided in his writing by a divine, transcendent Being. This is the only logical, rational, plausible explanation. The Bible is, indeed, the inspired Word of the God of the Bible.

Human Suffering by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=840

Human Suffering

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

All one has to do is walk through the halls of the nearest hospital or mental institution to see people of all ages suffering from various diseases and illnesses. Suffering is everywhere, and thus such questions as the following inevitably arise. “If there is a God, why am I afflicted with this illness?” “If there is a God, why was my son not allowed to see his sixteenth birthday?” “If there is a God, why are my parents afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease?” These and hundreds of similar questions have echoed from the human heart for millennia. They are as old as the first tear and as recent as the latest newscast.
For many people, the existence of pain and suffering serves as a great obstacle to belief in God. Skeptics and infidels, both past and present, have held that the existence of evil is an embarrassment for those who believe in God. One philosopher, J.L. Mackie, in an article titled “Evil and Omnipotence,” set out to show “not that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational,” and “that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another.”
How do theists reconcile the presence of suffering with the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God? Some have argued that illness and other kinds of suffering are illusionary and spring from a false belief. Others have maintained that no explanation is necessary, because mere mortals should not have to justify the ways of God to men. But most Christians acknowledge that suffering is real and that it is a problem that deserves careful attention. Even though man cannot explain in specific detail all of the reasons for human suffering, the Bible gives enough answers to allow man to come to grips with the problem in general. Contrary to what many in this world believe, there are a number of logical reasons why people experience mental and physical pain. One of the main reasons is rooted in the fact that God is love (1 John 4:8), and that love allows freedom of choice.
Adam and Eve were presented with a choice in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16-17). Israel was given the choice of serving the Lord or foreign gods (Joshua 24:15). Even today, man is a free moral agent with the ability to make his own choices (Revelation 22:17). God did not create man as a scientist creates a robot that automatically follows his master’s instructions without the choice of doing otherwise. Would God be loving if He created intelligent beings and then programmed them to slavishly serve Him? God granted mankind free will as an expression of His love. Sadly, man frequently brings suffering upon himself because of the wrong decisions he makes. The apostle Peter wrote: “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters” (1 Peter 4:15, emp. added). When people suffer the consequences of their own wrong choices, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Man also suffers because of the personal wrong choices of others. If God allows one person freedom of choice, He must allow everyone that freedom to be consistent in His love for the world (God is no respecter of persons—Acts 10:34). Uriah the Hittite suffered because of David’s sins (2 Samuel 11), and ultimately was killed because of David’s attempt to hide the wrong decisions he had made. All of Egypt suffered because Pharaoh decided to keep the Israelites in Egypt when Moses told him to let them go (Exodus 7-12). Today, families may suffer because a father is thrown in jail for drunk driving. In such a case, he is the cause of the family’s suffering. If a man smokes all of his life and then eventually dies at an early age because of lung cancer, both he and his family suffer because of his decision to smoke. God is not to blame for man’s personal wrong choices, nor is He to blame for the wrong decisions that others have made.
We today also suffer on occasion because of the personal wrong choices of former generations. If man is able to reap benefits from the work of former generations (medical discoveries, technological advances, etc.), then it is only logical that he be able to suffer the consequences of the sins of former generations. [Although man does not inherit the sin of Adam, he does suffer because of the choice Adam made to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.] Who is partly to blame for millions starving in third-world countries today? Answer: Some of their ancestors. Years ago, because people accepted the false doctrine of reincarnation, they began teaching that it was wrong to eat cows because they might be eating a long-dead-but-now-reincarnated relative. The doctrine of reincarnation has deprived millions of people throughout the world of good health. Is God to blame when people will not eat the meat that could give them nourishment?
When one experiences suffering in his life, it often is because he has chosen to sin. He might be suffering the consequences of his own wrong decisions, the wrong decisions of others, or the wrong decisions of former generations. But regardless of the reason for the suffering he endures, God is not to blame.

Creation in Medical School Curricula? by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3798

Creation in Medical School Curricula?

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Elsewhere in this issue of Reason & Revelation (Brooks, 2011), Will Brooks discusses a recent issue of The Scientist in which Leonid Moroz argues that courses on macroevolution should be included in the curricula of medical schools and biomedical Ph.D. programs (Moroz, 2010). Brooks convincingly argues that the debate over macroevolution has no place in such curricula. Although Moroz argues that viewing biology through the lenses of evolutionary theory is critical for optimal performance in medical and bio-medical fields, Brooks notes that even some evolutionists concede that biology makes sense in light of creation as well. He notes from a discussion he had while in graduate school that his advisor agreed that “the way in which we conduct biomedical research is unchanged” regardless of one’s stance on the creation/evolution debate (p. 19). In other words, the discussion is irrelevant for such curricula. My graduate research in the bio-mechanical field attests to this fact as well. Not once was evolutionary theory mentioned in any coursework or research—it was simply irrelevant to the task at hand.
That said, in actuality a strong case can be made for the inclusion of the creation model. The implications of the evolutionary principle known as “the survival of the fittest” were horribly carried out on the Jewish population by the Nazis in World War II in an attempt to create the “master race” (cf. Stein and Miller, 2008; Butt, 2001). In contrast, it is the Christian religion that enjoins principles that are in keeping with patient well-being. While genocide, abortion, and euthanasia are in keeping with the ideals of evolution, the Bible promotes compassion for the weak, sick, and hurting; sacrificing oneself to help others; treating others the way we would want to be treated; and doing our best at whatever we put our hands to—all hallmarks of the medical field. It is the Christian religion that has caused the number of hospitals to grow throughout the world and medicine to be given, often free of charge, to those in need. The American Red Cross, founded in 1881 by the deeply religious, Clara Barton (“A Brief History…,” 2010; Barton, 1922, 2:317-325), is heavily involved in helping others at home and abroad. According to the official American Red Cross Web site: “Today, in addition to domestic disaster relief, the American Red Cross offers compassionate services in five other areas...” (“About Us,” 2010).
Support of such compassionate efforts would certainly be considered among the ideals emphasized by Christianity. In fact, the emblem of the Red Cross is so synonymous with Christianity that it is not used in those countries where the logo is “by its very nature, offensive to Muslim soldiers” (“The History of the Emblems,” 2010; cf. “A Downside to Symbols…,” 2010). Many of the strides that have been made in the medical field in the last 200 years for the benefit of the world were made in this nation, which until the last 30-40 years essentially taught “Christian Biology” in schools. God, Christ, the Bible, and Creation were believed by most Americans and biology was taught through those lenses. The field of medicine or bio-medical research hardly suffered by not teaching evolution, but instead teaching Creation for all those years.
The atheistic evolutionary viewpoint would say, like Scrooge, if someone is not fit enough to live, they ought to die “and decrease the surplus population” (Dickens, 1843, p. 11). Christianity, on the other hand, results in self-sacrificial physicians. That’s the kind of doctor I want working on my family. Christianity fits very nicely in the medical field. Perhaps it should be a part of medical school curricula once again.

REFERENCES

“About Us” (2010), American Red Cross, http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d8aaecf214c576bf971e4cfe43181aa0/?vgnextoid=477859f392ce8110VgnVCM10000030f3870aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default.
“A Brief History of the American Red Cross” (2010), American Red Cross, http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.86f46a12f382290517a8f210b80f78a0/?vgnextoid=271a2aebdaadb110VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD.
“A Downside to Symbols: Cultural Mismatches” (2010), History of Graphic Design, Symbols: The Alphabet of Human Thought, http://www.designhistory.org/symbols.html.
Barton, William E. (1922), The Life of Clara Barton: Founder of the American Red Cross (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
Brooks, Will (2011), “Does Evolution Belong in Biomedical Curricula?” Reason & Revelation, 31[3]:18-20, March, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?&article=3796.
Butt, Kyle (2001), “Ideas Have Consequences,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=528.
Dickens, Charles (1843), A Christmas Carol (New York: Aladdin Classics).
Moroz, Leonid (2010), “The Devolution of Evolution,” The Scientist, 24(11):36.
Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).
“The History of the Emblems” (2010), ICRC Resource Centre, http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/emblem-history.htm.

God’s Word: Right About Sex by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5138

God’s Word: Right About Sex

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

In Proverbs 29:18, Solomon noted that when a society eliminates God and His Word, people do what they want to do with minimal nagging from their own conscience or from others around them. In contrast, “happy is He who keeps the [God’s] law.” In the same way that parents’ rules for children are for their good (e.g., “Don’t touch the stove”), God’s Word is for our good always (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:12-13; Psalm 19:7-8; 119; Romans 7:12). That fact is true regarding how individuals in a society should conduct themselves sexually as well. A little-known study conducted in the early 1900s and published in 1934 lends support to that fact.
J.D. Unwin was a British ethnologist and social anthropologist of Oxford and Cambridge Universities. He was no advocate for Christianity or religion. In his book, Sex and Culture, Unwin discusses the results of his study of 86 societies from over 5,000 years of history. These were selected due to the availability of the evidence that substantiated their regulations/expectations regarding sexual activity, and included various Melanesian societies as well as several African, Polynesian, Assamian, Paleo-Siberian, North American Indian, Babylonian, Athenian, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and English societies. Each culture was categorized based on how strict its societal rules and expectations were concerning sexual activity, especially regarding acceptable female sexual behavior in a society. The studied societies were divided into seven classes of sexual regulation—three pre-nuptial and four post-nuptial categories. Regarding pre-marriage customs, some societies allowed (1) total sexual freedom before marriage; (2) some pre-marital activity and allowing for only “irregular or occasional” sexual activity; and (3) no sexual activity—invoking punishment or death to women who failed to remain virgins until marriage. Concerning post-nuptial allowances, some societies (1) considered polygamy acceptable as well as having no restriction on faithfulness. Neither party was “compelled to confine his or her sexual qualities to the other for his or her whole life”; (2) only considered monogamy acceptable, but again, neither party had to confine his/her sexual appetites to his/her spouse for life; (3) required wives to confine their sexual activity to their husband, but the husband could have other sexual partners through polygamous relationships (i.e., strict polygamy); and (4) required strict monogamy as the acceptable practice—where both the husband and wife were confined to each other sexually for life (pp. 341-343). Unwin’s discoveries about these categories are enlightening.
According to Unwin, the “first primary law which operates in all human societies” is that “the cultural condition of any society in any geographical environment is conditioned by its past and present methods of regulating the relations between the sexes [sexually—JM]” (p. 340). In every instance, when sexual restrictions in a society are at their highest level (i.e., strict pre-nuptial abstinence andstrict monogamy), the society inevitably progresses, and the more sexual activity is curbed in a society, the more the society progresses. When restrictions are lessened, the society inevitably stops progressing and begins to digress, ultimately disappearing if the restrictions are not again tightened. “[A] limitation of sexual opportunity [i.e., more sexual restraint in a society—JM] always is, and so far as I know always has been, accompanied by a rise in cultural condition” (p. 2). The rise occurs after the implemented rules have been in effect for “at least three generations” (p. 321). “Any extension of sexual opportunity [i.e., less sexual restraint in a society—JM] must always be the immediate cause of a cultural decline” (p. 326).
Unwin argues that the more lenient a society is in its sexual allowances, the more energy is inevitably used by that society in gratifying its sexual desires. The more strict a society is, the more that extra energy is used in expanding a society and progressing.
[P]sychological researches reveal that the placing of a compulsory check upon the sexual impulses, that is, a limitation of sexual opportunity, produces thought, reflection, and energy. Now the evidence is that a cultural advance has been caused by a factor which produces thought, reflection, and social energy…and that it occurs only when the sexual opportunity has been limited. I submit, therefore, that the limitation of the sexual opportunity must be regarded as the cause of the cultural advance…. If men and women are sexually free, their sexual desires will receive direct satisfaction; but if the sexual opportunity is limited, the impulses must be checked. Then the repressed desires will be expressed in another form…. [U]sually the tension produced by the emotional conflicts is exhibited in some form of mental and social energy, the intensity of that energy depending upon the intensity of the compulsory continence [i.e., the level of restriction placed on sexual activity—JM]. When the sexual opportunity of a society is reduced almost to a minimum, the resulting social energy produces “great accomplishments in human endeavor” and “civilization.” When the compulsory continence is of a less rigorous character, lesser energy is displayed (p. 317).
Among the accomplishments of extremely energetic societies are territorial expansion, conquest, colonization and the foundation of a widely flung commerce. All these things, and their like, are manifestations of what I call expansive social energy. A society which displays productive social energy develops the resources of its habitat and by increasing its knowledge of the material universe bends nature to its will. All such accomplishments as these imply the previous exertion of thought and reflection, these being necessary precursor to all human achievements (p. 315, italics in orig.).
Unwin noted that though he considers high restraint of sexual behavior to be the “immediate cause of social energy,” he is
content to conclude that it is the cause of social energy only in the sense of being an indispensable contributory factor; that is to say, even if other factors also are indispensable and operating, no social energy can be displayed unless the sexual opportunity is limited. Other things being equal, however, social energy will be exhibited by any society which places a compulsory limitation upon the sexual opportunity of its members. Conversely, in all cases any extension of sexual opportunity must result in a reduction of social energy. Such is the evidence from psychological research (p. 320, emp. added).
The inherent power of thought and the potential energy of the human organism can be exhibited only when the sexual impulses are controlled by the operation of social ordinances; and the amount of energy and the profundity of the thought depend upon the extent of the imitation which these ordinances impose. If the compulsory continence be great, the society will display great energy; if it be small, there will be a little energy. If there be no compulsory continence, there can be no energy; it remains potential (p. 339).
When we look at American society today, Unwin’s discoveries, if true, are eerie admonitions to consider, for according to Unwin, “as soon as the sexual opportunity of the society, or of a group within the society, was extended, the energy of the society, or of the group within it, decreased and finally disappeared” (p. 382, emp. added). Using modern layman terminology: unbridled cravings of any sort will tend to monopolize our mind and our time. If a society as a whole allows unbridled cravings to become widespread, then the society as a whole will have much of its mind-power and energy focused on fulfilling those lusts/addictions rather than on doing good for others and improving society. Statistics indicate that sexual anarchy rules the day in America. Pornography, adultery, divorce and remarriage, “shacking up” without even marrying (whether with one person or more than one), homosexuality, polygamy, and pedophilia are rampant in American society and are even encouraged in many cases through law, music, movies, and books. [See Apologetics Press’ book Sexual Anarchy (Miller, 2006) for documentation of America’s growing sexual insanity.]
Interestingly, in harmony with what a Christian would expect based on God’s Word, Unwin found that absolute monogamy led to the most advanced societies. “In the records of history, indeed, there is no example of a society displaying great energy for any appreciable period unless it has been absolutely monogamous. Moreover, I do not know of a case in which an absolutely monogamous society has failed to display great energy” (p. 369, emp. added). “Those societies which have maintained the custom [of absolute monogamy—JM] for the longest period have attained the highest position in the cultural scale which the human race has yet reached” (p. 25). “Generally speaking, in the past when they began to display great energy…, human societies were absolutely monogamous…. [T]he energy of the most developed civilized societies, or that of any group within them, was exhibited for so long as they preserved their austere regulations. Their energy faded away as soon as” this restriction was loosened (p. 343, emp. added).
Unwin argues that strict monogamy fosters an environment where advancement is more likely to be achieved in a society. He argues that the next rung down on the sexual regulation ladder (strict polygamy), does not lend itself to societal advancement. “An absolutely polygamous society preserves but does not increase its tradition. It does not possess the energy to adopt new ideas; it remains content with its old institutions” (p. 368, emp. added). Though admittedly he did not engage in a formal study of the subject, it is interesting to note what famous General George S. Patton observed during World War II about the North African Islamic countries (that practiced polygamy):
One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity (1947, p. 43, emp. added).
In Matthew 19, Jesus called His audience’s memory back to the beginning—when God defined marriage for mankind.
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female’ [Genesis 1:27], and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ [Genesis 2:24]? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).
Scriptural marriage is intended by God to be comprised of one eligible man marrying one eligible woman, and the two becoming one flesh for life. Strict monogamy is the biblical definition of marriage. According to the Bible, sexual activity is good and to be encouraged in that setting (1 Corinthians 7:3-5; Hebrews 13:4; Proverbs 5; Song of Solomon). Unwin’s study helps us to see at least one reason why marriage was so defined.
[NOTE: Unwin’s study was obviously confined to societies in existence before the early 1900s when the study was conducted—most of which were likely isolated from significant influences by other cultures due to the state of technology before the 1900s (e.g., a lack of telephones, television, Internet, etc.), as well as natural, geographical limitations (i.e., inability to travel extensively between nations). Such a study might be more difficult today, since societies are, for the most part, not isolated, but rather, heavily influence each other. One society might be perceived to advance in contradiction to Unwin’s assertions, when in actuality, its advancement was merely due to, for example, its acquisition of technology from other societies, receiving aid from other societies, etc.—practices engaged in often today. That said, eliminating many of those influences from the equation, as Unwin’s study did by necessity, would logically seem to allow a more accurate assessment of the effect of sexual behavior on a society.]

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2006), Sexual Anarchy (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Patton, George S. (1947), War As I Knew It (New York: The Great Commanders, 1994 edition).
Unwin, J.D. (1934), Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press).