What is Marriage? - Biological Basis

Marriage has become a hotly debated topic within the last few years as the issue of recognizing homosexual marriage by the state has come to the forefront. Both in initiatives to outlaw it and to legalize it by various groups on both sides.

But the arguments focus on two main areas: legal definition of marriage and the biblical classification of homosexual sex as a sin. Homosexual groups tend to focus on the inequality of the former, while religious groups focus on the latter. Meanwhile, few seem to be asking what marriage really is. Not purely based upon legal questions, or purely based upon Biblical prohibitions, but on a holistic approach that takes all aspects that define marriage into consideration.

To that end, I am going to do a series of posts about marriage. This will not be a complete historical run down, but will involve the following main topics:

• What is Marriage?


• Alternate Forms of Marriage


• Divorce, Remarriage, Adultery


• Healing Marital Devaluation

Some of these topics will overlap, but I think they can lay the groundwork to a fuller understanding of these controversial issues by all sides, as well as other issues that are often ignored by our culture and the Church. So let's tackle the first topic:

What is Marriage?

Marriage is defined by biology and culture. For the Christian, also by biblical theology. The later will only matter to Christians directly, but if understood in context, syncs nicely with biology and can inform the cultural aspects. Non-Christians may appreciate understanding its basis if they can get past preconceived ideas about the topic.

In this installment, I'll examine:

The Biological Basis for Marriage

Often people will survey the structure of "husband and wife" in the animal kingdom to prove the diversity of marital and familial makeups on display. For sure, there are many. All the way from a mate eating the other directly after sex to lifetime partners. However, what often isn't focused on is the similarities.

Sex. In one form or another, it always involves the sharing of DNA for the purpose of conception. Sure, there may be an off beat example out there, but the basic biological purpose of two entities coming together in a sexual union is for procreation. Without that purpose, there would be no basis for a marriage or family structure, however that might play out in any individual species.

From species to species, the purpose of sex, the purpose of forming a husband/wife relationship, is to ensure the propagation of the species. If an activity cannot potentially create that outcome, whether it does or not, there is no biological marital union.

Look at it this way. There are countless activities that we share with each other, many of them pleasurable. Whether it is eating together, going to a movie, or enjoying a game of tennis, none of those activities are seen as creating a marriage or union.

Meanwhile, our society views sex as just one more enjoyable activity to share with someone you like. No more bonding than sharing a bowl of ice cream. Yet, when one considers the biological foundation of marriage, it boils down to sex. For practically every animal, sex and the creation of offspring is the foundation of that union.

If you think about it logically, it should be obvious. Take a husband and wife. Let's suggest they appear married in every way. They live together. They spend quality time together. They share their intimate lives together. They have a legal paper saying they are married. Even a wedding. Yet, neither has ever had sex with the other. Answer this question. In what way is this living arrangement any different than best of friends sharing living expenses under a mutual contract?

The obvious answer is, it isn't any different. I could easily set up a living arrangement with my best male friend or even a woman who wished to live a celibate life, and duplicate the same scenario. If all marriage involves is mutually shared living arrangements and friendships, then how is that deserving of any special recognition? Anyone can create a contract to set up such an arrangement.

But add sex into the mix, and one has a totally different animal. Then DNA is shared, and potentially merged, creating a union of the two into a new person. Once you have that potential, the marriage of the two species takes on purpose. Because only that act creates a family structure. Without sex creating a union, you have two good friends living together, and sex is just one among many pleasures that are shared but means nothing more than going out to watch a movie.

Mammals. While in the animal kingdom at large, how "marriage" and families are structured varies widely, in the sub-classification of mammals, less so. In fact, one of the characteristics of this class is the care for children within a family structure of a father and mother. Can you find exceptions? Yes. Yet the vast majority of mammals, of which humans are one, have a father and mother living together to care for the offspring produced by having sex. The fact humans for over at least 6000 years of our known history do this, is one reason we are classified as a mammal.

What does this prove? Very simply, this. At its foundation, the basis for a family structure, and therefore the basis for two people to be married, is sexual union in a way that potentially produces offspring. All other marital characteristics flow from this fact. Even Jesus, as we will see, acknowledges this reality.

This physical union turns the "water into wine." Living together is changed into familial bonds. Legal contracts are turned into sacred vows. Pleasure is transformed into loving bonds. Man and woman are united as husband and wife.

What is marriage biologically? It is the sexual union of two people to form the core of a family. I've heard many say, "Oh, we're just living together. We're not married." I say, "Oh yes you are. If you've had sex, you may not be legally married, but in reality, you are." Just have either one of you cheat on the other, and tell me you won't react just as strongly about it as any "married" couple would.

Why? Because sex creates a marital union between two people. It is a biological reality that's been with us since creation.

Next time, the Biblical basis for marriage.

Show, Don't Tell?

The common writing "rule," show, don't tell, has taken a beating in recent times. When I started writing fiction in 2006, it wasn't long before I heard about the suggested mode of writing. Usually from a critiquer who pointed out I was in telling mode here or there.

But I've noticed there has been a growing backlash to this mode of writing. Why is it being rejected as a valid guideline for new writers to write fiction? I think for the following reasons:

1. Extreme usage in critique groups. One such person attempted to tell me that one should have no telling in fiction, everything had to be shown. So he would point out any telling, and appeared to refuse to offer any other constructive feedback until I "fixed" this one issue. If a person encounters too many like that, it is easy to overreact to the opposite extreme and throw the baby out with the bathwater.


2. Show, don't tell is the answer to every issue. Related to the above, some critiquers go overboard to using show, don't tell for the solution to any number of unrelated writing problems. Writers hearing "You're not showing here, just telling," when addressing a character's dialog only shows they don't know what they are talking about, using the rule as a crutch because they don't know what else to say. Enough of those, and a writer is tempted to ditch the rule as lame simply because they encounter people who are using it lamely.


3. Hate any perceived rules. Some folk are just anti-rule. Any perceived guideline that says one should do X, Y, or Z in writing automatically gets push back. "I'll show them" attitude prevails. Especially true if the person gets someone saying you always have to do it this way if you want to keep a reader's attention.


4. Lazy writers not looking to improve. Some writers don't care. They just want to write a story and have everyone praise them. They aren't looking for critiques. They don't want to know how to improve their writing. They feel what comes natural to them is correct for them, and any effort to write differently is artificial. So they don't gain the writing skills through practice, including knowing when and how to show instead of tell.

If you've fallen into one of these reactions to the show, don't tell rule, maybe it is time to take a step back and gain a balanced perspective. The last group may find this the hardest to do, so let's look first at why one needs to show in fiction, instead of tell.

Non-fiction conveys information; fiction conveys an experience. Few pick up a work of fiction hoping to learn how to grow a garden or how to change the starter in a car. Not that one can't learn how to do those things from a work of fiction, but that's not the reason most buy a fictional story. They buy a fictional story to be entertained. To be immersed into another person's world and experiences. To see the world from a different set of eyes.

The showing mode of writing is not an efficient means to convey information. This is why non-fiction doesn't use much, if any, showing. Even the stories told in a non-fiction book are told in telling mode, because the point is to illustrate a truth, not have the reader experience another person's life. For instance, you'll note the stories in the Bible are primarily told not shown.

However, to have a reader sink into another person's world, to see from their eyes, showing becomes critical. Telling can't effectively do that. To accomplish its goal, fiction has to be primarily showing, using telling when needed. In short, to experience another person's world, you have to convey to the reader what they are experiencing, not simply what happens to them.

A quick example. This would be telling: "Paul saw the dagger as it sank into him." It conveys the information of what happened to Paul efficiently. It does not convey what Paul experienced.

Showing would be more like this: "Paul saw the sun glint off a blade flashing his direction. He jerked back, but a pain echoed through his nerves, his skin numbed, and warmth flowed down his side, soaking his clothing. His knees buckled as darkness swept over him."

The showing doesn't efficiently convey what happened, but it does efficiently tell you what Paul experienced, thus providing emotional impact. Emotional impact is the key to entertaining fiction. Without showing, there would be little emotion conveyed, and would not be as entertaining as it could be. If a person ditches showing for one of the above reasons, then you need to be honest with yourself. You are writing fiction as if it were non-fiction.

Some will tell me, "But this writer did it effectively." Usually they are pointing to a "classic" written years ago. An omniscient narrator used to be the standard story telling mode, which involved more telling. In that day, an author didn't have to compete with more emotionally engaging stories, so writing in telling mode could still stand out, not to mention the number of published books back then per year was smaller, so easier for a well-told story to stand out.

This is not true today. You are competing with story-tellers who know how to engage their reader's emotions through effective showing. This is why you'll hear if Tolkien were submitting his Lord of the Rings book today, it is unlikely he'd gain a following. By today's standards it has a lot of problems. But you'll notice even in that work, Tolkien does show, even if it is not as much as most authors do today.

So, how does one know when to tell and when to show in fiction? I have the following general guidelines I use once I've finished my first draft and am ready to edit.

How critical is the phrase, sentence, paragraph in the movement of the story and/or character arc? The more important to these goals, the more important it is to show instead of tell.

For instance, let's say we need to get Jane to answer the telephone. The call itself moves the story forward. The ensuing conversation provides a clue to the mystery, but the fact she answers the phone isn't important other than the fact she does it. It isn't something the reader needs to experience for the story to move forward.

Indeed, to show that would likely bore the reader if they read, "A ringing echoed through Jane's head. The phone! It must be him. Her shoes snapped against the wooden floor, creaking the planks under her weight so much she wondered if she would fall through them. She wrapped her fingers around the smooth, black dial phone. A cold plastic greeted her hands. The ringing ceased as she lifted the receiver, lighter than she expected. 'Hello'?"

Unless you are building tension for a big moment/reveal, you're building emotional investment for nothing. People don't notice that level of detail unless it is new or they sense a moment of importance. You're convincing the reader something important is about to happen, and when it doesn't, they'll tend to wonder why the emotional investment was made. If you simply need to tell the reader that she answered the phone, it would be more efficient to say, "The phone rang. 'Hello'?"

To maintain the pacing of your story. Related to the last point, sometimes you need to move your characters from point A to B, but nothing happens during that time which moves the story forward. So to show all the detail of that trip would bore the reader. Reducing the trip down to a handful of descriptive words and a telling summary will keep the pacing of the novel from bogging down into drudgery.

Transitional paragraphs. Often you have a transitional paragraph between scenes that requires moving through a period of time to the next scene were story-moving dialog/action will take place. Like the last reason, it would be pretty boring to show someone on watch all night when nothing happens of significance. A simple, "George struggled to fight off sleep until the first rays of dawn arrived and Henry arrived to relieve him," gets the reader quickly through an otherwise uneventful time frame with little loss of interest.

Dialog. It is rare that you hear someone talking in showing mode. When is the last time you heard someone describe their reaction to a joke like this: "My gut tightened. I squeezed my lips tight in hopes of blocking the impending spray of coffee from my mouth. But the pressure grew to the point of shoving my lips apart. Hot liquid careened into his face." No, instead you're more likely to hear, "I laughed so hard I spewed coffee all over him."

Dialog is predominately telling. Leave the showing for the narration if you don't want unnatural dialog littering your story. Included in this is a character telling a story to another. Unless the story goes into a full flashback, in-story mode, a story told by a character in the story would tend to be more telling than showing, unless they were attempting to dramatize it.

Non-fiction. If you are writing non-fiction, one naturally uses telling mode to communicate information effectively. But there are times in fiction where a writer may want to convey some information. Back story is often given in more telling mode, often by a character. Dishing out back story needs to be in short bursts, on a need-to-know basis. You don't want long paragraphs of back story, so you don't want to show it unless there is a good reason to do so. When you need to convey information, a telling mode gets the job done much quicker.

Creating emotional distance. There are times a writer may need to create emotional distance. Especially if it is something that the point of view character is not that emotionally invested in or you want to minimize the impact on the reader. For instance, if you have a rape scene, to minimize any emotional reactions from readers who have gone through it, it could be told instead of shown.

One could come up with other instances of using telling instead of showing, but if you want your scenes to have emotional impact, in-the-story feel, you need to ensure important story-moving segments are shown instead of merely told. The uniqueness of reading a story is the immersion into another's experience, another's thoughts, another's worldview. Movies can't easily accomplish this. If you fail to take advantage of this strength in your stories for one of the reasons listed at the beginning, you'll shortchange the reader, and not give them a reason to read the next book, much less finish the one in their hands.

Do you think some of the negative attitudes toward show, don't tell are a valid reaction or an over-reaction?

The Three Little Pigs, or How to Invest Wisely

Once upon a time, there were three little pigs. No, not those pigs. Come on. Stay with me here. Must you always jump to conclusions?

Okay. As I was saying, there were three little pigs. One day Papa Pig says to the three, "I'm getting old and can no longer work the farm. I need to give you each your inheritance so you can invest it and provide from me into my old age."

And so he did. To pig number one, Sam, Papa Pig gave him $500,000 dollars. To pig number two, Jake, he gave $300,000. To Bubba, pig number three, he gave $100,000.

Sam decided he would invest his money in stocks. Surely the profits he would get would more than pay for his Papa's retirement. So he bought $500,000 of stocks in real estate notes.

Jake thought it better to invest in something more solid. He decided to buy property. Then not only would his Papa gain an investment, but a nice place to live that was paid for.

Bubba thought for a while and then decided both of them were wrong. He hit the streets and found the lame and beggars. He gave them $1000 with the words, "This is from Papa Pig to help you."

As luck would have it, a big, bad wolf...what? No, no, no! Not that big, bad wolf. This is altogether different. Trust me.

Now, there came a big, bad wolf market to Sam's investments...oh, I see I got the animal wrong, didn't I. My bad. There came a big, bad bear market. It knocked on Sam's computer market tracking software and said, "Little pig, little pig, let me in. Trade off your stocks or I'll growl and I'll snarl and I'll eat them up!"

Yeah, yeah, I know. Not the same punch, but like I said, this ain't your mama's three little pig story. Now where were we?

Sam said, "Not by the...click of one little mouse." So the bear growled and he snarled and he ate the stocks up!

Sam ran to Jake's house, and lamented his losses. He cried, "I've lost all $500,000 of my Papa's money. It is left to you to provide for him. We know Bubba doesn't have any business sense. He gave all his away."

Jake patted a wall of his mansion. "Papa will do just fine. I knew those stocks you bought were risky."

But then the big, bad, wolf...I know I got it wrong last time. I'm on track now. Let me finish. The big, bad, wolf in sheep's clothing, otherwise known as a politician, knocked on Jake's door. He said, "Little pig, little pig, let me in. Or I'll write a 5000 page bill and add it as an amendment to the "Keep our Kids Safe from Drugs and Bullies" bill (otherwise known as KKSDB), and I'll confiscate all your land."

Jake shook his head. "Not by the vote of the next election."

So the big, bad wolf in sheep's clothing stayed up into the night writing a huge bill, introduced it to Congress, added it to the "Keep our Kids Safe from Drugs and Bullies" bill, and it passed by a vote of one.

Jake then heard another knock at his door. "Who's there?"

"We're from the EPA, and your land is the only habitat for the endangered albino wolf. We'll have to take your land and kick you out."

So Sam and Jake ran to Bubba's humble abode. They both decried their poor fortune at losing their inheritance, and Sam pointed out, "And you have nothing to show as well. Our Papa will live in poverty for the rest of his life."

Bubba shook his head. "Yusa jist don't git it, do ya?" A knock at the door interrupted him. "Who's banging?"

It just so happened to be the big bad wolf in sheep's clothing again. "Little pig, little pig, let me in. Or I'll...I'll..." The wolf in sheep's clothing grumbled. "What did you invest your money in?"

Bubba snickered. "I gone and put it in peoples."

"Peoples? I mean, people?"

"Yes. I giv it away to folks who need it."

The WISC snarked. "That's government's job. You can't give it away."

"Too late. Already gone and done it."

The WISC remained silent for five seconds, and then said, "I'll need to expand the gift tax. Yes, it needs attention." Then he left.

Jake threw up his hands. "We got rid of the wolf, but not before he drained all of our Papa's retirement away."

Bubba shook his head. "When a person gives, it comes back ten-fold and stores treasure in heaven."

Sam slapped his forehead. "What good will that treasure do him now, unless you plan on speeding up his death from starvation?"

Bubba opened his door. "Fowler me." The two shrugged and followed. Bubba led them to their Papa's house.

Some men worked on house repairs. One family carried a crock-pot full of slop to the door.

Bubba pointed at the house. "Looks like he'sa gitten cared for right nicely, if you'sa to ask me."

Sam and Jake stared wide-eyed. Sam said, "Friends in this life."

Jake nodded. "And a treasure in the next."

Bubba smiled. "And no wolf cana take that away, no how."

A Dose of Virtual Reality

A bell rang through the classroom. The black-haired teacher stood from her desk and straightened her snug, blue dress. "Today class, we will study the female anatomy."

Mickey stopped thumping his pencil against his desk and sat up. About time. Maybe we'll get to see some pictures.

Sirens wailed in the distance.

Mickey frowned. Probably nothing. Surely the authorities could handle it. Not like he could be everywhere at once. Well, almost, but not quite.

The teacher pulled down a graphic of the female reproductive organs. "First, we will go over the names of the parts."

Mickey sighed. What if it was something? What if Blue Nova could make a difference? Mickey rubbed his forehead before slipping his hand into the air.

"Okay, class. Repeat after me. Urethra."

"Urethra," the students echoed back like robots.

Mickey waved his hand. Did this woman think she was teaching kids instead of teens?

The teacher breathed in to say the next part when she turned her head. "Mickey, do you have a question?"

"Yes, ma'am. Can I be excused to visit the restroom?"

Snickers echoed across the classroom. Robert said, "I think he's scared of girls."

Laughter erupted across the classroom. Mickey's face grew hot.

The teacher snapped her pointer stick across her desk. The laughter died as fast as it erupted. "Class, that is quite enough." She frowned at Mickey. "You're excused. Don't be gone long or I'll send someone to check on you."

Mickey hopped up from his seat and headed to the door. "Yes, ma'am. Thank you." As soon as the door closed behind him, he raced to the bathroom, entered a stall, and seated himself on the toilet. He pulled his mask from his pocket and pulled it over his head.

"Hero game time!" He snuggled his body against the side wall and hoped he didn't fall over while out. "Suit, appear here as Blue Nova."

The stall faded out and then back in, except he now stood over himself, apparently asleep on the toilet. "Blue Nova to the rescue. Fast as light and just as bright!"

Blue Nova sped out of the stall, bathroom, and the school doors in less than a second. He zipped along the roads until he arrived at a row of flashing patrol car lights around an office. A group of officers huddled behind one car while individual ones pointed pistols at the office over the hoods of their vehicles.

Mickey stopped beside the group of officers. They jumped upon noticing him. He forgot from their perspective, he had appeared out of thin air. "Sorry, officers. Didn't mean to frighten you."

One of them gritted his teeth. "Get out of here, son. This is no place for you to play."

Play? Really? "What seems to be the problem, officer?" He'd always wanted to say that.

"You're becoming the problem. Do I need to escort you away?"

Mickey put his hands on his hips. "Officer, I'm Blue Nova."

"Is that supposed to mean something to me?"

Mickey's face fell. "You mean, you haven't heard of me? Fast as light and just as bright?"

The officer pointed at one of his men. The man reached out to grab Mickey. Mickey flashed around him to his back.

The man grabbed thin air. "What. . .  Where did he go?"

A man holding a gun to a young girl's head appeared at an open window of the office building. "You have one minute left, officers, to give me passage out of here, or the girl gets it."

Mickey smiled. "So that's the problem. I can take care of this guy."

The head officer pointed at him. "Don't you dare do anything. This is a delicate situation. We're trained for this. Now leave or I'll have you in jail."

This guy didn't understand what he could do. He'd have to prove it. "Just watch, sir. I'm faster than a speeding bullet too." Mickey cupped a hand around his mouth and yelled, "You might as well go ahead and shoot her. We're taking you down."

The officer's face turned beat red and he ground his teeth together. "You idiot! You don't know what you're doing."

The man poked his head out the window of the office building. "Have it your way, officers. I have plenty of hostages to go through." He ducked back in and the beginning sound of a gunshot hit Mickey's ears.

Mickey raced for the door. From his perspective, every movement slowed to a bare crawl as he fled through the door of the office. He saw the girl on her knees, hands tied behind her back. The man who had talked with the officers stood over her, a gun pointed at the back of her head about four feet away. A bullet inched its way toward the back of her skull.

Sweet. I'll just knock the bullet up toward the ceiling. Don't want to put my hand in front of it. He sped to her, stopping as the bullet neared her neck. He only had one shot at this. He swung his hand underneath the bullet to meet it about an inch from her neck.

He didn't connect in the middle of the flying metal, but only nicked it, causing it to wobble up toward the top of her skull. "Blast it all!" He only had one option left.

Mickey snagged the base of the bullet with his right hand, clamped down as hard as he could, and braced his right arm with his left. Then he pulled as hard as he could.

The bullet neared her skin. Mickey yelled as he pulled back, throwing his body into it. He could feel the bullet slipping from his fingers. I can't let it go! Mickey bore down and grunted. He could feel the edge of the bullet moving across his fingertips. No! It escaped his grasp.

Mickey watched as the projectile pierced her skin. Blood slowly shot out, though he knew in normal speed it was spewing. The bullet stopped moving. It didn't go into the head. He must have slowed it down enough it didn't totally penetrate!

As the girl's head reacted to the impact, Mickey raced to each of the armed men, pulled the gun from their hands, and gave them a blow to the back of their heads, collapsing them onto the floor in slow-mo. He threw the weapons out the window, then scooped the young girl into his arms and fled out of the office building.

He exited speed mode by a waiting ambulance. "She needs attention. A bullet is lodged in her skull."

The medics jumped into action. Mickey laid her on a rolling bed and they examined the wound.

"Is she going to be okay?"

One of the medics glanced over his shoulders. "Won't know for sure until we get some x-rays, but from the looks of it, the worst it might have done is fracture her skull."

The other medic shook his head. "But she must have one hard head to stop a bullet like that. Never seen the likes of it before. By all rights she should be dead."

Mickey's gut churned. A hand rested on his shoulder.

The head officer stood beside him. "Sorry, Blue Nova. I guess I was wrong about you. You did know what you were doing."

Mickey stared at the young girl as her eyes blinked open. "No, sir. I didn't."

"I'd like to get your real name, to give you a commendation."

Mickey realized he had been holding his breath. He sucked in air. "Exit, suit." The business district faded away to be replaced by the bathroom stall.

"Mick. Are you in here?" Robert's voice sounded as stall doors opened and shut.

Mickey yanked his mask off and stuffed it into his pocket. The stall door opened and Robert stood before him. Mickey sat up.

Robert put a hand over his mouth and tried to hold back a laugh, without much success. "I see your problem, dim wit. It helps if you take your pants off first."

Mickey knew he'd never hear the end of this. "Not enough sleep last night, I'm afraid." He yawned. "I must have fell asleep."

"Whatever. But the teacher sent me in here to get you. Are you going to come peaceably like or not?"

Mickey stood up. "Let's go."

"By the way, you missed all the cool pictures."

Mickey figured he toyed with him, but it peeved him off anyway to think it might be true. He followed Robert back to the classroom and settled into his seat.

The teacher stared at Mickey for a moment before continuing. "Now class, we will have a pop quiz over the parts of the reproductive system.

Mickey grimaced. A piercing pain grew in his bladder. She would never believe him now. He lifted his hand.

-----------------

With Mickey's body safely in bed, he virtually sat in the control room at the Titan base as Vulture, watching blankly the bank of monitors displaying TV feeds from all over Earth.

"Hey, Mick." Jeremy as Astro Man sat in a seat next to him. "How goes it? What adventures are on tap for tonight's hero game?"

Mickey jerked his head around. "Those are real people, Bucko. Not some non-existent video game characters who will never care."

Jeremy backed away. "Hey. I know that more than anyone. What gives?"

Mickey returned to staring at the monitors. "Let's just say, I realized our 'game' isn't one to the people we're saving. We shouldn't treat it that way either."

Jeremy nodded. "I agree. But what brought about this realization?"

Mickey moistened his lips. "Knowing I can fail."

Jeremy patted Mickey on the shoulder. "Welcome to reality, Mick."

---

Read more about Mind Game and Hero Game, along with sample chapters and where they can be purchased.

Did OT Morality Get Thrown Under the Bus?

One of the methods used to discount sections of the Bible that may go against what one wants to believe is to illustrate how we no longer abide by many of the commandments in the Old Testament. The implication being, of course, if we don't have to avoid eating pigs or sacrifice sheep upon an altar anymore, then who's to say prohibitions against homosexual relationships or premarital sex haven't also gone the way of the dinosaur? Or that sex outside of marriage is no longer wrong?

There is some truth to the viewpoint. That is, there are commandments in the Old Testament that we no longer follow. There were some changes made along the way. Some would attribute them to cultural differences, but we must not assume too quickly this is the case. Especially when the reason for those changes are spelled out in the Bible itself.

Therein lies the problem. People point to changes and then assume that means everything is up in the air and available for redefining in the manner we want to define, so as to allow for our favorite sin. When we become the arbitrators of which commandments to keep and which commandments to dump, then we have invalidated the authority of Scripture to be any kind of reliable guide and moral compass. Indeed, that appears to be the goal of many groups, to relegate Scriptures out of the realm of moral teaching and restrict it to purely "spiritual" applications.

However, the spiritual cannot be artificially separated from the rest of life. If God intended anything, it was to have us live a way of life that promotes physical, emotional, moral, social, and spiritual health. The whole person. The commandments were not given just to have rules, but to guide us into living within our design specs so that we will find the greatest fulfillment.

The answer to the changes is in the Scriptures itself, and falls under two main categories: fulfillment and clarification. All changes and subsequent leaving behind certain commandments are due to one or a combination of both reasons. Let's take a look at some examples to illustrate what we are talking about.

The sacrificial system. This is an example of Jesus fulfilling the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. There is ample scriptures supporting that because of Jesus' sacrifice, there was no longer a need for the image of animal sacrifices which pointed to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Jesus fulfilled that section of the Law, wiping out pages of commandments that no longer apply to us. Once the real sacrifice had been made, there was no longer any need for the blood of goats and rams.

Stoning of adulterers. The Old Testament Law said that those caught in the act of adultery must be stoned. There were similar seemingly harsh laws in response to sin. This is another example of fulfillment. What Jesus did on the cross and through His resurrection was to bring a new healing to each person that up until then did not exist. Death reigned, but Christ defeated death by death and by rising to life again.

A medical example helps here. Let's say a certain infection has no cure, so when a limb gets infected, the only way to save the person is to cut off the limb. It is drastic, it is harsh, but better than the whole body being destroyed. But then one day, someone discovers a cure for this disease. Cutting off one's limb is no longer necessary, would even be considered an irresponsible and stupid decision. For why cut it off when it can be saved?

Before Christ, there was no healing for sin. Left unchecked among the people, sin acted like an infection. The only way to keep the whole of God's people from being lost was to cut off those who had become infected to the point they would infect others. To put them in quarantine, so to speak. The only solution to check sin was a radical one.

Once Christ came, however, sin had a cure. This is why the story of the woman caught in adultery is so critical to this understanding. (John 8:3-11) Most people focus on how Jesus deflected the Pharisees who were testing him. They figured if He went lenient on her, they could accuse Him of not following the law. If He was strict, they could accuse Him of not being flexible and realistic. But He told them, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." They all left, leaving Jesus alone with her.

Keep in mind, according to the law she should have been stoned. According to what Jesus said, He was the only person in the crowd, being without sin, who could cast the first stone. Being God, He would have been within His rights to follow His own law and cast the stone. But He didn't. Instead He said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." Why the change? Because she would be healed and infect no one else with her viewpoint. Because her encounter with Christ changed her.

But this did not make adultery no longer a sin, it simply showed that because of Christ that sin could be healed. Same with many others that before required the radical cutting off of of people infected by sin. Through healing, that aspect was fulfilled and the former commandment no longer applied.

Avoiding work on the Sabbath. Numerous times the Pharisees accused Jesus of promoting work on the Sabbath, something explicitly prohibited by Law. Or at least, as the Pharisees interpreted "work," Jesus was guilty. They had huge volumes listing out what was work and what wasn't. Jesus alludes to one of them when He said, "What man is there among you who shall have one sheep, and if it should fall into a ditch on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?" (Mat 12:11)

Jesus then concludes in the next verse, "How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." By this he clarifies what was meant by "work." Indeed, He makes it plain that the Sabbath was not meant to be a burden to man, but a blessing: "The Sabbath came into being for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath." (Mrk 2:27)

Multiple wives. There was no commandment to have multiple wives, and nothing in the New Testament against it save when the New Testament Church wanted leaders, then the rule was a bishop or presbyter or deacon should be the husband of only one wife. (1Tim 3:2, 12, Tit 1:6) Also, for the Church to enroll a woman as a widow, she had to be the wife of only one husband. (1Tim 5:9) The later indicates what is discussed isn't one at a time, but one spouse for one's whole life. A widow by definition has no current husband, so it could only be referring to one previous husband.

This is illustrated clearly by Jesus when He is asked by the Pharisees whether it is lawful to "put away" his wife. (Mrk 10:2) Jesus asks them what Moses said, and they replied Moses permitted the giving of a certificate of divorce. Jesus then goes on to clarify not only why Moses permitted that, but also that marriage is for one man and woman, not multiple of either.

First he lays out the design of marriage as God originally intended. That is, that a man shall take a wife, and the two shall become one flesh. What God has joined, let not man put asunder. But how does one put such a union asunder. He clarifies that in the next comments.

"So He said to them, 'Whoever should put away his wife and marry another commits adultery against her. And if a wife should put away her husband and be married to another, she commits adultery.'" (Mrk 10:11-12)

Note the linkage. Divorce alone isn't the problem. It is marrying another, that is, having sexual relationships with a new person. That is committing adultery, and rends asunder the previous union when it is done. Which is why a man or woman is not sinning by marrying another when the other spouse commits adultery, because that union has already been destroyed.

Jesus clarifies for us what divorce is, when it becomes real divorce by committing adultery, and that God's design is for a man or woman to have only one spouse through their lifetime. Whether one at a time, or several at the same time, Jesus made it clear either situation was sinful, and that it was allowed in times past because of our stubbornness. Not because God wanted it that way.

In most every instance we could bring up where something was practiced or commanded in the Old Testament, but appeared to have changed, the reason could be shown to arise from one or a combination of these two factors: fulfillment and/or clarification. So to demonstrate why we should change or drop other commandments in the Old Testament, one would have to clearly show what was fulfilled or clarified to justify the change.

When it comes to the sinfulness of certain moral codes like sex outside of marriage, whether "premarital" or adultery, homosexuality, or other types, not only is there no fulfillment that would make them no longer applicable, or clarification that excuses their classification as a sin, instead one finds reinforcement of their continued sinfulness.

The Church leaders met in council to determine which of the Jewish Law the Gentile Christian converts would need to follow. They only passed on three specific parts of the Law, one of which was to abstain from "sexual immorality." (Acts 15:20) This clearly shows that the Old Testament morality about sexual matters was passed on as valid to the growing Gentile Church. Indeed, at no point in Christian history did the Church ever back off of these activities as being sin, until post-modern times among some Christian groups.

So not only do you not find any justification in Scriptures that these moral laws changed either through fulfillment or Jesus clarifying what was meant, you don't have any indication that these activities have ever been considered not sinful from Moses to this day. There is no change. There is no basis upon which to dismiss them simply because you can point to items that have changed and you want to lump these activities in with them based upon personal bias against them.

For these reasons, the obsoleteness of certain sections of the Old Testament cannot be used to justify declaring something as not sinful, or to ignore clear injunctions in the Old Testament that haven't changed nor is there any basis upon which to do so.

Can sin stop being sinful?

Exciting News!

Most who follow me know of "The Reality Chronicles" trilogy I wrote, published by Splashdown Books: Reality's Dawn, Reality's Ascent, and Reality's Fire. I know you've all read them and loved them, so I won't bore you with details about them. (Sarcasm aside, click the links to find out more about them and where to pick them up.)

The ending of Reality's Fire left open the possibility of a spin-off series. Which I've taken advantage of, and planned a five-book series which I've tentatively titled, "The Legend of the Dragons' Dying Field." So far I've written two of the books in that series and started on a third one: The Magic Within, The Dragon Within, The Dragon Without. The first of those, The Magic Within, I submitted to AltWit Press back in January. Splashdown Books was willing to look at it, but we both thought some cross-pollination would be good for all involved and she encouraged me to check out some other options.

This week, in communication with AltWit Press, they indicated they wanted to publish the story. Today, a contract with my signature left my mailbox. So, being it is official, you will all be excited to know that the first book of this series has a home! I'm thankful to Pauline at AltWit for adding me to their line up and look forward to some profitable years together.

The tentative release date, if all goes as planned, will be this coming fall, in time for your Christmas shopping. Stay tuned for any news as this publication progresses.

Top Ten Ways Authors Bore Readers

Some act like writing a novel is easy, based on how many authors are published each year among self-published titles and the quality in many of them. There are so many ways an author can fail the reader and bore them to sleep. Here are my top ten ways us authors can bore our readers.

10. Boring start to the story.

Nothing like a massive info dump or display of the author's research to get a reader yawning before he reads past page one. . . if he makes it that far.

9. Boring movement through the middle of the story.

Despite a great start, the story bogs down into daily life and seems to be going nowhere. It appears the author is just adding filling to make the story long enough to be labeled a novel. "Whoops! Can't get to the ending yet. Let's have them talk about politics. Yeah, that will be interesting." Right.

8. Boring ending to a story.

An otherwise great story does a free fall at the end either by failing to add unexpected twists to its resolutions and/or not resolving the primary story arcs at all.

7. Boring characters.

Nothing says, "sit back and fall asleep" faster than all characters sounding alike, sounding like the author, stereotyped, and/or annoying. Go ahead. Make my day.

6. Boring dialog.

When your computer could write more compelling dialog, you know you're in trouble. In real life, small talk is engaging. In a novel, small talk will have most readers wondering when the author is going to return to telling the story.

5. Boring action.

When the reader slodges or skips long sections of action sequences with little character/story building, he will more likely equate your novel with a B-rated Kung-Fu movie than an exciting story. When you hear your son saying what mine said upon hearing a story read to him, "He took a whole paragraph to say they got off their horses," you know you're boring your readers.

4. Boring descriptions.

Nothing halts progress like pausing a story for a litany of static scenic descriptions. We might as well watch paint dry. Descriptions should paint an active picture in story, not pull out to fill in every little detail whether important or not for the sake of realism.

3. Boring climax.

Few things are more frustrating to a reader than having a story build to a climax, then having it putter out. Instead of emotional payoff, the reader gets emotional frustration, and a bad case of book-throwing.

2. Boring conflict.

So your protagonist needs to save his bedroom from roaches. Okay, maybe I can identify with that dilemma, but do I care? Not likely. Not unless, perhaps, they are aliens invading our world through a dimensional portal in the walls of your room. Low stakes for the characters means low stakes on keeping a reader interested and entertained.

1. Wasting the reader's time.

Not to mention any money spent to acquire the book. If your story is boring (You did catch that theme, didn't you?), that means the reader will regret having spent the money for the book, and the time to read it, however far they may have foraged through it. Creating an entertaining story is the first task of a fiction writer. Fail there, and you won't gain a solid following.

What other things authors do that bore you to tears?