By A. N. Lal Senanayake –
Dr. A. N. Lal Senanayake
The Current Debate
Recent remarks by His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, Archbishop of Colombo, have reignited national conversation on sex education in Sri Lanka. Speaking at the reopening of St. Stephen’s Church, Meerigama–Kinadeniya, the Cardinal warned that the proposed “sexual education program,” influenced by international agencies, could undermine the nation’s moral and cultural values. “Is this really education? Isn’t it the parents’ responsibility to teach such matters to their children at the right time?” he asked (Colombo, November 9, Daily Mirror).
His concern reflects a deep pastoral responsibility. Yet it also raises a crucial question: Who today is truly equipped to give children a moral and holistic understanding of human sexuality? In reality, many parents lack the knowledge, confidence, or language to address this sensitive issue. For generations, sex has been treated as taboo—rarely discussed with dignity or theological understanding. This silence has created a vacuum now filled by social media, pornography, and peer influence. Thus, while parents carry the primary responsibility, they need the support of the church, schools, and the government to ensure that children receive education that is accurate, age-appropriate, and morally grounded.
The Dangers of Inappropriate Sex Education
When sexual education is introduced without ethical and spiritual grounding, it produces moral confusion—children may learn biological facts without understanding moral responsibility. It fosters distorted identity (LGBTIQ), where sexuality becomes self-focused rather than relational and covenantal. It also increases vulnerability to exploitation, as uninformed youth are easily misled into early sexual activity or emotional harm. Most critically, there is spiritual erosion when God’s original design is excluded, reducing a sacred gift to a mere physical act. Education that separates knowledge from moral formation informs the mind while deforming the human soul.
A Theological and Biblical Foundation for Human Sexuality
A responsible and holistic approach to sex education must begin not only in biology but also in theology—with the conviction that human sexuality is a divine creation, not a human invention. Scripture says, “Male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). Human sexuality expresses God’s intention for relationship, covenant, and life’s continuity.
According to John Stott, the creation of man and woman “establishes both equality and complementarity; neither is superior, and each needs the other for the fullness of humanity.” The Imago Dei—being made in God’s image—means that male and female together reflect God’s relational nature. Stanley Grenz notes that sexual differentiation “belongs to the created goodness of human existence and is the means by which humans reflect divine relationality.”[2]
Sexuality was designed for intimacy, companionship, procreation, and self-giving within covenantal love (Gen. 2:24). As Christopher Wright affirms, God’s creation order of marriage is “both physical and moral—rooted in covenantal fidelity and mutual blessing.”[3] Pope John Paul II similarly teaches that the body “speaks the language of gift.”[4] Therefore, sexual ethics are inseparable from spiritual integrity, for “your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19–20).
However, sin has fractured this divine design. Since the human Fall (Gen. 3), human sexuality has been distorted through lust, adultery, abuse, and identity confusion (LGBTIQ). Yet, as Stott reminds us, “the Fall did not destroy the image of God in man and woman, but it defaced it. Redemption restores God’s original design and moral order.”[1] Theologically, sin did not change God’s design for sexuality but distorted how humans relate to that design—turning what was meant for covenantal love into self-centered desire.
Christ provides the model of redemptive grace in human brokenness. He reaffirmed the creation order of marriage (Matt. 19:4–6) and met the sexually broken with compassion, not condemnation (John 8:3–11). To the woman caught in adultery, Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you… Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:11). His response embodies truth with grace—the foundation of Christian sexual ethics.
Christian teaching on sexuality should reflect God’s redemptive grace—inviting healing and transformation rather than producing guilt or condemnation. It defines truth to set moral boundaries, extends grace to empower change, and challenges individuals to repentance and transformation. Wright writes, “human relationships are renewed to express justice, faithfulness, and joy—mirroring God’s own covenant grace.”[3]
The church, therefore, must be a community of integrity, offering pastoral care rather than condemnation, upholding chastity before marriage and fidelity within it, and modeling holy love in a culture of confusion. As Vinoth Ramachandra notes, in societies where sexuality is commercialized or silenced, “the church must live as a community of truth and grace, celebrating the dignity of embodied life under God.”[5]
A theological foundation for sexuality rests on four truths:
1. Sexuality is God’s good creation for covenantal love and life.
2. Sin has distorted, but not destroyed, this divine intent.
3. Christ redeems and restores our desires under His Lordship.
4. The Spirit empowers believers to embody holiness, integrity, and compassion.
In Sri Lanka, this theology speaks prophetically—challenging permissive liberalism on one side and fearful silence on the other. It calls the church to provide biblically grounded education and pastoral care, affirming every person’s dignity as made in God’s image. True sex education must lead not just to information, but to formation—helping individuals live under God’s gracious design for human flourishing.
Shared Responsibility: Parents, Church, and Government
Sri Lanka needs a collaborative model of moral and sexual education involving parents, religious bodies, schools, and the government. Parents must nurture love, openness, and moral dialogue at home. The church should shape conscience and spiritual understanding through sound theology and appropriate teaching. The government and schools must ensure scientific accuracy, well-trained teachers and ethical sensitivity in curricula. No single institution can succeed alone. If the state offers knowledge without morality—or religion teaches morality without understanding—both will fail.
Cultural and Ethical Sensitivity
Sri Lankan culture values modesty, dignity, and mutual respect. Effective sex education should affirm these values—promoting respect for life and fidelity, upholding the worth of both men and women, integrating scientific knowledge with ethical and spiritual discernment, and fostering responsibility and reverence. We must avoid copying permissive Western models that undermine moral order, yet we must also reject silence that leaves young people uninformed and vulnerable.
Conclusion: Redeeming Education, Not Rejecting It
Sex education, when stripped of moral foundation, corrupts; but when rooted in biblical truth and ethical integrity, it protects, informs, and transforms. The question is not whether to teach it—but how and on what foundation? To refuse education is to abandon the next generation; to teach it wrongly is to mislead them.
The Bible urges, “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old, he will not depart from it.” (Prov. 22:6). Our children deserve an education that unites wisdom with purity, science with faith, and knowledge with character—an education that builds not only minds but souls, restoring to Sri Lanka a vision of human dignity grounded in God’s truth and grace.
[1] John Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today (Zondervan, 2017).
[2] Stanley J. Grenz, Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective (Westminster John Knox, 1990).
[3] Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (IVP, 2004).
[4] Pope John Paul II, Theology of the Body (Pauline Books, 2006).
[5] Vinoth Ramachandra, Faiths in Conflict? (IVP, 1999).
*Dr. A. N. Lal Senanayake is the President of Lanka Bible College and Seminary (LBCS), Peradeniya, and the LBC Centre for Graduate Studies, Colombo, Sri Lanka. He also serves on the Editorial Board of the InSight Journal for Global Theological Education and has contributed several chapters and articles to internationally published volumes. After completing his undergraduate studies at LBCS, Dr. Senanayake earned his graduate degree from the University of Nottingham, UK, and subsequently earned his PhD in Educational Studies from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois, USA.
old codger / November 13, 2025
“Most critically, there is spiritual erosion when God’s original design is excluded, reducing a sacred gift to a mere physical act”
Well, God was invented at the most 4000 years ago. There is concrete evidence that humans have been around for half a million years at least. There is no need for the Cardinal or anone else to ascribe theological justification to procreative urges.
/
Jit / November 13, 2025
Hmmm….I thought God told Adam and Eve not to eat the apple, which means a big no from God for anyone having sex? 🤔🤔🤔
/
old codger / November 13, 2025
Jit,
The author forgets that God’s original plan was for a population of 2. Or was it vegetative reproduction? That would have been interesting.
/
Jit / November 13, 2025
Surely by VP (Vegetative Propagation) 😂😂😂
/
LaalS / November 13, 2025
Not exactly. 😊
God’s original plan was not a population of two, nor any form of “vegetative reproduction.” Genesis is actually very clear about God’s intention:
“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.”— Genesis 1:28
So from the very beginning:
• God designed humanity to grow,
• to build families,
• to form communities,
• and eventually to fill the earth.
If God intended humanity to remain only two people, He would never have given that command. The tragedy in the story isn’t that humans reproduced — it’s that they disobeyed. The fall was a relational and moral rupture, not a biological one. So, God’s plan was not a static population, nor a botanical one. It was a world filled with people reflecting His image, living in harmony with Him and with one another.
/
LaalS / November 13, 2025
Not quite 😊.
The command God gave Adam and Eve was not about sex. It was specifically about not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16–17). The Bible never says it was an apple — that part is just a later artistic tradition.
In fact, the Bible teaches the opposite of what your question suggests:
• God Himself created sex (Genesis 1:27–28)
• He blessed Adam and Eve and said, “Be fruitful and multiply.
• That means sex, within God’s design for marriage, is a gift, not a forbidden act.
So the “forbidden fruit” was not sex. It was an act of disobedience, not an act of intimacy.
God’s “no” was about trust and obedience, not about sexuality.
God’s “yes” was to marriage, intimacy, and healthy human relationships.
/
LankaScot / November 13, 2025
Hello LaalS,
God lied about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He said in Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
So did they die on the same day that they ate the fruit?
Or maybe you will twist like a Pretzel and claim that these words were said by the Serpent.
Best regards
/
LaalS / November 13, 2025
Thank you for raising this important question. It is one that thoughtful readers have asked for centuries. In Genesis 2:17, the phrase “in the day you eat of it you shall surely die” cannot be read in a narrow biological sense alone. In Hebrew, the expression mot tamut (“dying you shall die”) refers to a certainty of death, not necessarily the timing of it. Ancient languages often used “in the day” to mean “when you do this” or “from the moment you do this,” not always within a 24-hour period.
But even more importantly, the biblical understanding of “death” is deeper than physical cessation. The moment Adam and Eve disobeyed, something essential did “die”:
• Spiritual death: their relationship with God was broken—they hid, felt shame, and were expelled from His presence.
• Moral death: innocence was lost; guilt and fear entered human experience.
• Relational death: blame, conflict, and disorder replaced harmony.
• Physical death: mortality entered the human condition—Adam and Eve became subject to decay and eventual physical death.
So God did not lie, nor did the serpent speak truth. The serpent promised, “You will not die”—yet everything that constitutes life as God intended immediately fractured.
The text is not a trick; it reflects the profound consequences of choosing autonomy over trust.
Best regards.
/
LankaScot / November 13, 2025
Hello LaalS,
Welcome to Pretzel Land,
Best regards
/
LaalS / November 14, 2025
“Thank you. I assume ‘Pretzel Land’ suggests that the discussion feels twisted or complex.
The questions we are dealing with are deep, and I’m committed to engaging them with clarity and respect.
Let’s continue the conversation constructively.”
/
LankaScot / November 15, 2025
Hello LaalS,
No, the use of the word “Pretzel” is to show the knots that Christian Apologists tie themselves into when they say that words don’t mean what they obviously say. If the meaning in the Bible is not correct then why has it remained this way without being changed? Smoke and mirrors.
Best regards
/
LaalS / November 17, 2025
I think it’s important to recognize that wrestling with meaning is not the same as “tying ourselves into knots.” Every serious discipline—law, science, philosophy, literature—requires careful interpretation of texts. Even secular scholars spend decades debating what historical, philosophical, or literary texts truly mean in their context.
Biblical interpretation works the same way. Languages change, cultures shift, and words in ancient Hebrew and Greek often carry layers of meaning that are not immediately obvious in English translations. This isn’t “smoke and mirrors”; it’s simply responsible scholarship. If anything, the fact that the biblical text has been preserved unchanged actually requires good interpretation, not blind literalism.
The goal is not to make the Bible say what we want, but to understand what the original authors intended—and how that meaning should be applied ethically and wisely today. Hope this clarifies the issue.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 14, 2025
LaalS
You are correct in your understanding of the expression “in the day.” King Solomon’s warning to Shimei in 1 Kings 2:37, “For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die, ” supports that understanding. As the narrative makes clear, Shimei wasn’t actually executed on the same day that he disobeyed Solomon’s order for him not to go out of Jerusalem.
In Adam’s case “in the day that you… you will die” refers only to the physical death of Adam that followed his disobedience (cf. Genesis 5:5). The spiritual death that Paul refers to in Romans 7 and elsewhere in the NT was only typified by Adam’s physical death.
The “Fall” is an unbiblical doctrine, which you have repeated in this article and the comments from your earlier article. My comments on that and your understanding of “the image of God” will be found in a separate post below, to which your reply is invited.
/
LaalS / November 15, 2025
Thank you for this clarification
/
Jit / November 14, 2025
Lal, thank you for your thoughtful response. My comment was just in a lighter vein, a pun to cheer up the guys. I have no desire to engage in arguments about God, as I have been a die‑hard atheist since my teenage years, so naturally ‘God’ doesn’t have an iota of a chance in my world. In all my donkey’s years on this earth, my convictions have only deepened, reinforced by what I have observed and read about how events unfold. So you cannot change me and vice versa. Entering into a debate on the subject therefore, would only waste your time as much as other commenter’s.
That said, Lal, I sincerely admire the gracious and measured way you respond to comments here. You conduct yourself with refinement and tolerance; qualities that are increasingly rare in today’s world. Well done, and keep up the good work! 👍
/
LaalS / November 14, 2025
Thank you so much for your kind and generous words. I truly appreciate the spirit in which you’ve written. It means a great deal when someone who holds a different worldview can still affirm respect, dignity, and good conversation. That is rare today, and I’m grateful.
I understand completely that you have settled convictions shaped over many years. I also respect your honesty about not wanting to enter into debates. My intention has never been to “win” an argument, but simply to offer clarity from my perspective when the discussion calls for it.
I often tell my friends that I don’t have enough faith—or evidence—to be an atheist. For me, the existence of order, beauty, moral intuition, consciousness, and relational meaning points beyond material explanations. But I also know that for you, those same realities point in another direction. And that is where good dialogue, even without agreement, becomes meaningful.
Thank you again for your graciousness. I hope we will continue to converse in this same respectful tone whenever our paths cross. Differences need not divide us when mutual respect guides us.
Warm regards,
Lal
/
Agnos / November 14, 2025
I second what Jit said above. Very few CT authors engage readers in the comments section as Mr.LaaLS is doing.
That said, I think it is reckless for people to place their faith in whatever is supposed to have happened in the Middle Eastern desert some 2000 years ago, in a tiny community. For the wider world, this whole thing was a tempest in a teacup. It is hubristic and self-serving for some people, particularly Jewish and Christian people, to think of themselves as the “chosen people.” After all, didn’t the same God choose Hitler for the Jews and the Ottoman Turks for the Christians? And haven’t pro-Trump Christians in the US thoroughly discredited themselves and their religions by their sheer hypocrisy?
I am all for a conservative morality, culturally defined and reinforced, but let us not promote religious lies to poison the whole debate.
/
LaalS / November 15, 2025
I fully agree that throughout history many harmful actions have been carried out in the name of religion. No honest person can ignore that reality. But it is equally important to distinguish between the failures of human beings and the core teachings of a religious tradition. Human interpretation is often flawed; original teachings usually aim toward compassion, justice, wisdom, and restraint.
Despite its misuses, religion continues to play a vital role in holistic human formation. It shapes moral conscience, provides a framework for meaning, nurtures empathy, and guides individuals toward a higher purpose beyond self-interest. Psychology, sociology, and anthropology consistently show that spirituality and faith practices strengthen resilience, ethical behavior, and mental well-being. Even secular societies rely—often unconsciously—on values that originally flowed from religious worldviews such as human dignity, responsibility, fidelity, and justice.
Therefore, the solution is not to reject religion because some have misapplied it, but to return to its authentic teachings, which every major faith upholds: love your neighbor, do no harm, care for the vulnerable, seek peace, and cultivate integrity. When practiced as intended, religion becomes not a threat but a moral compass that complements education, family, and government in forming a healthy and humane society.
/
Agnos / November 16, 2025
Mr. LaalS,
Your argument is about the usefulness of religions, but it doesn’t say anything about whether their foundational claims are true. Many things might benefit society without being true, but that is unhealthy, leads to cynicism, and eventually moral decay of the kind we see everywhere in the world. The right approach is to insist on truthful claims while stressing the importance of universal morality, which might have derived some of its early concepts from religions, but the latter are no longer needed to sustain these values. At least among the educated classes. If the so-called “educated classes” lead by example, then the rest of humanity will aspire to it as well, and then there is no need to promote religious lies even among the less educated who may currently lack the confidence to lead such principled lives without belief in a God.
/
LaalS / November 17, 2025
This is a serious and a thoughtful point. I fully agree that usefulness alone cannot determine truth. A belief may inspire good behavior but still be false. The question, then, is not whether religion is useful, but whether God is necessary to account for the deepest features of human existence—morality, meaning, rationality, dignity, and hope.
From a philosophical standpoint, universal moral values cannot simply be “continued” by educated societies if those values have no grounding beyond human preference. Without an objective moral anchor, morality becomes a social convention that can shift with power, culture, or political pressure. This has been the tragic lesson of the 20th century: highly educated societies (Germany, Russia, China) committed atrocities not because they lacked intelligence, but because they lacked a transcendent moral reference point and accountability.
Your argument assumes that morality can stand on its own once inherited from religion. But if moral norms are only human constructs, there is no ultimate reason why humans ought to follow them—especially when they become costly. As philosophers like Kant, Lewis, and MacIntyre note, the very existence of binding moral obligation points beyond humanity to a personal moral Lawgiver.
The distortions of religion do not negate the necessity of God; they simply show the necessity of returning to the true foundations rather than abandoning them. Human conscience, human dignity, the universal impulse toward justice, the quest for spirituality, the hunger for relationships, the delight in the beauty, and the rational structure of the universe all point not to “religious lies,” but to a transcendent Source.
In other words, the failures of religion reflect human weakness—not the nonexistence of God.
/
old codger / November 17, 2025
LaalS,
“This has been the tragic lesson of the 20th century: highly educated societies (Germany, Russia, China) committed atrocities not because they lacked intelligence, but because they lacked a transcendent moral reference point and accountability.” Why have you picked on those three countries in particular?
BTW, Hitler was apparently a Catholic, and Stalin a former seminarian.
Who in your opinion was the guilty party in Vietnam? Did not the same party practice apartheid in its own Army?
Then we have very Christian South Africa. Let’s not forget the British, who wrote many books on morals but managed to kill more civilians in one night in Germany than the Germans did in a year in Britain.
France in the 50’s killed more than a million Algerians despite their famous philosopophers writing volumes on “transcendental morals”.
Perhaps , LaalS, you can identify for me a Christian country which has always acted morally?
/
Lester / November 16, 2025
“Therefore, the solution is not to reject religion because some have misapplied it, but to return to its authentic teachings, which every major faith upholds: love your neighbor, do no harm, care for the vulnerable, seek peace, and cultivate integrity.”
With the exception of Buddhism, which is a philosophy anyway, the other major religions existed primarily to benefit the patriarchy/nobility and the priest-class, while simultaneously preserving the economic order. But “religion” would be a misnomer here. The very ancient religions did not favor religion, rather, cults. Christianity evolved out of such a cult. The cult of Dionysus-Osiris. The Catholic (Roman) Church also evolved out of a similar cult. And then throughout Medieval Europe, the Catholic Church retained its power, as the concept of monarchy was based on divine rule . While the peasants had limited opportunity for upward economic mobility, while the Church owned much of their land.
The spread of Christianity to other continents was largely a proxy for mercentalism. If the natives could be converted, it would be easier to exploit their natural resources.
/
Lester / November 16, 2025
On the other hand, Islam has not undergone the type of reformation that Christianity did. There was neither a Reformation nor Enlightenment nor separation of religion from State. Christianity has been neutered and pacified, but Islam has not. There are still Sunni extremist groups that seek world domination .
Caste prejudice is still very strong in Hinduism.
Given advances in science and technology, combined with the freedom provided by capitalism, organized religion is largely unnecessary these days. But it still exists because it benefits elements of the patriarchy.
Lastly, poor people are drawn to religion more so than others. That will not change, since scarcity leads to wealth inequality.
/
Lester / November 16, 2025
*the very ancient religious practices
/
chiv / November 17, 2025
💤💤💤
/
LankaScot / November 16, 2025
Hello Dr Senanayake,
” to return to its authentic teachings, which every major faith upholds: love your neighbor, do no harm, care for the vulnerable, seek peace, and cultivate integrity”. Tell that to the Amalekites, King David’s Wives and Job’s 10 Children.
“At God’s bidding (permission), the devil, or Satan, inflicted a series of devastating misfortunes on Job to test his righteousness and integrity.
How sick is this?
Best regards
/
LaalS / November 17, 2025
I need much more than 200 words to repond to this difficult and deeply human question. It touches two of the oldest debates in philosophy and theology: What is love? and Why does a good God permit suffering?
1. Do we love for a reason?
If love is merely a transaction—based on usefulness, pleasure, or reward—then it collapses the moment circumstances change. That is not love; that is preference. The deepest forms of love are non-instrumental—they are not caused by the worthiness of the beloved but arise from a freely chosen commitment.
This is why the book of Job is so profound. The central question of Job is not suffering; it is whether humans love God only when life is good. Satan’s accusation is: “Does Job fear God for nothing?” (Job 1:9).
If love depends on circumstances, then love is not real. If love persists even without reward, then love is genuine. To be continued…
/
LaalS / November 17, 2025
2. What about the troubling stories (Amalekites, David’s wives, Job’s children)?
These narratives reflect ancient Near Eastern contexts, not universal moral norms. Even within Scripture, they are treated as descriptive, not prescriptive. The Bible itself wrestles with them: the prophets condemn violence, Israel’s kings are rebuked for immorality, and Job ultimately confronts God with honest lament.
The point is not that every action in Scripture reflects God’s ideal. Rather, Scripture shows flawed humans in a broken world—and yet God works patiently toward justice, dignity, and peace. It is a narrative of moral progression, not moral perfection in every episode.
3. Is God cruel for allowing Job’s suffering?
In the Job story, God does not inflict the suffering; Satan does. But God allows the test to reveal the depth of Job’s faith. This is uncomfortable, yet it confronts an essential truth: love that is never tested cannot be shown to be real.
Job is not a story of a cruel God—it is a story of:
• honest human suffering
• unanswered questions
• protest and lament
• and finally, restoration and deeper understanding
The book ends not with a theological formula but with a relationship—God speaks, Job encounters God, and Job’s love becomes deeper, not because of reward, but because of truth.
/
LaalS / November 17, 2025
4. The meaning beneath it all
Your question cuts to the heart of human longing: Is love meaningful if life is fragile and the world is broken?
The biblical answer is that love is not grounded in circumstances but in the nature of God Himself—whose love is covenantal, not conditional. The failures and tragedies in Scripture do not undermine this truth; they highlight the brokenness of humanity and the necessity of a God whose love is steadfast even when the world is not.
/
Lester / November 17, 2025
very good points
/
LaalS / November 13, 2025
Thank you for your comment. The claim that “God was invented 4,000 year ago” is a misintepretation of both the history of religion and the nature of theological truth. Belief in a divine reality predates organized religion. Monotheism is not a recent invention, it goes back to the origin of humans. Moreover, Christian theology teaches that sexuality is not merely an animal instinct, but a sacred and relational gift rooted in God’s creation purposes. The Bible sees humans not as biological machines but as persons whose physical, emotional, moral, and spiritual realities are integrated. To reduce sexuality to “procreative urges” is to flatten human experience and ignore the deep relational and moral implications that all societies recognize.
Even if humans appeared 500,000 years ago and Scripture was written much later, chronology does not determine reality. Gravity existed before Newton explained it. DNA existed before Watson and Crick named it. Moral laws, human dignity, conscience, and relational meaning existed long before people articulated them. Truth does not become invalid simply because it was articulated later in history.
/
old codger / November 13, 2025
LaalS,
Thank you for your attention.
“Gravity existed before Newton explained it. DNA existed before Watson and Crick named it. Moral laws, human dignity,conscience, and relational meaning existed long before people articulated them. “
Isn’t that a bit of a red herring? People knew that Gravity existed even before Newton. That’s why they didn’t jump off tall buildings. And of course Gregor Mendel could predict genetic combination without considering DNA.
But did universally accepted “Moral laws” exist? They did, but not in a form that you would approve of, I think. Or is it that you approve of Leviticus’s imprecations against women adulterers ( but not male ones) for example?
Till about 120 years ago, 13 year old girls could marry, but now even the Cardinal wouldn’t allow it.
Neither would the Cardinal dream, on moral grounds, of denying women the vote.
In the 15th century, the Incas thought nothing of sacrificing children to their (presumably moral) gods, which upset the Christian Spanish so much that they killed off most of the Incas.
The Mahavamsa in one passage says that non-Buddhists aren’t human, and may be killed.
“Even if humans appeared 500,000 years ago and Scripture was written much later, chronology does not determine reality. ” Sadly, it does, and it isn’t a Moral world.
/
LaalS / November 13, 2025
I will respond in several stages because of word limit:
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. You’ve raised important historical and moral questions, and I appreciate the seriousness behind them.
Let me clarify the point I was making:
When I say that moral laws existed before they were articulated, I don’t mean that societies always understood them perfectly or lived them out consistently. Far from it. Human history—including biblical history—shows moral blindness, cultural distortions, and outright cruelty. You cited several examples, and they’re valid.
But those examples actually point to a deeper reality:
1. Moral disagreement does not mean moral non-existence.
Cultures have disagreed about gravity too, yet gravity continued functioning.
Likewise, cultures have disagreed about ethics, but this doesn’t erase the underlying moral intuitions that humans everywhere share:
• lying is wrong
• murder is wrong
• unjust harm is wrong
• promises matter
• love is better than hate
• innocence deserves protection
• betrayal wounds
• compassion heals
These moral instincts cut across tribes, centuries, and civilizations—even when societies violate them.
/
LankaScot / November 13, 2025
Hello LaalS,
“Monotheism is not a recent invention, it goes back to the origin of humans”. Can you please show any Objective Evidence for this?
Even Christianity has Polytheistic roots. “Yahweh was a member of a pantheon, with El holding the top position, and early Israelites worshiped a variety of gods common to ancient Semitic religions, such as Asherah and Baal”. Even the Christian concept of the Trinity is Polytheistic. Are the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost “mono”? You can twist yourself in knots trying to explain that.
The earliest writing is from around 5,500 years ago or so. The Kish Tablet from c.3500 BCE found at Tell al-Uhaymir, Babil Governorate, Iraq and written in an early cuneiform script is one of the earliest surviving examples of writing. The earliest extant story of Gilgamesh (a King of Uruk 27th century BCE) written around 2100 BCE mentions at least four Gods including Ishtar, Shamash and Aruru.
By the way this story has a character Utnapishtim (a version of Noah from the Babylonian Flood) predating the Biblical Version.
Best regards
/
LaalS / November 13, 2025
Thank you for raising these important historical questions. When I say monotheism is ancient, I do not mean that all early cultures were monotheistic, but that belief in one supreme, creator God appears far earlier and far more widely than the claim that humans “invented” Him late in history.
Anthropologists such as Wilhelm Schmidt (early 20th century) and more recent researchers examining primal cultures (e.g., Australian Aboriginal, African, and Native American groups) argue that the earliest layer of many traditions includes belief in a High God—a creator above other spiritual beings. This does not prove biblical monotheism, but it shows that the idea of a single supreme God is older than polytheistic systems, not a late evolution.
Regarding Israel, the presence of other deities in the region does not make early Israelite faith polytheistic. The biblical narrative itself acknowledges competing gods but calls Israel to exclusive worship of Yahweh (Deut. 6:4). The Trinity is not three gods but one God expressed in relational distinction—complex, yes, but not polytheism.
As for ancient flood stories, their existence does not disprove the biblical account; if anything, they suggest a remembered ancient event interpreted differently across cultures.
Best regards.
/
LankaScot / November 15, 2025
Hello LaalS,
“Wilhelm Schmidt” was a Priest, not exactly Impartial was he?
“Wilhelm Schmidt’s theory of primeval monotheism is critiqued for being based on a presupposed conclusion and for using a selective interpretation of data to support his religious beliefs, rather than being a neutral scientific inquiry”.
Written in 1930 his book “The Origin and Growth of Religion” uses the Anthropological Investigations into so-called “Primitive Peoples” to bolster his assertions. I cannot find any Archaeological or Inscriptional Evidence detailed in this book. Here is a typical quote about who is qualified to do such research “Renan perceived this; he however believed that a still better investigator was one who had formerly been religious and had since abandoned his creed. This cannot be allowed“.
So according to Schmidt – only Religious people can investigate Religion?
Apart from that it is full of Racist views regarding Indigenous Peoples
Best regards
/
LaalS / November 17, 2025
It is true that Wilhelm Schmidt was a Catholic priest, and some of his early-20th-century language reflects the limitations and problems of that era. But rejecting his entire theory simply because he was a priest commits the genetic fallacy—dismissing an idea based on its source rather than its argument. The credibility of a theory rests on its reasoning and evidence, not on the personal background of the researcher. Atheist, agnostic, or religious scholars all approach the study of origins with their own presuppositions.
Schmidt’s theory of primeval monotheism was not a theological invention but a challenge to the dominant evolutionary model of his time, which assumed—with little archaeological proof—that religion began with animism and slowly evolved into monotheism. Schmidt argued the opposite: that many pre-literate cultures showed belief in a Supreme Creator whose worship later degenerated into polytheism or animism. Even critics admit that his linguistic and ethnographic work was extensive for its time, even if incomplete.
The real philosophical question his work raises is this: Why does belief in a High Creator emerge so widely, spontaneously, and persistently across cultures? Even if Schmidt’s interpretation is debated, the phenomenon itself cannot be dismissed.
Theologically, this widespread intuition toward transcendence suggests that humans are oriented toward something beyond themselves—what many traditions call God. This does not prove monotheism, but it certainly keeps the question open.
/
old codger / November 14, 2025
LS,
AI analysis:
“Monotheism is not a recent invention, it goes back to the origin of humans”. Can you please show any Objective Evidence for this?”
While explicit monotheism as a formal religion may not date back to the very origin of humans, objective evidence from archaeology, history, and anthropology suggests that monotheistic ideas or tendencies have ancient roots. These ideas likely evolved gradually alongside polytheistic beliefs and may have been part of early human attempts to understand the cosmos and social order.
/
SJ / November 13, 2025
“Belief in a divine reality predates organized religion.”
Belief was in superhuman or other non-human forces emerged from fears of all sorts. There was witchcraft which did not invoke a god all mighty but spirits of various forms including ancestors.
Polytheism comprises a combination of various systems of worship.
Sex urge is common to all animals with sensory organs. It is natural and most religions imposed a sense of guilt on it.
*
Let us not confuse laws of nature with man-made laws.
“Moral laws, human dignity, conscience, and relational meaning” cannot exist outside human society. They emerged with evolution of society.
*
The Buddha wisely stated “The existence or otherwise of God is irrelevant to what I have to say”
Do not invoke God into everything, and avoid imposing your prejudices on God.
/
LaalS / November 13, 2025
Thank you for sharing these reflections. You raise important points about how beliefs and moral frameworks develop within human societies. It is true that early humans interpreted their world through fears, experiences, and the unknown—leading to a variety of spiritual expressions, from ancestor reverence to polytheism to animism. Yet alongside these diverse beliefs, anthropologists have observed that many ancient cultures also held an intuition of a single supreme Creator, even if surrounded by lesser spirits. This suggests that humanity’s search for ultimate meaning is deeper than fear alone.
You are right that moral guidelines take shape within society, yet many moral intuitions—such as valuing fairness, condemning cruelty, or honoring fidelity—appear across cultures and eras, even when no law demands them. This universality hints at something beyond social evolution, something built into the human conscience.
Regarding sexuality, religions have often misused guilt, but many traditions—including the Bible—affirm sexuality as good while warning against its misuse because of the harm it can cause.
The Buddha’s statement is profound, and it reminds us to approach these matters with humility. My intention is not to impose God into everything but to acknowledge that many see moral depth and human dignity as rooted in something greater than ourselves.
Thank you again for this respectful dialogue.
/
LaalS / November 14, 2025
Thank you for your thoughts. Let me respond briefly and clearly.
You said we should not confuse natural laws with man-made laws, and that morality, dignity, and conscience emerged only through social evolution. But this raises an unavoidable question:
How can we speak of a “law” without some source of order behind it?
• Physical laws existed long before humans. Their consistency and mathematical precision point to underlying rationality.
• Moral laws appear across cultures. If morality is only a social invention, then nothing is objectively right or wrong—only popular or unpopular.
• Human dignity cannot come from evolution alone. Evolution gives survival, not value.
Using the word law already assumes order, structure, and rationality—not random accident.
Law implies order
Order implies intelligence
Intelligence implies source
This is not “imposing God everywhere,” but simply acknowledging that the universe behaves as if it is governed by coherent principles—physical, moral, and existential.
Regarding the Buddha’s statement: his aim was practical liberation, not metaphysical denial. Even Buddhism assumes moral causality (karma), which again functions like a law.
So the question remains:
Can a law exist without a lawgiver, or a design without a designer?
This is a philosophical inquiry, not prejudice, and worth exploring with an open minds.
/
RBH59 / November 13, 2025
The Consequences Of Inappropriate Sex Education In Sri Lanka: A Theological & Biblical Response
If there is an Excuse or justification for allowing same…gender Marriage, then why are harmful things such as drugs still forbidden? Both go against moral and divine laws. Just as drugs destroy the body and mind, such unnatural relationships destroy the moral and social fabric of society. When something is against the law of God and against nature,.,, N no excuse can make it right. The laws of God are not to be changed according to human desire, for in the Hereafter every soul will be questioned for what it allowed and accepted against His command.,….
/
LankaScot / November 13, 2025
Hello RBH59 and The Author,
There is no Soul, no Covenant and no God.
Now prove me wrong.
Best regards
/
LaalS / November 13, 2025
I appreciate your honesty. But these claims can’t be proven or disproven in one sentence.
What I can say is this: billions across history have experienced God, meaning, and moral responsibility in ways that cannot be explained by materialism alone.
I’d be glad to discuss respectfully if you’re open to it. This is not the platform to discuss such massive and complex topics..
/
LankaScot / November 13, 2025
Hello LaalS,
You can’t prove your Supernatural Claims at all, in one, or more, sentences, AS I said to RBH59 you both misrepresent Atheism. Until such time as you present Concrete Evidence your Claims are Fantasy. Atheists never set out to disprove Gods and the Supernatural, we just ask for your Evidence and you have none.
Best regards
/
LaalS / November 13, 2025
Thank you for sharing your view so clearly. I respect that you are asking for evidence rather than trying to disprove anything, and I agree that extraordinary claims deserve thoughtful examination. At the same time, it’s helpful to clarify that not all forms of evidence are limited to what can be placed in a laboratory. Much of what we accept as real—consciousness, moral obligation, human rights, love, beauty, purpose—cannot be weighed or measured, yet no one dismisses them as fantasy. They are real because they have explanatory power and because they shape human experience in profound ways.
Similarly, belief in God is not built on one sentence or one piece of data, but on a cumulative case: historical testimonies, philosophical reasoning, universal moral intuition, the fine-tuning of the universe, experiential transformation, and the enduring global impact of the life of Jesus. None of these alone “proves” God, but together they form a coherent framework that many find more plausible than a purely material explanation.
I understand that you do not accept these as sufficient, and I respect that. My intention is not to force belief, but simply to say that thoughtful people throughout history have found the evidence meaningful, not imaginary.
Best regards.
/
LaalS / November 14, 2025
This statement raises legitimate concerns about moral formation, but it also needs theological clarity. Christian ethics does not begin with comparing behaviours to drugs or social harm; it begins with God’s creation order, human dignity, and the call to discipleship. Scripture teaches that sexuality is God’s good gift, rooted in the covenantal union of male and female (Gen. 1:27; 2:24). This is not merely a cultural rule but a reflection of God’s design for relational wholeness. When sex education ignores this moral framework, it risks shaping young people without reference to truth, responsibility, or holiness.
At the same time, Christians must respond with both conviction and compassion. The biblical call is not to condemn persons but to invite all people into God’s restoring grace (John 3:17). Moral boundaries exist not to shame but to protect human flourishing. Paul teaches that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), and therefore sexual ethics matter deeply.
Finally, judgment belongs to God, not to us. Our task is to teach clearly, love deeply, and guide wisely. Faithful sex education must honour God’s design while nurturing dignity, responsibility, and hope in every student.
/
RBH59 / November 13, 2025
LankaScot
Jesus (peace be upon him), both rEligious and non-religious historians confirm that people saw him Heal and revive the dead.Over 80……85% of the world’s P opulation identifies with a religion……. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, or other faiths…That means only a small minority — less than 15%…. Firmly believe there is no God or soul at all.
/
LankaScot / November 13, 2025
Hello RBH59,
You misrepresent Atheism. Until you can produce any Concrete Evidence for your Gods etc. then they are in the Realms of Fantasy. Do you believe that Thor, Zeus, Odin or Aphrodite actually existed?
It doesn’t matter how many people believe something, it doesn’t make it true.
Best regards
/
Lester / November 13, 2025
“It doesn’t matter how many people believe something, it doesn’t make it true.”
As an example, LieZeera and social media convinced millions of people there’s a “genocide” in Gaza, even though there isn’t. Antisemites such as yourself would believe in this myth regardless. Antisemitism is the opium of the Israel haters.
/
LankaScot / November 13, 2025
Hello Lester,
The Rome Statute says that it is Genocide.
Best regards
/
SJ / November 13, 2025
LS
Do not waste time contesting ceaseless lies of sick minds.
/
LankaScot / November 14, 2025
Hello SJ,
Lester is set in his mindset and neither takes advice or moderates his language or abuse of Commenters. So don’t say I told you so, but you are right. Never again.
Best regards
/
Lester / November 14, 2025
Scott,
I am not the one who created 20 ID’s to write porno and other filth on here. You encouraged that individual, calling them “astute” and “educated.” Maybe alcohol has done permanent damage to your brain? Or were you born in a brothel… you are accustomed to a particular kind of whining?
/
ubernuts / November 14, 2025
“I am not the one who created 20 ID’s to write porno and other filth on here .Were you born in a brothel?”
Feeling uber sorry for ourselves, are we, tootsie ?
The missing one uber scratchy today, darling? Try scratching the other one harder dearie.
xoxoxo
/
chiv / November 15, 2025
Ubernuts
😅🤣😂😅🤣😂
/
Lester / November 16, 2025
Here comes the other rat. Rats travel in packs. Filthy trash.
/
Paul / November 14, 2025
‘Or were you born in a brothel… you are accustomed to a particular kind of whining?’
.
Comments like this say more about you than anyone else, Lester. I’m amazed the moderators allowed it. Perhaps they are asleep.
/
Lester / November 14, 2025
Paul,
Since you are asking, the commenter known as “Old Codger” has created more than 20 ID’s (it is not an overcount) to write rubbish on this forum. Not merely a reference to a brothel (which is harmless anyway), but multiple pornographic references to genitalia. I don’t want to repost it here, as I created a filter to block that content. You can find some of the fake ID’s here: https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/akds-neoliberal-budget-2026-will-it-resolve-slow-growth-issues-quickly/. All references to genitalia come from either him (fake ID) or the other character “Chiv.”
I’m surprised you haven’t noted this. Maybe you are one of his avatars?
Personally, I could care less what he/she/it writes, since the content is invisible to me, but I am pointing it out because the “LankaScot” character is another shady hypocrite who encourages him.
/
Lester / November 15, 2025
Paul,
And now my point is proven. If you scroll below, you will see some comment from “ubernuts.” That is a fake ID of “Old Codger.” I temporarily unblocked the filter for a second just to see who LaaLS had responded to (though I did not read the message). The source of the gobbledygook is obvious.
Being intellectually dishonest , I don’t expect you to acknowledge the point.
Childish nonsense from the likes of mental midgets such “Old Pervert”, that is why professional news websites use a paywall to keep out spam.
I don’t intend to turn the filter off again.
/
Lester / November 15, 2025
*such as
/
Lester / November 15, 2025
Isn’t it logical to assume, that a man who obsesses over other men’s anatomy, is very likely a gay ? Another reason why I blocked Old Pervert. In my opinion, being gay is a mental illness. Maybe the “Scott” character is one of his lovers.
/
meganuts / November 15, 2025
“I’m surprised you haven’t noted this. Were you born in a brothel?” Maybe you are one of his avatars
Maybe the “Scott” character is one of his lovers.”
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
/
chiv / November 17, 2025
💤💤💤
/
Lester / November 14, 2025
With the Internet, there are ways to customize the content that appears in the browser. It is not too difficult.
The filter I made works as intended: https://screenrec.com/share/n71p4ZLNPi
You can see, for example, it blocks content from “SJ.” If this person were to create a new ID, it automatically blocks content from that ID as well.
Now if I were the admin, there are even simpler methods, such as range ban. That is beyond what I control.
/
Lester / November 15, 2025
It all makes sense now. The “Scott” character converted to Islam at some point in time, moved to Sri Lanka for economic reasons, and hooked up with Old Pervert, who is probably a beach boy. Scotland has a very beautiful Christian heritage, which is professed in their Declaration of Independence. Why would any Scot bash that religion day in and day out?
Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today… The high qualities and deserts of these people, were they not otherwise manifest, gain glory enough from this: that the King of kings and Lord of lords, our Lord Jesus Christ…
/
meganuts / November 15, 2025
“If this person were to create a new ID, it automatically blocks content from that ID as well.”
What an admission of cowardice, my little pudding. You outdo yourself every day.
/
Lester / November 15, 2025
Being an agnostic myself, I have no hostility towards atheism. But I do not think “LankaScot” is a true atheist. If you go on Youtube, you will find well-known atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris openly condemning Islam to the extent that (in their opinion) it is incompatible with Judeo-Christian (Western) values. Not that these atheists have any special affection for Christianity. One could make a perfectly rational argument that in an ideal world, no religion at all is needed. However, religion is a genuine construct and therefore most people will pick one.
The point is that “LankaScot” has never condemned controversial practices in Islam such as child marriage, jihad, and polygamy. He has never questioned the character of Muhammed. On the other hand, “LankaScot” accused the virtuous Jesus of being pro-slavery. “LankaScot” has also attacked the Catholic Church. At the same time, he thinks Hamas terrorists are “resistance fighters” and Israel should not exist. These are not atheist talking points. Rather, they reflect a pro-Islamist mindset. LankaScot even approved of that silly Natasha bashing Buddhist monks.
/
meganuts / November 15, 2025
I am sure OC , Scot, and all the rest must be rolling about having hysterical fits of laughter reading the Nutless maudlin rants coming from the direction of Wanni. Woo hoo,” I only called Scot a son of a prostitute. “. (which is harmless anyway).
He sounds like a kid who lost his favourite toy (Scot)
/
leelagemalli / November 15, 2025
My dear Paul,
Unfortunately, the reputation of this website is deteriorating at a rate that suggests it will break down sooner rather than later. I’m wondering why CT-admin isn’t saying anything more. Everyone should block this man, Lester, starting today.
Perhaps the CT administrator is more interested in the number of posts than in following the guidelines. LESTER’s newly created avatars (ubernuts and meganuts, etc.) even refer to LankaScot as the son of a prostitute… can you imagine?
/
leelagemalli / November 14, 2025
Dear Readers,
“You encouraged that individual, calling them “astute” and “educated.” Maybe alcohol has done permanent damage to your brain? Or were you born in a brothel… you are accustomed to a particular kind of whining?”
–
What LESTER intends to publish in the form of comments reveals what type of background he may have had.
–
I believe CT administrators should awaken from their slumber and take action against racists who do not continue to post racial content on this wonderful page.
–
If the arguments are not constructive enough, the poster will repeatedly attack the others.
I’ve never read anything constructive from Lester, Deepthi, Amkumaru, and Ruchira Baba.
/
old codger / November 14, 2025
LS,
It would be even better if he bans you too. 🤣🤣🤣
/
Lester / November 14, 2025
No such thing as genocide under Islamic (Shariah) law.
/
Lester / November 14, 2025
An allegation of genocide is different from “proven” genocide. According to the AI,
“False — there is currently no authoritative court decision under the Rome Statute that Israel has committed genocide, although genocide allegations are being actively litigated and investigated.”
/
chiv / November 17, 2025
MEGA nuts 🤣😂😅😅🤣
/
Lester / November 17, 2025
Is that what your mother called her favorite customer
/
chiv / November 17, 2025
😅🤣😂😅🤣😂
/
leelagemalli / November 17, 2025
Chiv,
Please ignore “Lester” and all of his avatars. Rajapakshe kalliya controls them remotely for power grabs. Furthermore, why should we make beach boys or similar low-lifes important here? I believe we should focus more on the article’s content.
/
old codger / November 17, 2025
Chiv,
Could it be that the owner of the nut is a consequence of inappropriate sexual education?
/
chiv / November 17, 2025
OC and LM ,
I have decided to completely ignore the fellow.
/
old codger / November 17, 2025
Chiv,
“I have decided to completely ignore the fellow.”
Yes, me too. But I can’t speak for some mysterious characters who keep commenting about his nuts. 🤣🤣
/
SJ / November 17, 2025
The guy likes to be noticed.
Dialogue with him will produce nothing worthwhile.
The poor sod cannot handle oc and his countless avatars..
Others he has been able to bait by personal insult.
/
SJ / November 17, 2025
c
WISE
/
old codger / November 14, 2025
LS,
Zeus did exist until recently.
The cause of death for former NFL player Orlando “Zeus” Brown was diabetic ketoacidosis, a complication of diabetes resulting from high blood sugar and a lack of insulin. He was found dead at his Baltimore home on September 23, 2011, at the age of 40.
/
LankaScot / November 14, 2025
Hello OC,
I stand corrected, thanks.
By the way I notice something strange about Comments from LaalS. They seem very similar in tone to the Roman Catholic AI Bot. It’s only a vague feeling but his opening sentence e.g. “Thank you for sharing your view so clearly” is very creepy. A normal Human would not open with a phrase like this.
But I could be wrong.
Best regards
/
old codger / November 14, 2025
LS,
I noticed that too. But perhaps LaalS is an unusually tolerant gent, unlike DTG. BTW, he isn’t a Catholic.
/
old codger / November 14, 2025
LS,
I asked AI ““Those who let religion intrude into education understand neither education nor religion” assumes a particular philosophical worldview—one that separates fact from value, and the human mind from questions of meaning. But this separation itself is neither neutral nor universal.” What do you think?”
(Part of) the long-winded Answer:
Education as Value-Laden:
Education is not just about facts; it involves moral, cultural, and existential dimensions. What is taught, how it is taught, and why it is taught are influenced by underlying values, which can be religious or secular.
Religion and Meaning:
Religion often addresses fundamental human questions about purpose, ethics, and community. These questions can be integral to a holistic education that aims to develop the whole person, not just cognitive skills.
Philosophical Alternatives:
Philosophies like hermeneutics, existentialism, and critical theory challenge the strict fact-value divide. They argue that understanding human experience, including education, requires integrating meaning, values, and context.
/
LankaScot / November 14, 2025
Hello OC,
I think you are on to something here.
Best regards
/
old codger / November 15, 2025
LS,
😆😆😆
As a comedian once asked, “Are we being taken for a ride, or is someone taking us for a ride?”
/
LankaScot / November 15, 2025
Hello OC,
You are right, he is an Evangelical, with Links to the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The Rev Billy Graham advised Richard Nixon (known Criminal) to continue the Vietnam War.
By the way LaalS thinks that Christianity may go back to St Thomas in 72AD. I wonder what real evidence he has for this, or maybe it’s from Divine Inspiration?
Best regards
/
old codger / November 17, 2025
LS,
“The Rev Billy Graham advised Richard Nixon (known Criminal) to continue the Vietnam War.”
I wonder what all those fundamentalists really had against Communists? The story then was that religion was actively suppressed by godless Reds. But given that Russia is more Christian than the US now, and some former Soviet republics are now enthusiastically Muslim, what was the fuss about?
As for St. Thomas, there is a community of Orthodox Christians in India who claim to have been converted by St. Thomas. Their liturgical language is Syriac. Whether their origin story is true or not, there was much travel and trade between India and West Asia even in pre-Christian times.
/
SJ / November 17, 2025
The name of St Thomas has several references in India in Kerala and Tamilnadu.
While it is feasible that he was in India, Indian historiography is so weak that it is hard to be certain about such claims.
The likelihood of Christian presence in India in the 4th Century or a little earlier seems to have some evidence.
*
It is a kind of harmless faith and little is gained by public debate of the matter.
/
leelagemalli / November 17, 2025
I believe DTG is now being treated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dncuk4leL0
. Let’s hope he recovers soon. The next will be LESTER, aka Deepthi. We have whole lot of – a variety of mental patients. We have no information about Ruchira Baba today.
/
LaalS / November 14, 2025
Thank you for your comment. Let me respond thoughtfully.
Atheism is not simply “lack of belief”; it is a worldview that claims the universe, moral consciousness, rationality, order, and life itself emerged without any guiding mind or purpose. That assertion also requires evidence. In fact, it often requires more faith to believe that everything came from nothing, life came from non-life, order came from chaos, and moral intuition came from blind processes, than to believe in a Creator.
Comparing the God of Scripture to Zeus or Thor misunderstands the nature of Christian belief. Those figures are finite beings within the universe. The Christian claim is about a necessary, uncaused, eternal, personal Source of all existence—what classical philosophy calls the Ground of Being. God is not a “superhero deity” among others; He is the foundation for why anything exists at all.
You are right that belief alone doesn’t make something true. But neither does disbelief. The question is: What worldview best fits the evidence of reason, morality, consciousness, the finely tuned universe, and the longing for meaning?
From both philosophy and experience, the existence of God provides the most coherent explanation.
Best regards.
/
SJ / November 14, 2025
LaalS
India has been the birthplace of two great religions, Buddhism and Jainism that reject the relevance of the concept of a God creator.
Chinese faith systems, including Taoism, too reject the notion of a creator God.
There have been different concepts of god throughout history, each a product of the society in which it emerged and has served the society well for centuries if not millennia.
There is Hindu monotheism that blends smoothly with polytheism.
There are faiths in India where God is seen as friend or even family. The Bakthi movement eliminated the middleman between God and the human.
Humanity has chosen from countless options whose worth has been contextual.
*
The wisest course to follow is to let each find his own path that may lead one past death if one believes in an after life or perish here humbly accepting one’s impermanence.
After all, each is responsible for his thoughts and deeds. Why should any other bother unless it affects him or his community?
/
LankaScot / November 14, 2025
Hello LaalS,
“You are right that belief alone doesn’t make something true. But neither does disbelief”.
No, it is Concrete Evidence and Falsifiability that helps to establish that something is real. No amount of philosophical contortions will prove the reality of something. Unless you take a “hard solipsist” view, the rest of us accept that the World outside of us is real. We test the evidence for it every day that we interact with it.
Reason, Morality and Consciousness are products of the Brain. Life existed long before Humans; there is no meaning.
Did your religious books teach you anything about “the finely tuned universe”? No it was Science that discovered the Fundamental Constants and gave the argument that life wouldn’t exist if they were different. Have look at what a real Scientist, Sean Carrol, says. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjRkOzKy0Iw
Most of this Universe is extremely hostile to Life. Unless you are a young Earth Creationist, then 4.5 Billion Years ago when the Earth was formed, Life did not exist. We have now discovered more than 6000 Confirmed Exoplanets and many more thousands awaiting confirmation.
The Genesis Story is just that, a Story, full of misinformation and contradictions.
Best regards
/
LankaScot / November 13, 2025
Hello RBH59,
Which non-religious historians confirm that people saw Jesus Heal and revive the dead? Apart from that how does a Historian confirm someones Testimony? Historians in the future will confirm that Donald Trump claimed that he won the 2020 Election. Does that make it true that he won the Election?
Best regards
/
Lester / November 14, 2025
Scott,
“Which non-religious historians confirm that people saw Jesus Heal and revive the dead? “
Quantum mechanics has demonstrated the limitations of the 5 human senses. On the other hand, energy fields exist, that let you communicate with the dead. I have not seen anyone actually communicate with the dead, but I have seen a demonstration of extrasensory perception (ESP), which is also tapping into the energy field. Regarding these energy fields, their existence cannot be proven scientifically, but that is a limitation of the method. Remember, physics says time travel (backwards and into the future) is possible, we just don’t have the tools to do it.
/
Nathan / November 13, 2025
I haven’t read the article. I don’t intend reading it.
I have read a few comments. I am not impressed.
God is a personal belief.
For many God is the policeman.
I don’t need a God, but I am happy when others believe in one!
.
LankaScot, I will respond, if you wish to participate.
/
LankaScot / November 13, 2025
Hello Nathan,
My problem is when Religion intrudes into Education and Educational Policies. Robert Burns back in the late 1700s exposed the Hypocrisy of the Religious with his poem Holy Willie’s Prayer. Knowing personally one of the Victims of the Catholic Churches Sexual Abuse and Cover-up in Scotland, I know the insidious nature of many Religious people. I also witnessed the denial by Teachers that such things took place.
If you even have a cursory look at the Atheist YouTube Sites (e.g. Justin of the Deconstruction Zone) that debunk Religious belief, you will see the anger and even rage of Christians etc, when they fail to answer questions from Justin (an ex Pastor BA M.Div) who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Bible.
Best regards
/
Nathan / November 13, 2025
LankaScot,
Those who let Religion intrude into Education do understand neither Education nor Religion!
/
LaalS / November 14, 2025
Thank you for bringing an important concern to our attention. The statement “Those who let religion intrude into education understand neither education nor religion” assumes a particular philosophical worldview—one that separates fact from value, and the human mind from questions of meaning. But this separation itself is neither neutral nor universal.
Every approach to education is grounded in a worldview, whether religious, secular, humanistic, scientific, or materialistic. Each one answers—explicitly or implicitly—the most fundamental questions:
• What is a human being?
• What is the purpose of life?
• What is good or evil?
• What counts as truth?
These are not merely scientific questions. They are philosophical and metaphysical, shaping how we understand education itself.
1. What Is the Ultimate Truth Behind Human Existence?
Different worldviews answer differently:
• Materialism says humans are biological accidents—products of chance.
• Buddhism sees existence as impermanent and suffering, aiming at liberation.
• Hindu traditions emphasize karma and cyclical rebirth.
• Christianity teaches that humans are created with purpose, dignity, and moral responsibility.
Whether one affirms or rejects religion, one still operates from a worldview that defines ultimate reality.
to be continued ……….
/
LaalS / November 14, 2025
2. What Is the Role of Education?
Education is not merely the transfer of information.
It is the formation of persons —their values, character, reasoning, and view of life.
Even secular education teaches moral assumptions:
• human rights
• equality
• justice
• freedom
• dignity
These are not proven scientifically—they are value-laden beliefs rooted in philosophical and religious ideas.
Thus, to say religion “intrudes” into education assumes that secularism is neutral, but secularism is also a worldview that carries its own metaphysical commitments.
A Better Way Forward
Instead of excluding religion from education, a mature society:
• Recognizes plural worldviews
• Encourages critical thinking
• Allows space for religious, philosophical, and ethical perspectives
• Helps students wrestle with deeper questions of life
Education divorced from questions of ultimate meaning becomes shallow.
Religion without intellectual engagement becomes blind.
When approached wisely, religion and education do not intrude on each other—
they enrich one another by helping us understand what it means to be fully human.
/
LankaScot / November 14, 2025
Hello LaalS,
“Education divorced from questions of ultimate meaning becomes shallow.”
Even here you are imposing your Worldview on Education. There is no “ultimate meaning”. This is a Religious viewpoint.
We don’t need the intervention of Religion in Schools to foist their morals on Children. Sam Harris has written and defended his position on Humanist Well-Being.
Have a look at the debate between Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty on Sam Harris – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV4Z9TRpunI
Or you can watch Sam Harris and Jordan Petersen on stage – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-OyHjbb2oI
I don’t want our Children taught the morals of the monster God who punished King David’s (8 or more) Wives for King David’s Sin of committing Adultery with Bathsheba. Or take the bet that God had with the Devil that Job will remain true no matter what Satan does to Job, which includes causing the loss of his children, property, and health, though he is forbidden to take his life. Or try explaining the destruction of the Amalekites as being moral. The story of the Prophet Judah and Tamar would be very instructive to a group of 15 year old pupils.
Best regards
/
SJ / November 13, 2025
Religion led education in most societies at least by medieval times.
The state and religion had bonded for very long.
Secular thought was even punished, especially when it contested the accepted views about the universe.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 14, 2025
Author: “A responsible and holistic approach to sex education must begin not only in biology but also in theology….”
1. A Christian believer would have no problem subscribing to the above statement but we live in a country where less than 10% are professed Christians and I believe this is true of the CT readership. How many of the other 90% would be persuaded by your “theology”?
2. Some elements of your theology are questionable and, I think, demonstrably unbiblical. I am referring to your references the “Fall” and the “image of God.” Under your earlier article here
https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/hospitality-holiness-human-flourishing-a-christian-response-to-lgbtiq-tourism/
I commented on your understanding of “the image of God” and the “Fall,” but, regrettably, you didn’t respond though, as I noted, you engaged with other comments, but here you are repeating the same “theology” as if you hadn’t seen my comments. Is that honest?
Continued.
/
LaalS / November 14, 2025
Thank you for taking the time to raise these points. Let me respond to each with clarity and respect.
1. “How many outside the Christian faith would be persuaded by theology?”
You are right that Sri Lanka is a multi-religious nation, and theology—Christian or otherwise—will not persuade everyone. But my purpose is not to impose belief; it is to explain why Christians view sex education holistically. Every community interprets human life within its own moral framework—Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, secular thinkers, and Christians. Public dialogue becomes richer when each tradition contributes its perspective rather than hiding it. A Christian voice in a plural space is not coercion but contribution.
2. “Your theology of the Fall and the image of God is questionable.”
I appreciate your earlier engagement and regret if I missed your comment—there was no intention to ignore it. Let me briefly clarify. The doctrines of the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27) and the Fall (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12) are central to historic Christianity across centuries and denominations. They are not my private interpretations. These doctrines help Christians understand both human dignity (image of God) and human moral brokenness (the Fall). They shape how we think about sexuality, relationships, and education—not as abstract biology but as part of what it means to be human.
You may disagree with those foundations, and I respect that. But my task as a Christian theologian is to speak from within my own tradition honestly and responsibly, not to dilute it for approval.
I welcome continued dialogue—Sri Lanka needs thoughtful, respectful conversations across our different worldviews.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 15, 2025
LaalS
“The doctrines of the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27) and the Fall (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12) are central to historic Christianity across centuries and denominations. They are not my private interpretations.”
Those verses are there in the Bible but the question is, Do they support these traditional interpretations?
You: “But my task as a Christian theologian is to speak from within my own tradition honestly and responsibly, not to dilute it for approval.”
So your position is that you are content to accept the various traditions “historic Christianity” has produced and it’s not your place to question them? What would you say if I told you that, given your attitude, if you had been living in the days of Jesus you would have been on the side of the religious leaders of his time and following THEIR traditions? I am sure you will vehemently protest against that statement but it’s 99.99% certain.
The organisation that produced what you call “historic Christianity,” the RCC, also produced various other doctrines which you, as a non-Catholic, do not accept. Why not? Isn’t there an inconsistency here?
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 14, 2025
Continued from my above comment.
I stated, inter alia, that “the image of God” in Genesis 1:26 et al refers to the dominion given to man over the rest of the creation, which is supported by the immediately following context in this verse and Genesis 9:5 and 1 Corinthians 11:7. Adam and Eve were created in a childlike state of innocence WITHOUT the faculty of moral discrimination (called “the knowledge of good and evil”). This is suggested by the fact that they felt no shame in being naked, just like little children. They acquired this faculty when they disobeyed God and a sense of shame over their nakedness. What happened to Adam and Eve (who were basically little children in adult bodies when created) in an instant is replicated in other humans over a longer period of time. There was no “Fall.”
Continued.
/
Lester / November 14, 2025
Since this article refers to “sex education”, the author might be knowing that these days, much of that knowledge or information (for young people) comes from social media. Does the author have any proposal to restrict or censor social media? For example, China has a tool called the “Great Firewall”, which essentially serves as a large-scale national internet-filtering and monitoring system. While I am a fan of free speech, I favor paid free speech. As with the real world, if someone has a quality product (platform), why give it away for free? If CT, for example, put up a paywall (something on the order of £15/month), it might draw a different audience than we see here.
/
ubernuts / November 14, 2025
“If CT, for example, put up a paywall (something on the order of £15/month), it might draw a different audience than we see here.”
But why do some high-IQ hotshot investors who can afford £15 still insist on contributing their two cents worth here?
Is it possible that they don’t have two cents to scratch themselves with?
Or they could start their own exclusive website, to discuss high finance with themselves.
“I favor paid free speech”. Agreed. You can pay us to post here.
/
LaalS / November 14, 2025
it was good that you added some humour to the discussion. These topics often become tense, so a light touch can help us breathe a little.
On the question of paywalls and “paid free speech,” I think the larger issue is not who can afford £15, but what kind of public space a platform like CT should cultivate. A free forum invites a wide range of voices—some thoughtful, some provocative, some simply passing through. A paywall might reduce noise, but it would also close the door on many who genuinely want to learn, contribute, or test new ideas.
Healthy public conversation does not depend on income level or intellectual status. Sometimes those with much to say cannot afford to pay, and sometimes those who can pay prefer the freedom of open dialogue. That is the beauty and risk of an open forum.
What we can do—regardless of payment—is try to raise the quality of the conversation. If we bring respect, clarity, and willingness to listen, even a free space can become constructive.
So while people may joke about paying to post, I’m grateful that CT still remains open enough for diverse voices to meet, challenge, disagree, and sometimes even understand one another.
Blessings ,
Lal
/
LaalS / November 14, 2025
Thank you for raising this important concern. I agree that today much of what young people learn about sexuality comes not from parents, teachers, or faith communities, but from social media—often unfiltered, commercialized, and distorted. While I do not claim expertise in national-level regulation or digital policy, I can offer a few reflections relevant to the discussion.
First, censorship alone cannot solve the problem. Even countries with strict digital firewalls cannot completely shield young people from harmful content, because technology evolves faster than legislation. What we truly need is wisdom formation, not just restriction. Young people must learn discernment, critical thinking, and moral grounding so they can navigate digital spaces responsibly.
Second, the role of parents, faith communities, and schools becomes even more essential in this environment. The solution is not primarily technological, but relational and educational. When families, churches, and educators offer holistic, age-appropriate guidance—including theological, ethical, and relational dimensions—young people are better equipped to recognize harmful content for what it is.
Finally, I agree that free platforms often encourage irresponsible speech, but a paywall will not solve issues of public morality or youth education. What we need is not less conversation, but better, wiser, and more responsible public discourse shaped by values that protect human dignity and flourishing.
/
Lester / November 15, 2025
Thanks for your intelligent and constructive response. I have observed the evolution of social media since the 1990’s, from XML bulletin boards to instant messaging apps, to Facebook, to what we have now. Each iteration increases the volume of information significantly. Which makes sense from a technological point of views; the devices are smaller and the processing capabilities significantly greater. What is new and potentially dangerous however, is that social media (which is at best a form of entertainment) is beginning to shape people’s worldviews and ideologies. We see this with the recent election in NY, USA. The conflict in Gaza is another example. Al Jazeera and social media managed to demonize Israel, which faces an existential battle against Islamic terrorists.
As you said, discernment and critical thinking are essential. Unfortunately, social media mostly provides an outlet for group think and confirmation bias. . In the final instance, it is up to the schools and universities to train students in critical thinking, but now AI has begun to supplant even that critical function.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 14, 2025
Third and concluding part of my comment.
3. As you can judge by the quality of comments under this article, most folk’s biblical knowledge and understanding is very poor, so it’s pointless to refer to theological concepts such as “image of God” and the “Fall,” esp. since even if any of them assiduously studied the Bible they wouldn’t arrive at your (unbiblical) theological conclusions!
4. Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 are important to the subject of human sexuality and marriage, and these together with other clear related biblical teachings can form the basis for a Christian perspective on how sex education to children should be conducted.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 14, 2025
Author: “Stanley Grenz notes that sexual differentiation ‘belongs to the created goodness of human existence and is the means by which humans reflect divine relationality.'[2]”
This gobbledygook sentence was meant for a general readership?
It took me a little while to try and decipher it and this is the best I can do. “Stanley Grenz says that sexual differentiation (male and female) was created for the good of man and this difference reflects ‘the eternal and inherent interconnectedness within God, and between God, humanity, and creation'” (AI Review definition of “divine relationality”). The “inherent interconnectedness within God” refers to the relations between the persons of the Trinity. A doctrine that not all professed Christians would accept, let alone non-Christians.
Did this author seriously think that this statement would be understood by his readers of CT?
Continued.
/
LaalS / November 14, 2025
Thank you for your thoughtful engagement with the quotation. You are right that Stanley Grenz’s phrasing can sound academic and may not be immediately accessible to a general readership. Let me express it more simply.
What Grenz meant is this:
Being male and female is part of God’s good design, and our differences help us understand that we were created for relationship—with God and with one another.
That is the heart of his idea, without the technical theological language.
His term “divine relationality” is rooted in Christian teaching that God exists in relationship (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Even though this doctrine may not be shared by all readers, the point I intended to emphasize was more basic and universal:
human beings are relational, and our embodied differences invite us into meaningful, responsible relationships.
If the earlier quotation came across as unnecessarily technical, I apologize—that was not my intention. My aim was to show that sexuality is not merely biological but connected to human dignity, responsibility, and relational purpose.
Thank you again for prompting clarity. It helps ensure these important discussions remain accessible to all readers.
/
LankaScot / November 16, 2025
Hello Leonard,
I couldn’t help giving a quote –
“The final, constructive section connects this understanding of the imago dei with contemporary developments in trinitarian theological and relational philosophy to propose the ecclesial self constituted in relation to the triune God as the model for forming the self in the face of the fluidity endemic to the postmodern condition”.
Stanley J Gretz “The Social God and the Relational Self” 2002
Baylor University and Truett Theological Seminary, Waco, TX
Best regards
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 17, 2025
LS
Well, compared with this quotation, what I reproduced from the article and called “gobbledygook” is almost plain English!
/
LankaScot / November 16, 2025
Hello Leonard,
Stanly Gretz was an Evangelical Baptist who was influenced by the “Post-Modernists. Their writings are just as difficult to decipher.
Best regards
/
Leonard Jayawardena / November 14, 2025
Continued from above comment.
The author could have simply paraphrased the thought of that statement if that’s what he wanted to say without quoting it. Quotations and citations should be given only when you are appealing to an authority on technical matters, e.g., matters of Hebrew or Greek grammar when writing an article on a biblical topic. Quoting someone’s interpretation or opinion on non-technical issues, as this author has done in a number of cases in this article, is meaningless. I don’t think that serves any useful purpose even in a theological journal. Of course, there can be exceptions to that, e.g., an article containing a survey of how Catholic Church Fathers interpreted some biblical passage.
/
LaalS / November 15, 2025
A key issue in this entire discussion is that we are debating the smaller details while missing the central truth: nation-building is never the responsibility of the government alone. A healthy society is shaped through the collaboration of three essential forces—religion (as the keeper of moral values), parents (as the first educators), and the government (as the policy-maker and protector of the common good). When any one of these is ignored or dismissed, the formation of young people becomes unbalanced.
Religion provides the moral framework that helps individuals understand dignity, responsibility, and the deeper meaning of human relationships. Parents offer guidance, affection, and the daily shaping of character. Government creates structures to ensure safety, education, and justice. These three are not competitors; they are partners. When we isolate one and silence the others, we create a vacuum into which misinformation, social media, and peer pressure rush in—often harming young minds.
Unfortunately, much of the debate has focused on secondary issues rather than this essential collaboration. The real question is not whether religion should “intrude” into education or whether parents or the state should carry more weight. The real question is: How do we work together to form responsible, morally grounded, and socially healthy citizens? Without this shared responsibility, no nation can flourish.
/
LankaScot / November 17, 2025
Hello Dr Senanayake,
“Unfortunately, much of the debate has focused on secondary issues rather than this essential collaboration”
As they say “the Devil is in the details”.
You failure to answer the moral questions detailed in mostly the Old Testament (Same God as the New) or to present any evidence for the existence of any Gods or the Supernatural speaks volumes.
Maybe it is time for you to visit Justin at the Deconstruction Zone; he too was a Christian Pastor (like you he has an M.Div) and has a good knowledge of Science and Engineering.
I live here in Central Province and most of my Relations and Friends are Buddhist or Muslims. The couple of Christian Relatives that I have (excellent English) will not discuss their Religion with me and get angry and defensive if I question it.
Sri Lanka is not a Christian Country, so please keep your nose out of their Schools and Government.
Best regards
/
Lasantha Pethiyagoda / November 17, 2025
If the first humans to populate the earth were Adam and then Eve (from his rib) then all their offspring would have had to commit incest in order to continue their progeny, as no other humans existed at the time. In other words, brothers and sisters making babies together. On another note, LGBTQ has always been around. It is not a recent manifestation. It was merely concealed lest they be burnt at the stake for having evil spirits in their brains. Thankfully, the different preferences like males wanting sex with other males and the same for females, or having preferences for both males and females or wanting to feel like a woman while having male genitalia are all due to certain unusual wiring in the person’s brain. People cannot control felling the way they do, exactly as heterosexuals cannot control wanting to have sex with the opposite sex. We cannot simply restrain ourselves, simply because an ancient book says it is the work of a mythical entity. The living human brain can be physically examined via modern technologies and there are very accurate explanations for how humans behave differently. Unfortunately, if one chooses to rely on ancient texts which were written when there was very little knowledge and research available, it is a sad indictment on their rationality and logic.
/
LaalS / November 17, 2025
2. “LGBTQ has always existed.”
Yes, LGBTQ experiences have existed throughout history. No Christian denies the complexity of human desires or the reality of deep-seated patterns, temptations, or orientations. The biblical question is not whether such desires exist, but what we do with our desires.
Christian theology teaches that human desires are real but not infallible.
We all experience disordered or conflicting desires—including heterosexuals.
The presence of desire does not determine its moral goodness.
/
LaalS / November 17, 2025
3. “It is all brain wiring.”
Neuroscience is still in its infancy on this issue. No conclusive genetic or neurological determinant explains sexual orientation or gender identity. Even the American Psychological Association now recognizes:
• There is no “gay gene,”
• Brain differences are often effects, not causes,
• Human sexuality is shaped by biology, environment, experience, relationships, trauma, and culture.
So the claim “people cannot help it; therefore it is morally right” is not scientifically warranted. Many human impulses—anger, jealousy, addiction, aggression—are also influenced by brain chemistry. That does not make them morally neutral.
/
LaalS / November 17, 2025
4. “Ancient texts vs. modern science”
This is a false contrast. Scripture is not a primitive science textbook; it is a moral and theological account of human identity, dignity, and purpose—questions that science itself cannot answer.
Science can tell us how the brain works,
but not why humans matter,
nor what is morally right,
nor what leads to human flourishing.
Every society—whether ancient or modern—depends on moral frameworks beyond scientific data.
The biblical story remains compelling not because it is old, but because it speaks profoundly to human experience:
• broken desires,
• the need for meaning,
• the longing for love,
• moral responsibility,
• and the possibility of transformation.
Modern science and ancient wisdom are not enemies; they address different aspects of what it means to be human.
In closing
I respect the sincerity behind your argument. But from a Christian perspective:
• human origins do not undermine the credibility of Scripture,
• human desire does not define moral truth, and
• scientific explanation does not replace the need for moral and theological reflection.
Human beings are complex, embodied souls—not just neurons firing. And because of that, conversations about sexuality cannot be reduced to biology alone.
/
SJ / November 17, 2025
“The genetic pool was originally uncorrupted” (Were not Adam and Eve corrupted by Satan?)
According to the Book, it was a pool of two, was it not?
Are we not fudging the key issue of incest?
/
SJ / November 17, 2025
There was the Holy Spirit to help.
/
LankaScot / November 17, 2025
Hello SJ,
Have you noticed that Lester has turned all of these comments into Bold with his 17th Nov Post?
Best regards
/
RBH59 / November 17, 2025
LankaScot
So if people say……There is no God….. or There is no soul,” the question remains:
Why did millions of people see Jesus?
Why do billions still believe in him today?
Why did his message survive for 2,000 years across the whole world?
Belief in God is not the minority — it is the global majority throughout history.
/
SJ / November 17, 2025
RBH
A vast majority do not believe in the God Creator, a concept unique to the three Book religions.
Some religions have theories of creation, even self contradictory. But they leave God out of it.
/
LaalS / November 17, 2025
Let me clarify how Christians understand these questions. I need more than 200 words for this.
1. The “incest” question in early Genesis
The world of Genesis 1–2 describes the beginning of humanity, not a fully developed society. If the biblical account is taken as describing the first human pair, then naturally the earliest generations would have intermarried. In the Christian worldview, this was not morally problematic at the beginning because:
• The genetic pool was originally uncorrupted (no accumulated mutations, unlike today).
• Moral laws against incest were given later (Leviticus 18), after humanity had multiplied.
• Many ancient cultures, including Egypt and Mesopotamia, recorded the same pattern in their origin myths—not because it was immoral, but because early humanity started small.
So the question is less about “incest” and more about the logical reality that humanity must have begun with a small original population, whether one believes in Scripture or evolutionary science.
Even evolutionists affirm that all humanity descends from a small ancestral bottleneck.
/
LankaScot / November 17, 2025
Hello Dr Senanayake,,
“Even evolutionists affirm that all humanity descends from a small ancestral bottleneck.”
Not a single Evolutionist believes this. Try to represent Evolution honestly.
The so-called bottleneck was around 100,000 years or so ago. All Modern Humans outside sub-Saharan Africa are descended from a small group that migrated out of Africa and spread out across the rest of the World. At that time there were at least 6 Homo Species – including Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalis, Homo floresiensis and Homo denisova. I myself have Neanderthal DNA ( no jokes please) and have the characteristic Bump at the base of my skull. Many of my R1b-L21 Y-DNA haplogroup share this feature. The Neanderthals died out around 30,000 years ago so how do you explain my DNA?
Best regards
/
LaalS / November 17, 2025
Conclusion & Invitation
The evidence is clear: when sex education in Sri Lanka is delivered without moral grounding or relational formation, it leaves young people vulnerable and our society at risk of distortion, confusion and exploitation.
Yet the remedy lies not in blame nor in silence—but in collaborative responsibility. It calls for a new, shared approach:
• Government must ensure that curricula are scientifically accurate, culturally sensitive and delivered by well-trained educators.
• Parents must reclaim their foundational role, engaging early with their children in open, honest, and age-appropriate conversations.
• Churches must equip for conscience-formation, provide pastoral care, and model healthy relationships and sexual integrity.
None of these alone is sufficient. If the state offers knowledge without meaning, or the church offers morality without clarity, both will fall short. Sri Lanka needs education that forms mind and heart, not simply delivers facts.
Therefore, I invite you—policy-makers, school leaders, families, church communities—to join an unprecedented national dialogue on sexual education. Let us design together a curriculum that reflects science, ethics, dignity and wholeness for every student. Let our next generation grow not only informed—but wise, responsible, and flourishing.
Will we rise to the moment? Will we build a nation where sexuality is not a taboo or crisis—but a redeemed gift of creation, shaped by truth, integrity and grace? The time to act is now.
/