The book of Genesis gives us the basis for marriage.
You see, the truth is this: we may speak of “thousands of years of Judeo-Christian ethics” as the basis for our need to keep the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. The problem is this, however: those who want to redefine marriage have no allegiance to Judeo-Christian ethics. Their ethic is a post-modern relativism, so that truly has no bearing on them in their minds.
Too many Christians have walked away from the truth of the first three chapters of Genesis. They have sought to accommodate evolution in different ways. Having done so they have effectively deleted the force and relevance of the morality of Genesis 1-3. Why? Because if the Creation account is not true, neither is the institution of marriage that the Creator gave to His human creatures.
It is indeed as simple as that.
This culture war did not start with homosexuals wanting to be married. It started with modernists who want to compromise Scripture in a desire to accommodate pseudo-scientific fallacies such as evolution. Thus we have the day age theory, theistic evolution, and a smorgasbord of other theories. In the end, we should accept the historical account that was given to us by the ONE Who MADE all of this.
Oh, I know, I (and all others who believe in Biblical Creation) will be viewed as ignorant country bumpkins, and possibly even dangerous people. The true danger lies, however, in the fact that, if we deny, reject, or change Genesis 1-3, we are loosed from our mooring and are drifting in a sea of social change without any guide.
Yes, the real culture war began back in the nineteenth century when ministers capitulated to Darwinism. It blossomed in Germany in their universities and seminaries and ultimately led to the Holocaust. If only there had been enough Bible-believing Christians in Germany in the 1930’s the Holocaust may not have happened. Immorality and violence blossom in the absence of Biblical morality and ethics, though. As Germany went, so goes the USA, it seems.
How sad that we refuse to learn from history.
Just musing.
May 29, 2008 at 10:08 am
AMEN!
May 29, 2008 at 10:21 am
Darrin,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Things are slow here the last couple of days, but I hope this post will start a dialogue about truth.
Jason
May 29, 2008 at 11:18 am
Yes, maybe we should learn from history.
You can start here:
Hitler was a creationist who was not influenced at all by evolution. In fact, Hitler’s method go completely against evolution, reducing the diversity of a gene pool is detrimental to a population and possibly even suicidal in the long run as the population no longer has the diversity to deal with changes.
“From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” - Adolf Hitler
If you truly want to learn from history, then why don’t you learn the real history instead of spreading your propaganda. Truth - Hitler was motivated by his christian ideals:
“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them.” - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order
If you want to get an idea of Hitlers true inspiration, try a book called ‘On the Jews and their Lies’ which Hitler specifically mentioned as an inspiration, and which the Nazis distributed. This book was written by Martin Luther, founder of protestant christianity.
May 29, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Jason,
Thanks for stopping by.
The quotes you post are interesting in that they both demonstrate something that we all have a problem with: inconsistency.
Hitler’s statement was inconsistent with his Nietzschean and Darwinian views. The eugenics practices by Hitler prove that his philosophy was shaped more by the concept of survival of the fittest than by Christian ideals of loving one’s neighbor. When one views Jews as pigs, or less than human (or any other people group as far as that goes) they can then feel it OK to discard them, which was what Hitler did. Christianity only helped because most Christian men were too cowardly to stand against Hitler. Remember, however, that Dietriche Bonhoffer is one example of a Christian who actively opposed Hitler.
Concerning Martin Luther: He was human. He was a man of extremes. Did Luther found Protestant Christianity? That’s a very narrow view of history. In reality, he helped bring to the forefront many Christian beliefs that had been held by people who had to live in the underground because of persecution. Let that be as it may, you must understand that all of Christianity cannot be judged by the inaccurate views of a few. One must look at the predominate fruits of a philosophy/doctrine/movement to truly see it as it should be seen. Luther was wrong on quite a few points, I’m sure. That does not mean that all of Christianity if wrong. Neither does the wrongs of Hitler make every evolutionist wrong on every point.
The point is that the rejection of the Biblical view of Creation and Creator does indeed do away with a moral and ethical foundation for society.
Without God there is no foundation for morality. If there is no absolute being, there will be no absolutes and we can all do as we wish to do.
Jason, instead of speaking of this as propaganda, please consider it. It is of vital importance to one’s happiness and well-being as well as the well-being of a nation.
Jason
May 29, 2008 at 10:54 pm
“The eugenics practices by Hitler prove that his philosophy was shaped more by the concept of survival of the fittest than by Christian ideals of loving one’s neighbor.”
This is just not true. ‘Survival of the fittest’ does NOT mean ‘the biggest bully wins.’ Social organization is a huge aspect of ‘fitness.’ People who learn to respect each other and cooperate each other are more ‘fit’ than someone who just tries to kill everyone unlike himself.
Hitlers policies do not make sense in ANY way from an evolutionary standpoint with any legitimate interpretation of evolution.
The simple FACT is that Hitler did not believe in common descent through evolution. Hitler was a creationist, Hitler did what he did at least partially because of his christianity. This in itself does not constitute an effective attack on christianity any more than your original assertion was an effective attack on evolution. One persons interpretation or perversion of an idea is of no consequence to the truth value of that idea. But, you’re saying Hitler was motivated by Darwin or was putting Darwinian ideas into practice, and that is just simply not true on any level.
You know, even if you were right, and Hitler was putting Darwin into practice, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether Darwin was right or not. If this is your logic, then you’re also asserting that christianity must be false also (crusades, inquisition…)
“The point is that the rejection of the Biblical view of Creation and Creator does indeed do away with a moral and ethical foundation for society.”
This is not true. Evolution can explain morality quite well. Like I said already, a group of people that can work together is at an advantage over individuals, and a moral structure allows that to happen. Morality is that which is good for the greatest number of people in a population.
I don’t see how you can argue for absolute morality when every bit of evidence suggests morality *isn’t* absolute. Look at the different cultures in the world, and what each considers right or wrong. Sure, you can say they’re just not familiar yet with the true absolute morality but that is an ad hoc solution. The answer directly suggest by human experience is that morality is relative.
And no, that does not mean that ‘we can all do as we wish to do.’ We agree on a mutual set of rules to allow us to function as a society. Evolution says that we don’t just all do what we want because that would be disadvantageous compared to a cooperative, mutually respective society.
“It is of vital importance to one’s happiness and well-being”
Thanks, but I’m quite happy. Much more so that I was as a christian, actually. I no longer have people telling me I have to believe things that are in direct contradiction with experience and reason, and they don’t tell me I have to believe these things or pay for it. I’m allowed to observe the world around me and let my natural sense of awe flow through. I’m not saying everyone would be happier not believing, but certainly don’t think you have the one and only key to happiness.
May 30, 2008 at 12:01 am
Jason,
). I agree that a cooperative group is very much more fit than a warlike group that simply wants to eradicate all those who are different. Hitler was not out simply to eradicate all who were different, but to bring in Nietzsche’s “superman” by selective breeding, and genocide. He did this because he believed that the Aryans were the superior race, were the fittest, so he wanted to make the world a place in which they could prosper without intermingling with other people groups and thus being “tainted”.
Thanks again for stopping in to comment.
“This is just not true. ‘Survival of the fittest’ does NOT mean ‘the biggest bully wins.’ Social organization is a huge aspect of ‘fitness.’ People who learn to respect each other and cooperate each other are more ‘fit’ than someone who just tries to kill everyone unlike himself.
Hitlers policies do not make sense in ANY way from an evolutionary standpoint with any legitimate interpretation of evolution.”
I did not even imply that survival of the fittest meant the biggest bully wins. It will profit nothing to put words in my mouth ( or on my keyboard
See also:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26468
“The social implications of the theory of evolution by natural selection also became the source of continuing controversy. Friedrich Engels, a German political philosopher and co-originator of the ideology of communism, wrote in 1872 that “Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom”. Interpretation of natural selection as necessarily ‘progressive’, leading to increasing ‘advances’ in intelligence and civilisation, was used as a justification for colonialism and policies of eugenics, as well as broader sociopolitical positions now described as Social Darwinism. Konrad Lorenz won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1973 for his analysis of animal behavior in terms of the role of natural selection (particularly group selection). However, in Germany in 1940, in writings that he subsequently disowned, he used the theory as a justification for policies of the Nazi state. He wrote “… selection for toughness, heroism, and social utility…must be accomplished by some human institution, if mankind, in default of selective factors, is not to be ruined by domestication-induced degeneracy. The racial idea as the basis of our state has already accomplished much in this respect. Others have developed ideas that human societies and culture evolve by mechanisms that are analogous to those that apply to evolution of species.” reference.com natural selection
Adolf Hitler was no Christian. He replaced in as many churches as he could/would the cross with a swastika.
“Hitler claims in Mein Kampf that his transition from opposing anti-Semitism on religious grounds to supporting it on racial grounds came from having seen an Orthodox Jew.” reference.com Adolf Hitler
“Hitler was raised by Roman Catholic parents, but after he left home, he never attended Mass or received the sacraments, Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and a belief in Jesus Christ. In his speeches and publications Hitler even spoke of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice”. His private statements, as reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious man but critical of traditional Christianity. However, in contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or neo-paganism, and ridiculed such beliefs in Mein Kampf. Rather, Hitler advocated a “Positive Christianity”, a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.” ibid.
Note the Hitler’s “Christianity” was a reinvention of Christianity.
There is no way to compare Hitler’s attempt to manipulate natural selection by eugenics to the crusades. After all, the crusades and the inquisition were not the outworkings of Christian doctrine and philosophy. On the other hand, if one believes that he is part of a master race, he is logical in thinking that he must struggle for the survival of that race as well as the advancement of it. That would certainly fit in with survival of the fittest, but crusades and inquisitions do not fit with “love thy neighbor as thyself.” You’re trying to compare apples and oranges and it won’t work.
“Evolution can explain morality quite well. Like I said already, a group of people that can work together is at an advantage over individuals, and a moral structure allows that to happen. Morality is that which is good for the greatest number of people in a population.”
Evolution can explain morality? How? Morality is not relative. It is not what is best for the greatest number, but what is best for all. Morality is absolute. Without a fixed reference you and I cannot make any rational decisions about what is good and what is evil…..all is relative.
Your suggestion that all cultures have different moral codes fails because it does not take into consideration the fact that mankind is imperfect. Left to himself man will only go downhill in his morality. Societal constraints help, but most of us still find ourselves chafing under those constraints. Many go beyond the constraints, especially when they think no one is looking. The 20th century is one of the greatest testimonies to the fact that man is imperfect and incapable of establishing a moral code on his own. After two world wars and numerous conflicts as well as ongoing genocidal battles it is obvious that many cultures have practically no morals at all. Yet, when you see the killing of innocent women and children you are astonished by it, are you not? Does not this astonishment reach to almost all human beings who behold such atrocities? How can this be? It is because we all have a knowledge that it is not right…how did we come to that knowledge? There is a certain amount of moral knowledge that is inherent and it is an absolute that one should not take another human’s life without just cause.
Finally, there is no true and lasting happiness outside of Jesus. I am sorry that you have not had a good experience with “Christianity.” Please know that Christianity is not simply a code of ethics, but a vital relationship with the God of the universe. When you encounter His greatness then you will know true awe, wonder, joy,love, and happiness.
Please see http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1546_Quest_for_Joy/
Once again, I thank you for stopping by to dialogue.
Sincerely,
Jason
June 5, 2008 at 2:51 pm
[...] musing… Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The Book of Genesis And Marriage [...]
June 13, 2008 at 8:36 pm
[...] immorality, intelligent design, moral law, morals | In an exchange a few days back a comment was made about morals being determined by what is good for [...]