Category Archives: Philosophy

What is the Origin of Marriage Revisted.

Many issues in the news these days have generated a myriad of discussions, such as the economy, gun control, and North Korea’s potential nuclear threat against South Korea and the United States. There is, however, a critical issue that is at the forefront both here in Illinois and the entire nation: Same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has been a fiercely debated topic for a number of years, particularly between the homosexual community and the religious community; but it has grown now into a social and political issue. As a matter of fact, it has now been labeled a civil rights issue by well-known homosexuals like Rosie O’ Donnell. Same-sex couples feel discriminated against because of the nature of their sexuality. The privileges that heterosexuals enjoy such as health care benefits and so forth are commonly withheld from them and, additionally, the very right to be legally and happily married to one another is also withheld from them. The fight, therefore, for equal martial rights is more intense now than ever before. There is a question, however, that has yet to be asked; one which I find to be critical as it pertains to marriage: What is the origin of marriage? Is there such an origin? Where did marriage originate and who was the originator? Does marriage have rules and regulations that we human beings must abide by? I must conclude that the answer to that question is an affirmative yes. In the following paragraphs a case will be made in an attempt to answer this all important question: What is the origin of marriage?

In order to discuss what the origin of marriage is, we must be intellectually honest and reasonable. The wise words of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche should be heeded as we begin:

“There is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it everything else has only secondary value. This absolute will to truth: what is it? Is it the will to not allow ourselves to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive? One does not want to be deceived, under the supposition that it is injurious, dangerous, or fatal to be deceived.” (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890)

There are only two alternatives to explain the origin of marriage: the evolutionary process or God (the Divine). Marriage as an evolutionary process (whose origin is non-existence) is defined as a progression in intelligence where marriage is no longer limited to one sexual preference. Since the origin of marriage by evolutionary processes is nonexistence, same-sex marriages are neither moral nor immoral, and marriage itself is relative, progressive, and essentially defined as nonexistence. The other alternative to explain the origin of marriage is the Divine (God): By this we mean that God is the One who gave humanity the concept and institution of marriage. God is the one who originated marriage and furthermore, it is God who has defined what marriage is and what it is not. This view is established and rooted in the historical Holy Scriptures. It is in the Holy Scriptures that marriage is not only viewed objectively but also grounded in absolutes; particularly moral absolutes. Which of these two alternative views regarding the origin of marriage appears more plausible?

Linking the origin of marriage to evolutionary processes is not fitting because, as stated in the previous paragraph, to do so means to conclude that there is no origin for marriage at all. It is to say also that all forms of marriage are equally acceptable because within an evolutionary frame work moral absolutes are nonexistent and marriage for all those who desire it is relative. Why should the government forbid any form of marriage within this framework? To do so is to make a moral judgment they are not entitled to make, to deny one’s civil rights and their pursuit of happiness, and to totally undermine their freedom of expression. Therefore, marriage in evolutionary terms where an origin is nonexistence, is a subjective slippery slope.

Linking the origin of marriage to God, particularly the God of Holy Scripture, is the shoe that fits the foot perfectly. With God as the originator of marriage, the essence of the nature of marriage is more clearly seen. Marriage is personally rooted in commitment, love, intimacy and faithfulness. These attributes are all found in God because God is a personal Being. Since God is personal in nature and marriage is personal in nature, there is sound reason to believe that the origin of marriage is rooted in God.

If we conclude, based on sound reasoning, that the origin of marriage is rooted in God, then our next focus is when and where did it all begin? According to the first two chapters of the Old Testament book of Genesis, it all began in the Garden of Eden. God creates the first male, who is named Adam. Genesis 2:18 seems to indicate that, in the process of time, man was in need of companionship apart from the companionship he had with God: “And the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man be alone; I will make a helper comparable to him.’” It is here that God puts Adam to sleep and takes one of his ribs and creates the first female. When Adam awakens from sleep and sees the woman God created he says, “’This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:23-24). This is what Bible scholars and theologians describe as the first marriage vows. It is here we not only see the first marriage, but also the kind of marriage it was: heterosexual and monogamous. In Genesis 2:24 it is commanded of newly married men to leave their parent’s household and be joined to their wife. This command did not entail or pertain to any other kind of unions; same-sex or otherwise.

There isn’t any place in the entire Bible where same-sex marriages are sanctioned by God, nor do we see homosexuality viewed in a positive light. On the contrary, biblical text like Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24-27, and 1^st Corinthians 6:9 presents homosexuality in a very negative light. If God is the origin of marriage then, based on scriptural evidence, it’s very clear that same-sex marriage is not God’s idea. In Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus affirms that marriage is heterosexual and monogamous when He refuted the pious leaders of his day view regarding divorce. Jesus states, “Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Nowhere in the four gospels of the New Testament does Jesus affirm any other kind of marriage; nor do we read of Jesus ever saying that God approves of any other form of marriage. The Bible is filled with scriptures that speak of marriage in heterosexual language. One example is the entire book of Song of Solomon which captures the captivating love a wife has for her husband. Another example is Proverbs 5:18-19 which instructs the husband to enjoy the wife of his youth and to let her breast satisfy him. What you will not find in the Bible however, are examples such as those which pertains to same-sex couples or any other kind of relationships. These examples are expressed only in the context of heterosexual married couples; hence, God’s concept and design for marriage is both heterosexual and monogamous.

In this article, two alternative views for the origin for marriage was examined: evolutionary processes and divine intervention in the Being of God. It does not seem plausible, based on the examination, to link the origin of marriage to evolutionary processes due to its relativistic nature which results in a slippery slope of subjectivism that negatively affects how marriage is defined. It is far more reasonable, plausible and fitting to link the origin of marriage to God. As was presented, the very first marriage, recorded in the Holy Scriptures (Genesis 2:23-24), was heterosexual and monogamous. Furthermore, the entire Bible from the Old Testament to the New Testament highly esteems heterosexual marriage but views same-sex relations in a negative light. This article shows God to be a personal Being and marriage to be a personal union between two personal human beings. Due to the personality of God and the institution of marriage, it only serves to demonstrate that the origin of marriage must have originated from a personal Being: God. Based on what has been presented here we need to truly be intellectually honest and search deeper into the origin of marriage and where it began. The arguments presented for God being the origin of marriage is not to be taken lightly at all. If God is the originator of marriage, then we should seek His view of marriage since He Himself is the owner of the institution. God is all-knowing, omniscience in technical terms, and is unchanging morally. If God is omniscience and morally unchangeable, then not only is His view of marriage unchanging, but also His view of homosexuality as it pertains to same-sex couples. Let us therefore look at the competing origins of evolutionary processes vs. God with an honest and open mind. Then, based on the arguments from both sides of the aisle, make a true intelligent decision regarding marriage. I now leave you with two great teachers beginning with the Greek philosopher Plato, then Jesus the Messiah:

“And isn’t it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are.” (Plato)

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (Jesus)

The Origin Of Marriage Question.

4 Replies

Today there is an ethical war going on before our very eyes. It’s a war which doesn’t just affect a certain people, or a certain nation, or a certain age group, or a certain gender. This ethical war is universal. It affects all people in all nations of all age groups among both genders: male and female. The final results of this ethical war can and will affect how we define the most important institution the world has ever had: The institution of marriage. We see a war being declared by the homosexual community against what has been the definition of marriage for centuries: Marriage is a heterosexual union between a man and a woman. In the United States of America we are now being fed the idea that marriage is a right, not a sacred institution created by the God of the Bible. We are being told by the homosexual community and by many politicians that marriage is a right to be given and enjoyed by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. As I listen to all of the debates and claims, I think we must ask the question: What is the origin of marriage? In this blog we will examine the importance of this question because the answer to this question can finally put to rest the whole debate as to whether or not homosexual marriage is a right and is it right.

At the outset, some reading this blog will ask the question: Who cares? My answer is that you should care! The institution of marriage is being redefined. It is being redefined as if it is perfectly alright to do so, but is it? Can humanity freely change the definition and perception of what marriage is? I think before we do any historic changes to what marriage is and between whom, we must first ask these questions: What is the origin of marriage? Where did this institution originate? Did anyone set the ground rules for who can and cannot get married? Are we authorized to make changes and revisions or are these ground rules unchangeable? Can the homosexual community, politicians and same-sex marriage advocates answer these questions?

If these questions are presented to them, they would not be able to answer the first question let alone answer the questions following. They don’t deal with the question of the origin of marriage because if they did, it would put same-sex marriage on hold or stop it all together. Who can the homosexual community, politicians, and same-sex marriage advocates appeal to in order to justify same-sex marriage? It cannot be themselves or any finite human being because we finite human beings tend to be wrong or err in our convictions and ideas. Therefore the authority they appeal to must be an infinite Being who is changeless and absolutely perfect. The origin of marriage rests upon it coming from such a Being, otherwise no authority on marriage is absolutely trustworthy.

Do the homosexual community, politicians, and same-sex marriage advocates have a changeless and absolutely perfect infinite Being who is the originator of marriage who has decreed that both heterosexual and homosexual marriage is good in His sight? No they do not. Otherwise there would be no opposition against homosexual marriage that could stand. The truth, however, is that homosexuals are in an ethical war for the right to be able to get married because they have no infinite Authority to appeal to; One who is the originator of marriage, who has laid down the ground rules for who can and who cannot get married. Without such a powerful infinite Authority the homosexual community, politicians, and same-sex marriage advocates are left to play with a blank deck of cards.The fight for same-sex marriage becomes a political fight instead of an argument from infinite Authority. The homosexual argument for same-sex marriage becomes an argument from emotion and opinion and not from logic and facts. Therefore politicians should seek to find out what is the origin of marriage and who is its originator before legalizing same-sex marriage, otherwise government authorities may be violating the will and rules of the Creator of the institution of marriage.

On the other side of the ethical war, however, is the Christians who declares strongly that homosexual marriage is a sin. We declare that homosexuality is a sin, therefore, homosexual marriage is a sin. God is the Creator of the institution of marriage, so this answers the question: What is the origin of marriage? God is! Where did the institution of marriage originate? With God in the Garden of Eden when he performed the first marriage ceremony between the first man and the first woman, Adam and Eve. Adam quoted to us the first ever marriage vows in Genesis 2:23-24, “And Adam said: ‘ This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.'” In these pair of verses we see the ground rules laid down as well which is for the man to leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. Did God lay down ground rules for who can and cannot get married? Yes He did. This is found in Adam’s marriage vows in Genesis 2:24 which clearly states that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and become one flesh. In the Bible you never see any homosexual couples who are followers of the Triune God nor do you see God’s endorsement of homosexual marriage period. Why? Because homosexuality is a sin against God (Lev.18:22, Romans 1:24-27, 1st Corinthians 6:9). So since homosexuality is a sin against God, how much more is homosexual marriage a sin against God? This therefore answers the question of whether or not we are authorized to revise and change the ground rules that God has established and laid down and the answer is a resounding no! God who is unchanging(Micah 3:6) and infinite has the final word on marriage and we have no authorization whatsoever to revise and change the definition of marriage.

In conclusion we have seen that the homosexual community, politicians, and same-sex marriage advocates cannot answer the question about the origin of marriage. This is so because they have no infinite Authority regarding the issue of marriage. They simply have no originator of marriage who declares that homosexual marriage is good. Therefore they are left with arguments from emotion and opinion and the debate becomes one which is purely political and not factual. On the other hand the Christian community points humanity to God as the origin and originator of the institution of marriage. He is the One who lays down the ground rules for marriage both in the Old and New Testament. He is the infinite Authority on marriage and we as finite beings have no right to revise and change His design and definition of marriage. It would be good for us not to attempt to fix that which isn’t broken and to accept God’s design and definition of marriage. The U.S. Congress and our President who call on God to bless America after every speech should bless God in return by maintaining the Biblical definition of marriage as He authorized it.

Slavery and Christianity: A Christian Response.

1 Reply

Today I read a CNN blog entitled, “How religion has been used to promote slavery”, written by John Blake. He opens up his article by asking the question, “which revered religious figure–Moses, Jesus, or the Prophet Muhammad–spoke out boldly and ambiguously against slavery?” Blake answers, ” None of them.” From that answer forth, Blake attempts to show that since none of the religions directly opposed slavery, then there isn’t any reason that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam had members in their respected religions who condoned slavery at some point in their history. The question, however, is this: is it true that Christianity is guilty of not condemning slavery? Better yet, is Jesus guilty of not openly condemning slavery? This article will answer these questions by responding to both Daniel C. Peterson, and John Dominic Crossan’s assertion that Christianity, both Old and New Testament, fails to condemn slavery.

When dealing with Jesus and the issue of slavery, one has to first admit that Jesus did not deal with slavery by condemning it. Jesus, however, never condoned it either. Even Crossan had to admit it, ” He[Jesus} doesn’t say anything for or against it.” Crossan believes that despite Jesus lack of judgement for or against slavery, Jesus would have opposed slavery. I most certainly agree with Crossan on this point. Jesus loved all people and didn’t show partiality toward anyone. He who commanded His followers to “love your neighbor as yourself” demonstrated it throughout His entire three and a half years of ministry. Slavery, as we are familiar with, is in complete opposition to the “second greatest commandment.” A person cannot abuse and love his neighbor at the same time.

While Jesus is given a pardon for not addressing the issue because He was a perfectly moral person, the Bible as a whole and the Apostle Paul are not as fortunate. It is regularly argued that the Apostle Paul was for slavery because of what he taught and commanded in Ephesians 6:5-8. Crossan called the Apostle Paul of this book to be a “Pseudo-Paul” which was created by early church leaders to appease Rome. The real Paul was the Paul who opposed slavery as indicated in 1st Timothy 1:10 where “men stealers” or “kidnapping” is against the law. Is there two different Paul’s in Scripture? The authentic Paul who opposed slavery and the “Pseudo-Paul, supporter of slavery? No there isn’t.

The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 6:5-8 does not describe slavery in terms of forced labor and abuse. It couldn’t because of what this same Paul goes on to say in verse 9, ” And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatenings, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.” The Apostle Paul here clearly warns slave masters to treat their slaves with respect and dignity, not threatening them and abusing them. Therefore this kind of slavery is not the type of slavery which is oppressive and demeaning. Both slave and master are commanded to respect each other. Both are given ethical guidelines on how to treat each other. There are no signs of unethical treatment being promoted against a slave. The slave is commanded to obey his master and the master is commanded not to threaten and abuse his slave. Both are to do so unto the Lord (v. 5, 9).

Another attack on the Christian faith regarding slavery is from the Old Testament where the Israelites had slaves. This also is an attack against Judaism since the Old Testament is their Holy Scriptures as well. Daniel C. Peterson attempts to undermine the morality of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by questioning why He and His people Israel would sanction slavery at all. Peterson says, ” But how could ancient Israel sanction any form of slavery given their exodus from Egyptian captivity? Didn’t their God explicitly condemn slavery when he ordered Moses to tell Pharaoh to ‘let my people go?'” So how could God sanction any form of slavery?

First of all, before we answer that question, we should ask, “Are all forms of slavery immoral? If yes, says who? On what moral grounds do one base that on? Biblically only one kind is condemned. In Deuteronomy 24:14-15 it says, ” You shall not oppress a hired servant [slave} who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates. Each day you shall give him his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set his heart on it; lest he cry out against you to the LORD, and it be sin to you.” Here we see God commanding slave masters in Israel to not oppress their slaves, but pay them their wages for working for them. Slavery here is the poor servant working for wages. The kind of slavery here is not the kind of slavery Israel experienced in Egypt. In Exodus 3:9, God says, ” Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel has come to me, and I have also seen the oppression with which the Egyptians oppress them.” God brought Israel out of Egypt not because of slavery itself, but because of the type of slavery: oppressive slavery. The type of slavery that caused Israel to cry out to God for deliverance.

The slavery described in Deuteronomy 15:12-18 is again a worker-employer type of slavery. The Hebrew slave works for six years and is released in the seventh year during the year of Jubilee when all debts are forgiven and released. In verse 18 Moses, by the Word of the Lord, sternly instruct masters to release their slaves in the seventh year; for in doing so that master will be blessed by God.

Therefore in no way is slavery condoned in either Judaism or Christianity. Clearly we have seen from both the Old and New Testament that the only form of slavery which is condemned time and time again is oppressive slavery. In the Bible a labor for wages type of slavery is presented in Scripture. Moreover, the protection of the slave from oppression is commanded in both Testaments. I would say this is far from the unethical slavery of times past which sadly has been practiced and preached by Muslims and so called “Christians”. Both Crossan and Peterson are guilty of selective interpretation; picking out only those passages in Scripture in order to interpret them to teach what the whole of Scripture does not teach. I would strongly encourage Blake, Crossan and Peterson to search all the Scriptures which speak on the issue. In doing so they would see how frail their arguments are. It is true, unfortunately, that religion has been used to promote and practice slavery. Christianity however, was used in this way due to either false brethren or by true brethren who did not know the whole counsel of God [the Bible} on this subject. Sadly to this day, Christianity still has the ethical black eye due to this. The good news is, however, that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Christian Church has never and will never endorse oppressive slavery because God is a God who is morally perfect and stands for human value and dignity.

Lessons single Christians can learn from the life of Whitney Houston.

1 Reply

For the last couple of weeks we have seen news story after news story about the life and death of legendary singer Whitney Houston. We have seen and heard the good, the bad, and the ugly about Whitney Houston. We have seen and heard the good news regarding her singing career. We have seen and heard the bad news of her failed marriage to R&B singer Bobby Brown and all that was involved in it. We sadly have seen and heard the ugly news of Whitney Houston’s last days which included a lot of drinking, boisterous partying, and unseeming behavior. As I followed the news of Whitney Houston’s life and death, one thing particularly stood out to me which explains, at least in part, the reason for the downfall of Whitney Houston. This reason is connected, I think, to her marriage to Bobby Brown. If Whitney Houston was in fact a Christian, her downfall could have been avoided simply from heeding Scripture. If Whitney Houston was not in fact a Christian, then her downfall is only explainable as being due to sin and wrong choices. In this blog I will deal with the argument of if Whitney Houston was a Christian, then her downfall could have been avoided by simply heeding to the Bible she quoted from (especially in her last days of life).

On July 18, 1992 Whitney Houston married singer Bobby Brown. The wedding was conducted by Pastor Marvin L. Winans of Perfecting Church in Detroit, Michigan. Now if you the reader are a discerning Bible believer you should already know where I am going with this; but if you are not, then let us go through this argument together.

If Whitney Houston was in fact a Christian, then this marriage should have never happened to begin with. The Bible itself tells us the reason why. In 2nd Corinthians 6:14a, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” This passage of Scripture applies to all types of relationships including dating and marriage. To my knowledge, I don’t know of a time when Bobby Brown ever claimed to be a Christian. By knowing how drinking and drugs was a regular part of the marriage, I believe it is safe to conclude that Bobby Brown was probably doing the same thing before and during his dating period with Whitney Houston. If this is the case, then by Whitney Houston dating and ultimately marrying Bobby Brown she failed to heed the command of 2nd Corinthians 6:14a. In disobeying any command of God found in the Bible, there are consequences and in this case it isn’t any different. The consequences that Whitney ended up facing goes with another passage of Scripture Whitney Houston failed to heed.

In 1st Corinthians 15:33 it reads, “Do not be deceived: ‘Evil company corrupts good habits.'” Prior to marrying Bobby Brown, I think most, if not all, would agree that Whitney Houston had a decent moral reputation. There were no reports of any sort of immorality whatsoever. After Whitney married Bobby, however, we soon began to hear and read the reports of her drug problem with crack and marijuana. We began to hear of her drinking problems. We began to see her behavior turn from the music industry’s sweetheart to a person of wild and immoral behavior. This change of behavior clearly began after her marriage to Bobby Brown. As Whitney openly admitted in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, she wouldn’t drink or do drugs without Bobby. Sadly after Whitney and Bobby divorced in 2007, Whitney never fully recovered and returned to the moral kind of woman she was before her marriage.

Many fans blame Bobby Brown for Whitney’s moral decline and downfall which eventually lead to her death. Whitney’s failure to heed these Scriptures plus Amos 3:3, however, plays a vital role as well. Whitney’s bad choices led her down an immoral and godless path of living which she was unable to recover from.

Consequently if Whitney Houston was a Christian, then single Christians need to take serious notes on what can happen if they date and marry an unbeliever by looking back at what happened to Whitney Houston. Marrying an unbeliever can cause good habits and moral godly behavior to die and decay while evil, immoral, and ungodly habits grow in its place. I haven’t read of Whitney Houston ever going to the Church for help after her divorce, but for the Christian who does fall into this situation, they must run to the Church for the spiritual help he/she needs in order to recover. It is far better, however, to heed the commands in God’s Word when it comes to marriage so that the single Christian can avoid unnecessary pain and spiritual entrapment due to a sinful marriage with an unrepentant sinful mate.

On a different but brief note, it is to bad Pastor Marvin L. Winans didn’t heed to the Scriptures himself as a suppose “Man of God”. For if he would have done so, he wouldn’t have approved of Whitney and Bobby getting married and would have refused to marry them. If Whitney Houston was in fact a Christian, then Pastor Marvin L. Winans is partly responsible for Whitney’s moral and possible spiritual downfall by willingly marrying them. I hope and pray he sees the tragic mistake he made by conducting and joining Whitney and Bobby in marriage and the tragic outcome that followed through the rest of Whitney Houston’s life.

Free Will: Illusion or Reality?

2 Replies

I recently came across an intriguing column on the USA Today website entitled, ” Why you don’t really have free will”, written by Jerry A. Coyne. As you can probably predict, Coyne is making a case against the belief that humankind has free will. The denial of free will is part of the fabric of evolution. Theistic and atheistic philosophers have been debating this issue for ages. Philosophically it is the debate of Determinism vs. Free Will. Determinism by definition teaches us that all actions and events have been determined by preceding events or natural causes without the aid of free will or choice on humankind’s part. All actions and events have been determine to happen in a particular way and those actions or events could not happen in no other way. For instance, if Jim murders his entire family and then kills himself, it was determined that Jim would do so and he could not have done differently. Jim murdering his family, then killing himself, was not a choice on his part according to determinism. It was determined to happen that way either by God (theological determinism), biological effects (biological determinism), a product of Jim’s environment (sociological determinism) or psychological (psychological determinism). With the understanding of determinism laid out, let us proceed to Coyne’s case against free will in which he comes from the school of determinism called Biological determinism.

In Coyne’s column, after he has defined free will as when a person has two or more alternatives and that person freely chooses one of those alternatives, he presents two lines of evidence to suggest that free will is but an illusion. The first is that “we are biological creatures, collections of molecules that must obey the laws of physics.” Coyne goes on to say, ” Science hasn’t shown any way we can do this (step outside of our brain’s structure and modify how it works) because ‘we’ are simply constructs of our brain.” What Coyne is basically saying is that what “appears” to be us exercising free will is nothing more than biological workings of the brain.

The second line of “evidence” Coyne presents to us is that our brains are “meat computers”. Coyne said, ” Our brains are simply meat computers that, like real computers, are programmed by our genes and experiences to convert an array of inputs into predetermined output.” This means that our “choices” are a result of our genetic make-up and our environment.

Based on the studies of psychologist and neuroscientist, Coyne said the notion of free will “itself could be an illusion that evolution has given us to connect our thoughts, which stem from unconscious processes, and our actions, which also stem from unconscious processes.” Free will, therefore, is an illusion of evolution. Now let us see why these two lines of evidence are anything but evidence.

First, Coyne’s position that free will is an illusion assumes that the theory of evolution is true. He assumes that we are just biological creatures governed by the laws of physics. We must first ask for scientific evidence for the universe coming into existence from nothing and humans as products of the evolutionary process. Better yet, is the idea of evolution and determinism itself an illusion which some other thing or being gave to us to connect our thoughts? Could actions and events “appear” to be determined and can happen no other way, but in reality be the opposite? That free will is real and humans can choose or reject a certain course of action? By what standard can we judge by to determine whether free will or determinism is illusionary or not?

Lastly, if determinism is true, it is impossible to hold anyone morally responsible. If one’s immoral act is the result of biological workings of the brain and being influenced by his or her environment, then holding him or her morally accountable is meaningless. Furthermore, if evolution is true, by what moral standard or law does one judge a person by? What is evil and what is good? Without an absolute moral law from an absolute moral law-giver(God), morality is relative and therefore meaningless.

From a Christian worldview, God gives us free will. The first demonstration of that is found in the book of Genesis. God commands the first man and woman not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but ” Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.” (Genesis 2:16-17) In Genesis chapter 3 Eve and Adam freely ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6) in complete disobedience to God. The serpent, Satan, tempted them, but they chose freely to give in to the temptation and partake of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Further evidence of God giving people choice is the nation of Israel. In Deuteronomy 30, God presents the blessings Israel would receive as a result of returning to God. Moses as he closes his discourse said, ” I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.”(Deut. 30:19)

The greatest of all choices is the choice to believe in Jesus Christ for salvation or not. In John 3:16 Jesus said, ” For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” This is only possible if free will exist. God has bestowed on humankind the ability to choose freely as He has the ability to choose freely. Lucifer freely chose to reject God and become God’s enemy. God does not determine who will be His enemy or who will be His ally randomly. Free will is an attribute of His that He freely chose to give us creatures who are created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, it is true that free will is a reality, not an illusion. Determinism and evolution is the illusion given to us by Satan Himself to keep us from God. Determinism vs. Free Will in reality is nothing more than another debate derived from the age-old debate: Does God exist? If God doesn’t exist, there can be no free will; but if God exist, free will is inevitable.

The Main Problem with Ecumenicalism.

The Dire Need for Moral Absolutes.