Tag Archives: Ethics

Evil Put in its Proper Place

Leave a reply

Let us remember that every worldview-not just Christianity’s-must give an explanation or an answer for evil and suffering…this is not just a problem distinctive to Christianity. It will not do for the challenger just to raise the question. This problem of evil is one to which we all must offer an answer, regardless of the belief system to which we subscribe—Ravi Zacharias1

 Evil has been a subject matter long discussed and debated. Dialogues and deliberations concerning evil have ranged across all academic and non-academic platforms. Various explanations of the origin, function, and even the reality of evil has formulated many religious, philosophical, and theological ideas. Of course, not all of these explanations about the problem of evil are in agreement, but in fact contradict one another; yet they each vie for your mind. As human beings we know (at least we should know) contradictory truth claims cannot all be equally true. Either all of the truth claims are false, or one of the truth claims is in fact true. Never have and never will contradictory truth claims be equally true. 

As we are bombarded daily with a smorgasbord of ideas about what evil is (and isn’t), how do we decide which view of evil is in fact true? Remember in my last blog The Necessity of Truth, truth was defined as that which corresponds with reality. Using this working definition of truth, what view or understanding of evil best fits everyday reality? This question must be approached objectively in order to arrive at an accurate answer. It is my hope one will do so in order to accurately interpret the immoral behaviors of the world in which we live. 

Evil in a Maze of Definitions

Normally when a person thinks of the word evil, one’s mind think of an act which is considered evil; whether it be murder, rape, theft, etc. How many, however, actually think about what evil itself actually is apart from any act of evil? To be absolutely honest, most don’t think that deeply about evil. We simply condemn an act of evil and keep it moving, but this way of approaching the topic of evil is not good enough. Anybody with a sound mind from any worldview can condemn an evil act, but how do those of differing worldviews interpret those evil acts? These various interpretations of an evil act are grounded in how that particular worldview defines evil.  Let’s look at some definitions for evil. 

Islam

According to the second largest religion in the world, Islam teaches “that whatever takes a person away from God, and thus incurs His anger is evil.” (Good and Evil in Islam) So evil is that which incurs the anger of Allah (God), but how can we know what actions incurs the anger of Allah? The answer is that we can’t know because “The Qur’an clearly states that God is the only authority in defining good and evil.” (Good and Evil in Islam) Hence, Sura 2: 216 says, 

“Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not. 

Yes, it is true that people can hate something that is good for their all-around well-being (God) and love something that is bad for their all-around well-being (drugs), but is it true we cannot know what those good and evil behaviors are apart from Allah? No, this is not true and any non-Muslim would reject this claim; whether they are religious or not. If, according to the Islamic definition of evil, only Allah knows what is evil and one can’t know for themselves what behaviors incur the anger of Allah apart from Allah, then one cannot truly know what evil is. Thus, the Islamic definition of evil is insufficient.

Buddhism

At first glance, the topic of Buddhism and the problem of evil can seem pretty complex, but the deeper one studies this topic, the clearer things begin to get. The Buddha, Gautama Buddha, is quoted as saying the following about what evil is, 

“What is evil? Killing is evil, lying is evil, slandering is evil, abuse is evil, gossip is evil, envy is evil, hatred is evil, to cling to false doctrine is evil; all these things are evil. And what is the root of evil? Desire is the root of evil, illusion is the root of evil.”

First, the Buddha answers the question of what is evil by giving us a list of behaviors which one would agree are in fact evil: killing, lying, slandering, abuse, gossip, envy, hatred, and false doctrine. Then the Buddha asks a follow-up question: What is the root of evil? Gautama Buddha’s answer: Desire and illusion. The Buddha gives us this answer because according to Buddhist ethics, desire and illusion are what brings about suffering. Deep within our minds we crave or desire things which we think will satisfy us and “…this thirst or craving takes different forms: craving for the objects of the senses, for existence and non-existence.”2 

Consequently, our desire for these things and more give us the illusion that they can bring about our satisfaction, but in actuality “It is the cause of suffering because it can never be finally satisfied.”3  In other words, according to Buddhism, desire is evil because it leaves us with the illusion that obtaining our desire for things like objects of the senses will bring about satisfaction when in reality it won’t. It’s just an illusion and is therefore evil since such satisfaction is not obtainable. Thus, we are left with a “… mind that is unhealthy, harmful, based on ignorance, and resulting in suffering.”  (Good, Evil, and Beyond)  

So is desire the root of evil? No, it is not. There are plenty of desires which are not evil. Even in Buddhism there are desires which Buddhists have, though they wouldn’t dare admit it. For example, is not becoming a monk a desire? Otherwise, what would motivate a Buddhist to become one? The logical answer is desire. One other example: Why should a Buddhist be concerned about reaching nirvana? Is it not because a Buddhist desires to break free from the continuous cycles of rebirths (reincarnation)? Of course it is. So then, the Buddhist understanding of evil is not only insufficient, but unlivable as well.

New Age Movement   

Perhaps one unexpected addition to this discussion about evil is the New Age Movement, but like any other worldview, the New Age Movement has its own view about what evil is. In New Age thought, good and evil are relative. This means that New Agers do not believe that there is such a thing as moral principles or moral laws which humans must abide by. There are no moral absolutes. There is no clear cut category of which behaviors are good and which behaviors are evil. This is known as moral relativism. 

At the core of New Age ethics is love. Love, according to New Age thought “is something like a Force in that it is basically neither good nor evil.  By love they do not mean a voluntary act of compassion for another individual.”4 Love instead is an impersonal binding force which brings all people and things together.5 Thus, love is “…the energy which makes humanity one.”6 It is only on a lower level of existence where there is a distinction between good and evil, yet still there are no moral absolutes, but only voluntary acts.  

Famous actress and high profile New Age representative Shirely MacLaine was clear about her moral relativism. She stated unabashedly in her book Dancing in the Light that “We are not under the Law of God. We are the Law of God. We are God.”7 In other words, since we are God, we are a law unto ourselves and “until mankind realizes there is, in truth, no good, and there is, in truth, no evil, there will be no peace.”8 My question here is: Is it true that there is no good and there is no evil? Is MacLaine making an absolute truth statement about the non-existence of good and evil? If not, her statement is relative, and therefore meaningless. 

As we have seen, the New Age Movement is in no position to give us a definition for evil, since they reject the existence of evil, as well as good. Morality is relative. New Agers like Shirely MacLaine, however, contradict their own moral relativism. Is it good not to be under the Law of God? Is it good to be God ourselves? Instead, could it be evil to claim to be God? Is it true that there is no good and evil? To answer either yes or no to any of these questions will affirm the reality of absolute truth. The only way for a New Ager to avoid this problem and maintain relativism is to remain speechless and letter-less for a lifetime.  

Christianity  

So can Christianity give us a solid definition and understanding of evil?  Christianity’s definition and understanding of evil is given and explained both philosophically and theologically. Let’s start with the philosophical definition of evil. Christian philosophers and apologists define evil as the absence of good. They argue that evil is not a stand-alone substance or entity in the same way good is. An illustration of this argument is found in the nature of light and darkness. Light is a stand-alone substance. Light cannot be diminished by anything; especially as it pertains to light from the sun. A cloudy day does not diminish the light from the sun and plunges us into total darkness; we may not see the sun rays from the sun, but we still continue to experience the light coming from the sun.  

On the other hand, however, darkness like what we experience at night does not remain regardless of atmospheric changes. When the sun appears in the morning, does the darkness of the night remain? No, it doesn’t remain. The darkness is diminished by the light of the sun. When the sun goes down in the evening, the darkness appears again. The existence of and non-existence of darkness is determined by the presence or lack of presence of the sun. 

In a similar way, like darkness, evil does not stand alone in the way good stands alone. Just like darkness indicates to us that there is a lack or deprivation of light, so evil indicates to us that there is a lack or deprivation of good. Darkness is not a deprivation of light, for to say that it is to imply that darkness is a stand-alone substance, which clearly isn’t the case. Evil is not a stand-alone entity either like good is. This is so because good and goodness flows from the very nature of God. Good is a stand-alone substance since its existence is contingent upon God. Evil on the other hand does not flow from the nature of God for “… in Him is no darkness at all.” (I John 1:5) Hence, evil is not a stand-alone substance since it has no object of contingency. 

Medieval Christian philosopher Augustine in his classic work Confessions spoke in depth about evil not being a stand-alone substance like good is a stand-alone substance. Augustine said, 

“So then, if they are deprived of all good, they will be nothing at all. Therefore, as long as they exist, they are good. Accordingly, whatever things exist are good, and the evil into whose origins I was inquiring is not a substance, for if it were a substance, it would be good.”9   

In other words, any existing thing or substance is good for it comes from God; for good flows from His nature. Evil has no substance and is the deprivation of good, thus it is nothing at all. Augustine’s own pronouncement on evil, “For you evil does not exist at all…”10  Evil then, according to Christian philosophy, is the deprivation of good. Now we must attempt to link this philosophical definition of evil with the biblical/theological definition of evil. If done, then Christianity has the proper definition of evil which accurately corresponds with everyday reality. 

According to the Bible in I John 3:4, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” “Wait a minute!” one may say, “this verse is talking about sin, not evil.” True, but interestingly, sin is a synonym for evil. Since this is so, the verse can be read as following “…for evil is the transgression [breaking] of the law.” [Emphasis mine]  The Greek word here for sin is parabasis. Parabasis, according to the Moody Handbook of Theology, means “overstepping, transgression.”11 Therefore, sin (evil) is the overstepping of God’s Law. We overstep or break God’s Law by failing to do what is good according to what God’s standard of good is. 

God’s Law says, “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13) To murder is to bring about the death of a human being, which results in the deprivation of life. Life is good, but the deprivation of life is evil. God’s Law also said, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16) To lie to someone is to deprive them of the truth. Truth is good, but the deprivation of truth is evil. 

Do you see the connection between the philosophical definition of evil as presented by Christian philosophers like Augustine and the biblical/theological definition of evil? Furthermore, the definition of evil given by Christianity does in fact correspond with reality. In light of the acts of racial injustices that are taking place in the United States, we know from this that justice is good, but its deprivation (injustice) is evil. Racial equality is good, but its deprivation (racism) is evil. Therefore, Christianity has the precise definition of evil for it perfectly corresponds with the reality we experience daily. 

Who Puts Evil in its Proper Place

In conclusion, we have examined some definitions for evil as given by Islam, Buddhism, the New Age Movement, and Christianity. Islam told us evil is that which incurs Allah’s anger, but then tells us we cannot know what is good and evil apart from the knowledge of Allah. Humans, however, can and do know what behaviors are good and evil apart from a divine being. 

Buddhism teaches that desire and craving are evil for they bring about the illusion that we’ll obtain satisfaction from those things we desire and crave, when in actuality they won’t and that is evil. The problem is, however, Buddhist do express desires such as being monks and/or reaching nirvana. Otherwise why pursue these things? 

In the New Age Movement, we are taught that good and evil are relative, for there are no objective moral values. Is it good to not be under the Law of God as Shirely MacLaine said? Is it good or evil to say we are gods? As we have come to realize, objective and absolute moral truth claims cannot be avoided.   

Finally, in Christianity we learn that evil by definition is the deprivation of good. Also, evil is the transgression of the Law of God, which is the deprivation of keeping and honoring God’s Law. It is with Christianity that we find the precise definition of evil for it corresponds with our everyday experience of evil; both from without and from within. Through the Christian worldview we can know what evil is and there is no need to look any further than Christianity. Through the lenses of the Christian faith evil is put in its proper place.   

Works Cited

(1) Ravi Zacharias, Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2007),  p.182.

(2) Rupert Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998),  p.70.

(3) Ibid., p. 70.

(4) J. Yutaka Amano & Norman Geisler, The Infiltration of the New Age (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1989),  p. 137.

(5) Ibid., p. 137.

(6) Benjamin Creme, The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom (North Hollywood, Calif.: Tara Center, 1980), 123. 

(7) Shirley MacLaine, Dancing in the Light (New York: Bantam, 1985), p. 247.

(8) Ibid., p. 342. 

(9) Augustine, Confessions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 124-25. 

(10) Ibid., p. 125. 

(11) Paul P. Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), p. 310.

Homosexuality, the Church, and Apostasy.

1 Reply

2218740

On June 19, 2014 in Detroit, Michigan, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by a vote of 371-238 agreed to allow pastors to perform same-sex marriages. When I read about this historical and tragic decision I was greatly grieved, but in no way surprised by this decision. We who are Christians and know their Bible knew this was coming. Some, if not most of us, may have just never thought it would happen in our lifetime. It was inevitable and unavoidable. Despite the apologetics being waged against same-sex marriage and homosexuality overall, still this day arrived and now we as the Christian Church must deal it whether we like it or not. Not only must we deal with the support of same-sex marriage and homosexuality from outside the Church, now we must deal with the support of same-sex marriage and homosexuality from within the Church via the apostates. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, and the Episcopal Church are clear examples of apostates. These “Christian” denominations departed from the faith when they failed to affirm the biblical teaching on marriage which is heterosexual union between a man and a woman. As Scripture says in I Timothy 4:1, ” Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons…” Furthermore in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 it says, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition..” Apostasy must happen before the Lord Jesus returns to earth and right now the issue of same-sex marriage in the Church is creating perhaps the greatest amount of apostates we have seen so far. Whether you are a Christian who holds to the doctrine of Eternal Security and say these apostates were not saved in the first place or whether you are a Christian who believes you can lose your salvation (Reform or Wesleyan Arminianism) and say these were once Christians who have departed from the Christian faith, still the reality is that apostates are among us and are perverting the truth of God’s Word as it pertains to marriage. In the remainder of this blog we will revisit the biblical argument against homosexuality and lastly a philosophical argument against same-sex marriage by arguing from the origin of marriage.

It is both amazing and disturbing how groups like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) can support same-sex marriage and have little to no biblical arguments for their position on the issue. The main argument for their position on same-sex marriage typically comes down to three words: God is love. While it is true that God is love (I John 4:16), these three words do not address the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in any way at all! Homosexuals and supporters of same-sex marriage will argue that if God loves us He will allow us to marry whoever we want for happiness sake. In a nutshell, If God is love, He wants us to be happy. A god who opposes our right to be happy via same-sex marriage is not a God of love. The problem here is just because something makes a person happy doesn’t means it’s morally good. Some people can be happy abusing a animal, but it doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Some people can be happy jumping from one sex partner to another sex partner, but it doesn’t make it morally good. God, the Moral Lawgiver, judges what is morally good and what is morally evil and His judgment on homosexuality is found in the Bible.

In Leviticus 18:22 it says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Many will argue against this by saying this is Old Testament law and it does not apply to today. The problem with this argument is two-fold. First of all chapter 18 is God’s moral law dealing with forbidden sexuality. No part of God’s moral law, including those of sexuality is out-of-date and yes, sex is a moral issue according to God. Secondly, if we accept the argument that Leviticus 18:22 does not apply to today, then none of Leviticus 18 applies to us at all! That means it’s acceptable for a brother to have sex with his brother’s wife (v.16) and it’s acceptable to have sexual relations with your aunt (v. 13) and uncle (v. 14). Let’s not forget also that based on this argument it would be perfectly acceptable for a son or daughter to have sexual relations with either their mother or father (v.7) or to have sexual relations with animals (v. 23). No holds barred sex-o-rama! No human being has the authority to pick one sexual act and say “this is acceptable” and continue to say that all the other sexual acts are wrong and sinful. Either all of the sexual acts in Leviticus 18 are wrong or none of them are wrong. There is no middle ground to stand on.

In Romans 1:26-27 we read, “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” For most of us as Christians this is quite clear; however for some it may not be as clear. In these verses we see both gay and lesbian sexual relationships labeled as unnatural. We see in verse 26 that women exchange or in other words trade in the natural sexual passions for men for unnatural passions with other women which is described here as “what is against nature.” In verse 27 we see men leaving the natural passions for women and trading it in for sexual relations with other men and it is described here as shameful. God defines these same-sex sexual passions and acts as vile. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary the definition of vile is: 1. a: morally despicable or abhorrent. b: physically repulsive. So we see here God views homosexuality as morally despicable and abhorrent and homosexual sex acts as physically repulsive. Before leaving Romans 1:26-27 we find something else that God is telling us also about homosexuality: It is a personal choice. Two action verbs are used in verses 26 and 27: Exchanged and leaving. The women “exchanged” the natural sexual desire of men for women and the men are described as “leaving” the sexual desire of women for men. Both have the free will to choose to stay heterosexual or to become homosexual. It is a choice. It is well known that one of the main reasons why men and women become homosexual is because they were unsuccessful in finding the right mate of the opposite sex. Teens confess that truth on social sites like Facebook all the time. While it is true that some homosexuals claim that when they were heterosexuals they constantly felt homosexual tendencies, still they made the choice to cross that dividing line between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Just because it feels right does not make it right. Feelings and emotions does not determine what is true and moral; God determines what is true and moral.

Lastly there is a philosophical argument against same-sex marriage. This one deals with the origin of marriage. Where did marriage come from? Who or what started this institution which we call marriage? If marriage has a originator, what is this originator’s view or rules of what is marriage and what is not marriage? If there is a originator of marriage, is this originator fallible or infallible? Sadly this has not been dealt with by those in the homosexual community or among it’s supporters. Why? Because they can not answer any of these questions. Because they can’t answer any of these questions, they make it out to be a civil rights issue and a constitutional issue. Marriage, however, is a universal institution, not an United States institution. Therefore, no country has the right to define marriage unless they are the originator of it. A country’s government should seek to know what or who is the originator of marriage (if there is one) and inquire into what the originator’s definition and purpose for marriage is before changing it’s definition. Of course, if the originator of marriage is a fallible being, then who’s to say this being’s definition of marriage is right?  If this being is infallible, however, then the definition of marriage and the purpose of marriage is unchangeable and non-negotiable. If a government goes on to redefine marriage and it’s purpose, then that government is a dishonest and self-seeking government looking to serve a dishonest and self-seeking people who demand the redefinition of marriage. The Christian on the other end do know where marriage originated from and knows who the originator is. This originator is none other than God. It’s the most logical explanation possible with or without the Bible! In the Bible we see the first wedding between a man and woman; Adam and Eve, ” Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. 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 (Gen. 2:22-24).'” The origin of marriage goes back to God in the Garden of Eden with the marriage of Adam and Eve. There is no place in the Bible where same-sex marriage is condone by God. Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality look at in a positive light by God. This we already saw earlier in this blog. The only question left now is whether God is a fallible Being or an infallible Being? According to Scripture and just plain logic, God is an infallible Being. If God was not infallible, God would not be God at all. Even philosophers know this to be true. Malachi 3:6 says, ““For I am the LORD, I do not change;
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.” Since God does not change, then His moral laws on sexuality and marriage has not and will not change. God’s definition of marriage is heterosexual only. God owns the institution of marriage and it’s definition no matter what anyone else thinks, feels, and does.

In conclusion, same-sex marriage is unwarranted biblically and philosophically. If a local church or denomination is honest with the Bible, then they should never reach the conclusion that it is alright to embrace homosexuality and same-sex marriage. To reach such a conclusion is not to know the heart of the God they claim to teach about and worship. As we have seen, the Bible is clearly against homosexuality and calls it what God intends for it to be called: sin. When a local church or denomination strays from the Bible, it is a matter of time before they begin to spiritually die and eventually become apostates and depart from the Christian faith. The Psalmist said, ” Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path (Psalm 119:105).” Let us as Christians walk in the light of God’s Word and not be engulfed in the doctrine of demons as we sadly see happening right now. Let us proclaim who the originator of marriage is and why it is important to know this originator of marriage who is God. Ultimately let us pray that it will lead us to share with them the life-saving gospel of Jesus Christ that they may be saved from their sins and God’s final judgment and eternal wrath.  

What is the Origin of Marriage Revisted.

Leave a reply

Image 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 1st 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

Image

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

Whitney HoustonFor 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.

The Dire Need for Moral Absolutes.

Leave a reply

In the United States of America we as Americans enjoy many freedoms. We enjoy freedom of speech, expression, religion, and other forms of freedom. The Constitution of this nation exist so that such freedoms can freely exist in order for us to function as a society regardless of our differences religiously ,philosophically, ideologically, or socially. The Constitution is a blessing in many ways, especially in regards to religious freedom where no one faith rules the land nor forces a citizen to convert to the religion of that nation. As Christians we should thank God for this. In the mist of this, however, we as Christians should be grieved over how weak and fragile the Constitution of this nation is when it comes to morality.

We as Christians in this country should understand that where freedom exist, the abuse and misusing of freedom exist as well. Under the Constitution we as Christians have the freedom to do good toward our fellow American through the freedoms of religion, speech, and expression, but also by these same freedoms an American has the freedom to do evil. Because of such freedoms as the ones listed, expressions and speeches of hatred are freely expressed regardless of how immoral they are such as was the case with the Ku Klux Klan. Such evil as degrading black people was protected under the Constitution–and still is– and other kinds of evil speech and expressions are protected by the Constitution today as found in entertainment, media, politics, and religion.

Since our nation’s Constitution protects both acts of good and evil, is there room for moral absolutes? When we look at what is said and done under the protection of the Constitution, the answer is an emphatic no! Whether the founding fathers realized it or not, they formed a document which is relativistic in nature. The problem though is that we are not relativistic beings. We all know there are moral absolutes whether we want to admit it or not. We are all wired within with the knowledge of what is good and what is not good. A thief may steal someone’s car and express no remorse but let another thief rob that same thief and watch how outrage he becomes. Why? Because deep inside that thief knows stealing is wrong. The knowledge of good and evil is ingrained in every single one of us whether we be a Christian, Muslim, or Atheist. These moral absolutes in which we are ingrained with comes from a moral law giver who is none other than God. Where there is no God there is no moral law and where there is no moral law there is no moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are unchanging and absolute, therefore these moral absolutes must come from an absolute and unchanging being.

Such a being as described here can only be the God of the Christian faith. God gave us moral absolutes to benefit us individually and as a community because by nature we are prone to do what is evil due to sin, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) Therefore because of humankind’s sinful condition, God gave us the moral standard of what is right and wrong in order to regulate our behavior and keep moral stability in the world. Moral absolutes doesn’t perfectly regulate and stabilize people because everyone does wrong in their lifetime (I John 3:4, Romans 3:23), but what it does do is keep society under control ethically for the greater good of all. Otherwise without it humans would do whatever was right to them as we saw happen in the Old Testament book of Judges regarding Israel (Judges 21:25). Right now in the United States we are not at that point as it was for the young nation of Israel, but we are gradually reaching that point. Under the Constitution rappers can talk about raping women and teaches its listeners how to sell drugs. Under the Constitution the entertainment industry can promote homosexuality, pre-martial sex, lying, greed, drunkenness, etc. Under the same Constitution that gives freedom of religion, one can under that same Constitution disrespect and make a mockery of a persons religion and founder. Under the Constitution unborn babies can have their God giving lives taken from them due to the irresponsible and sinful sexual behavior of a man and woman who wanted instant gratification. Moral absolutes derives from the moral law which comes from The Moral Law Giver who we call God. Moral absolutes must be upheld more than ever before. The Constitution is a failure ethically and must be seen as such even though it is hard to say that as Americans, but as Christians we must respect and be thankful to God for the good the Constitution allows. Yet at the same time we must come to grips with the reality that the Constitution fails miserably from a moral standpoint. Let us as Christians stand boldly for moral absolutes and point them to The Moral Law Giver and His standard of good-which is perfection-and show them their dire need for salvation which is found in Jesus Christ who will free them from sin and damnation to come, “For ‘whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved(Romans 10:13)'”.

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.