Wednesday, 30 September 2009
He's funny, but I wouldn't argue like this with people... or would I? I think he has adult ADD and trying to one-up the other guys. So I wouldn't suggest for you to approach scientific arguments in this manner, but more of a humble and meek Christian manner.
- For additional information please see the article: Atheism and Debate
Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy. In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.” Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists. In an article entitled Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate? the Discovery Institute states the following:
|“||Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.||”|
In 1994, the arch-evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott made this confession concerning creation vs. evolution debates:
|“|| During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education. |
Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.
Some Famous Scientists who were Christians
|John Philoponus||late 6th Century||Aristotle's early Christian critic|
|Hugh of St. Victor||c. 1096-1141||theologian of science|
|Robert Grosseteste||c. 1168-1253||reform-minded bishop-scientist|
|Roger Bacon||c. 1220-1292||Doctor Mirabiles|
|Dietrich von Frieberg||c. 1250-c. 1310||the priest who solved the mystery of the rainbow|
|Thomas Bradwardine||c. 1290-1349||student of motion|
|Nicole Oresme||c. 1320-1382||inventor of scientific graphic techniques|
|Nicholas of Cusa||1401-1464||grappler with infinity|
|Georgias Agricola||1495-1555||founder of metallurgy|
|Johannes Kepler||1571-1630||discoverer of the laws of planetary motion|
|Johannes Baptista van Helmont||1579-1644||founder of pneumatic chemistry and chemical physiology|
|Francesco Maria Grimaldi||1618-1663||discoverer of the diffraction of light||Catholic|
|Blaise Pascal||1623-1662||mathematical prodigy and universal genius|
|Robert Boyle||1627-1691||founder of modern chemistry|
|John Ray||1627-1705||cataloguer of British flora and fauna||Calvinist (denomination?)|
|Isaac Barrow||1630-1677||Newton's teacher|
|Antonie van Leeuwenhoek||1632-1723||discoverer of bacteria|
|Niels Seno||1638-1686||founder of geology|
|James Bradley||1693-1762||discoverer of the aberration of starlight|
|Ewald Georg von Kleist||c. 1700-1748||inventor of the Leyden jar|
|Carolus Linnaeus||1707-1778||classifier of all living things|
|Leonhard Euler||1707-1783||the prolific mathematician|
|John Dalton||1766-1844||founder of modern atomic theory|
|Thomas Young||1773-1829||first to conduct a double-slit experiment with light|
|David Brewster||1781-1868||researcher of polarized light|
|William Buckland||1784-1856||geologist of the Noahic flood|
|Adem Sedgwick||1785-1873||geologist of the Cambrian|
|Augustin-Jean Fresnel||1788-1827||the physicist of light waves|
|Augustin Louis Cauchy||1789-1857||soul-winning mathematician|
|Michael Faraday||1791-1867||giant of electrical research|
|John Frederick William Herschel||1792-1871||cataloguer of the Southern skies|
|Matthew Fontaine Maury||1806-1873||pathfinder of the seas|
|Philip Henry Gosse||1810-1888||popular naturalist|
|Asa Gray||1810-1888||influential botanist|
|James Dwight Dana||1813-1895||systematizer of mineralogy |
|George Boole ||1815-1864||discoverer of pure mathematics|
|James Prescott Joule||1818-1889||originator of Joule's Law|
|John Couch Adams||1819-1892||co-discoverer of Neptune|
|George Gabriel Stokes||1819-1903||theorist of fluorescence|
|Gregor Mendel||1822-1884||pioneer in genetics|
|William Thomson, Lord Kelvin||1824-1907||physicist of thermodynamics|
|Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann||1829-1907||the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory|
|James Clerk Maxwell||1831-1879||father of modern physics|
|Edward William Morley||1838-1923||Michelson's partner in measuring the speed of light|
|Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem||1861-1923||the physicist who recovered the science of the Middle Ages|
|Georges Lemaitre||1894-1966||the priest who showed us the universe is expanding|
|George Washington Carver||c. 1864-1943||pioneer in chemurgy|
|Arthur Stanley Eddington||1882-1944||the astronomer who ruled stellar theory|
I met him at a small church in Muhos, Finland in March 2008 where he gave a concert. I recorded him singing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcXSI8YN7eY. Without knowing who he was I decided to do some research about the guy and this is what I found.
Viktor Klimenko is an artiste and a Cossack. This best known emigrant in
Finland has made an indelible impression on the Finnish show business
and the Finnish gospel music. The broad repertoire of the never-the-same
artiste include melancholic gypsy songs, passionate Russian romances,
nostalgic electric gospel, best loved Hebrew dances and the gems of
His Cossack family originating from southern Russia has made a long trek
from the river valley of Kuban during the bloody years of the Soviet
regime, but the love for the red dust of the Steppes and for the horses'
shining flanks is still alive and strong in Viktor's heart. And still
his songs echo the old stories told by the campfire.
Viktor Klimenko's road to success began in the early 1960's as a pop
singer and an actor. The triumphal march of Viktor the Cossack began at
the end of the same decade. Tremendous popularity accompanied the wild
and romantic Cossack as he rode through Europe in the 1970's. Russian
romances pleased the ear of the audience and impressive shows attracted
the curious crowds.
Viktor Klimenko's rise to fame as an interpreter of Slavic music fell on
the era of cold war. In the world that seemed to consist of only camps
of NATO and Warsaw Pact, he spoke a language which was understood in
both camps: the language of love, the language of music and songs, which
breaks through hostilities.
Adopting gospel music into the repertoire was not just following the
trend in fashion for him. In 1980 Viktor experienced a dramatic change
in his life when he had a spiritual awakening. He knows the Saviour he
sings about. A born again Christian, he faced new challenges and visions
- since then he has travelled around the world as an interpreter of
gospel music and a preacher. As an artiste he became even more
unconstrained and his interpretations acquired a new glow.
Viktor Klimenko has held concerts on all continents. The fall of the
Soviet Union opened the doors even to his closed homeland. He holds the
discriminated and passed by of this world close to his heart: refugees
from all countries, Jews that live scattered all around our broken
world, Russian Jews that have spread into Europe, Israel and the United
States, and gypsies that are the most discriminated and deprived of all
people in many countries.
The matured artiste now lives the best part of his career. His
interpretations have become deeper and there can always be found new
tones in his "white" Russian voice. He can build up a concert out of the
most loved tunes. Unforgettable moments can be spent listening to
Cossack songs, gypsy music, Hebrew melodies, hymns, gospel songs,
electric gospel or the gems of classical music. His performance can be
the highlight of a wedding party, or the greatest consolation for the
mourning at a funeral.
Viktor Klimenko's way to interpret shows great artistic skill.
Viktor Klimenko is a man with an unforgettable voice.
Resources: YouTube, www.viktorklimenko.com.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Monday, 28 September 2009
Thursday, 24 September 2009
I believe that once a person is authentically redeemed, is truly in Christ, that person will never be lost to Christ. That person has what we call eternal security—not because of the person’s innate ability to persevere, but I believe that God promises to preserve his own and that we have the benefit of our Great High Priest who intercedes for us every day. Now, at the same time, Christians are capable of gross and heinous sin. They’re capable of very serious falls away from Christ. They’re capable of the worst kind of denial and betrayal of our Lord.
Consider, for example, Exhibit A—the apostle Peter, who denied Jesus with cursing. He was so emphatic that he uttered profanities to underscore the fact that he never knew Jesus. If you talk about somebody who didn’t seem to want to repent and who had turned away from Jesus, Saint Peter is your classic example. Yet his fellow disciple Judas also betrayed Jesus and turned away from him, and of course, both of the betrayals were predicted by Jesus at the Last Supper. When Jesus spoke of Judas, he said, “What you have to do, do quickly. Go.” And he dismissed him to his treachery. He mentioned in the Scripture that Judas was a son of perdition from the beginning. I think it’s clear in Jesus’ High Priestly prayer that he understood Judas was never a Christian. So Judas’s betrayal was not the case of a Christian turning on Christ.
When he announced to Peter that Peter would also betray him, he said to him, “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked for you. He would have you and sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you so that your faith should not fail; and when you turn, strengthen the brethren.” And then Peter says, “Oh no, Lord, not me. I’ll never betray you.” Then, of course, he did. But notice that when Jesus predicted it, he said, “When you turn”—not, “If you turn” but “When you turn, strengthen the brethren.” Because Jesus had prayed as he did in his High Priestly prayer, no one would be able to snatch his people out of his hand.
The New Testament promises that he who has begun a good work in you will perfect it to the end (Phil. 1:6). I know there are many Christians who believe that a true Christian can lose his or her salvation. I don’t. I’d say with the apostle John, “Those who went out from us were never really with us.” I think a Christian can have a gross and serious fall but not a full and final fall—that he or she will be restored even as David realized his sin, as the Prodigal Son came to himself, as Peter ultimately repented.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Early Modern Scientists
In the conviction of knowledge concerning God's creation is for all people to enjoy, and not just a professional elite, Michael Faraday gave famous public demonstrations of his pioneering work in electricity. James Clerk Maxwell, who, like Faraday, worked with electricity, was also a believer in a personal God. Indeed, the majority of those who founded modern science, from Copernicus to Maxwell, were functioning on a Christian base. Many of them were personally Christians, but even those who were not, were living within the thought forms brought forth by Christianity, especially the belief that God as the Creator and Lawgiver has implanted laws in his creation which man can discover.
Albert Einstein stood against any such application of his concepts. We can think of his often quoted words form the London Observer of April 5, 1964: "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos." (This is not a line we must use to infer that he believed in our Lord. He opted for Spinoza's god over a personal god.)
The Impossibility of a Random Universe
The Quantum Theory:
Einstein's Concept of the Location of an Object and its Velocity
If we try to establish the exact position and speed of two atomic particles which are going to collide, we will never be able to determine exactly how they will rebound. The physicist cannot have an accurate observation of both their location and their velocity simultaneously. The quantum theory of either light or particle, light does not function at random and it is an effect which brings forth causes. Even the far-out theoretical existence of "black holes" in space, as set forth by John G. Taylor, is based on the concept of an orderly universe and calculations resting on that concept.
If an airplane is to fly, it must be constructed to fir the order of the universe that exists. People, no matter what hey have come to believe, still look for the explanation of any happening in terms of other earlier happenings. If this were not possible, not only would explanations cease, but science could not be used reliably in technology. It is possible to so function in our universe that, because there is a uniformity of natural causes, a man may travel hundreds of thousands of miles to the moon and land within a few feet of his planned destination, or he may aim an atomic weapon at a target on the other side of our planet and land it within ten feet of that target. We know we live in a universe that is much more complex than people, including scientists, once thought it to be, but that is much different from the concept of a random universe.
Functioning on a Christian Base
The uniformity of natural causes in a limited time span
On the Christian base, one could expect to find out something true about the universe by reason. There were certain other results of the Christian world view. For example, there was the certainty of something "there"—an objective reality—for science to examine. What we seem to observe is not just an extension of the essence of God, as Hindu and Buddhist thinking would have it. The Christian world view gives us a real world which is there to study objectively. Another result of the Christian base was that the world was worth finding out about, for in doing so one was investigating God's creation. And people were free to investigate nature, for nature was not seen as full of gods and therefore taboo. All things created by God and are open for people's investigation.
What was the view of the modern scientists on a Christian base? They held to the concept of the uniformity of natural causes in an open system, or, as it may also be expressed, the uniformity of natural causes in a limited time span. God has made a cause-and-effect universe; therefore we can find out something about the causes from the effects. But (and the but is very important) it is an open universe because God and man are outside of the uniformity of natural causes. In other words, all that exists is not one big cosmic machine which includes everything. Of course, if a person steps in front of a moving auto, the cause-and-effect universe functions upon him; but God and people are not a part of a total cosmic machine. Things go on in a cause-and-effect sequence, but at a point of time the direction may be changed by God or by people. Consequently, there is a place for God, but there is also a proper place for man.
This carries with it something profound—that this machine, whether the cosmic machine or the machines which people make is neither a master nor a threat—because the machine does not include everything. There is something which is "outside" of the cosmic machine, and there is a place for man to be man.
Three big shifts came, and it was these shifts that made modern man what he is and our modern societies what they are. First, we will look at the shift in science, then the shift in philosophy, and later at the shift in technology. We have already seen that the Scientific Revolution rested on a Christian base. The early modern scientists believed in the concept of the uniformity of natural causes in and open system. God and man were outside the cause-and-effect machine of the cosmos, and therefore they both could influence the machine. For them all that exists is not one big cosmic machine which includes everything (which Leonardo da Vinci foreseen). The shift from modern science to what Francis A. Schaeffer calls modern modern science was a shift from the concept of the uniformity of natural causes in an open system to the concept of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. In the latter view nothing is outside a total cosmic machine; everything which exists is part of it.
Scientists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries continued to use the word God, but pushed God more and more to the edges of their systems. Finally, scientists in this stream of thought moved to the idea of a completely closed system. That left no place for God. But equally it left no place for man. Man disappears, to be viewed as some form of determined or behaviouristic machine. Everything is a part of the cosmic machine, including people. to say this another way: Prior to the rise of modern modern science (that is, naturalistic science, or materialistic science), the laws of cause and effect were applied to physics, astronomy, and chemistry. Today the mechanical cause-and-effect perspective is applied equally to psychology and sociology.
Charles Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859), set forth the concept that all biological life came from simpler forms by a process called "the survival of the fittest." Questions still exist in regard to this concept. Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and reductionism all have their problems explaining how the processes they postulate actually work.
Darwin's idea was popularized by Thomas Huxley (1825-1895). Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), who actually coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," extended the theory of biological evolution to all life, including ethics. Spencer said, "The poverty of the incapable . . . starvation of the idle and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong . . are the decrees of a large, farseeing benevolence." There was no necessity to extend biological evolution to "social Darwinism." But it was natural for these men to do this because of their desire to find a unifying principle that would enable autonomous man to explain the everything through naturalistic science, that is, on the basis of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. This had become the frame of reference by which they attempted to give unity to individual things, the particulars, to the details of the universe and to the history of man. By the particulars we mean the individual things which are about us; a chair is a particular, as is each molecule which makes up the chair, and so on. Thomas Aquinas brought this Aristotelian emphasis on individual things—the particulars—into the philosophy of the late Middle Ages, and this set the stage for the humanistic elements of the Renaissance and the basic problem they created.
Later, these ideas helped produce an even more far-reaching yet logical conclusion: the Nazi movement in Germany. Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), who grew up Catholic, stated numerous times that Christianity and its notion of charity should be "replaces by the ethic of strength over weakness." The Christian consensus had largely been lost by the undermining from a rationalistic philosophy and a romantic pantheism on the secular side, and a liberal theology (which was an adoption of rationalism in theological terminology) in the universities and many of the churches. Thus biblical Christianity was no longer giving the consensus for German society. After World War I came political and economic chaos and a flood of moral permissiveness in Germany. Thus, many factors created the situation. But in that setting the theory of the survival of the fittest sanctioned what occurred.
The Nazi movement was not the last result of this way of thinking. In a quieter way, and yet as importantly, some of today's(1979) advocates of genetic engineering use the same arguments to support the position that the weak should not be kept alive through medical advances to produce a weaker next generation. Rather, they argue, genetic engineering should be used to propagate the fittest. Humanism had set out to make man autonomous; but its results have no been what the advocates of humanism idealistically visualized.
Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard
"Through a "leap of faith" one must try to find meaning without reason."
In our day, humanistic reason affirms that there is only the cosmic machine, which encompasses everything, including people. To those who hold this view everything people are or do is explained by some form of determinism, some type of behaviourism, and some kind of reductionism. The terms determinism or behaviourism indicate that everything people think or do is determined in a machinelike way and that any sense of freedom or choice is an illusion. In one form of reductionism, man is explained by reducing him to the smallest particles which make up his body. Man is seen as being only the molecule or the energy particle, more complex but not intrinsically different.
To the question of origins: What was the beginning of everything? Ultimately, there are not many possible answers to this question. First, we could say that everything came from nothing—that is, from really nothing, what I call nothing-nothing. This means that once there was no mass, no energy, no motion, and no personality. This is theoretically a possibility, but I have never heard anyone hold this view, for it seems to be unthinkable. It follows that is we do not hold that everything has come of nothing-nothing, then something has always existed.
Second, there is the possibility of a personal beginning—that some form of the impersonal has existed forever, even if in a form vastly different from that which we now know. This idea of an impersonal beginning has many variations, including the use of the word God to mean the ultimate impersonal, as in the case of pantheism. A more accurate word than pantheism to describe this connotation of personality, even though, by definition, the concept excludes it. In much modern thought, all begins with the impersonality of the atom or the molecule or the energy particle, and then everything—including life and man—comes forth by chance from that.
This is really very curious because Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), the French chemist, demonstrated the impossibility of the then-accepted concept of the spontaneous generation of life—that is, life springing from nonliving things. Pasteur showed in 1864 that is the nonliving things were pasteurized, then life could not come forth. In other words, what was previously considered spontaneous generation of life from nonliving things was mistaken—life always came from living things. When pasteurization killed all the elements of life, life never came forth from the nonliving things. but then the men of that same era returned to the concept of the spontaneous generation of life by adding a new factor: long reaches of time.
This equation of the impersonal plus time plus chance producing the total configuration of the universe and all that is in it, modern people hold by faith. And if one does in faith accept this, with what final value is he left?
Down to the present despair, we can understand where modern people are. They have no place for a personal God. But equally they have no place for man as man, or for love, or for freedom, or for significance. This brings a crucial problem. Beginning only from man himself, people affirm that man is only a machine. But those who hold this position cannot live like machines! If they could, there would have been no tensions in their intellectual position or in their lives. But even people who believe they are machines cannot live like machines, and thus they must "leap upstairs" against their reason to do so they have to deny their reason.
Such a solution is intellectual suicide, and one may question the intellectual integrity of those who accept such a position when their starting point was pride in the sufficiency of human reason.
Reference: How Should We Then Live? by Francis A. Schaeffer, Pages 52, 139, 140, 142, 146, 148, 150, 151, 164, 165.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
My problem is that these tv shows are telling people it's okay to commit adultery as long as there is love. What about this woman's husband? The doctor in charge of the mental hospital made it seem that this was sane and okay to be in a relationship with a woman who is already married and with children. Doctor House knew she was married while he still committed adultery with her.
I noticed that at the beginning of the episode the show was rated PG. They showed House and this woman have sex with nudity. The woman was only wearing her underwear! How is this PG??? I remember when I was a kid this was 14A or rated R (for retarded... sorry bad joke).
I don't know why we still watch these shows. Think about the garbage we are putting into our heads. We wouldn't allow a person like this to do these things in our own home. But we are inviting them into our homes by allowing ourselves or our guests to watch these shows on our televisions. We allow Satan to sit at our dinner tables and living rooms.
I admit I used to like the show House, I've watched some episodes. But I will not ignore these things. People might say I'm too legalistic, old testament, or taking it too literal. But it's these very small things that plague Christianity. We allow these things even into our churches. We accept that 'Oh they just say OMG in the movie and JC a few times, but that's all.' That's ALL? People are blaspheming on television and we take it lightly or ignore it and continue to watch the show because there are some 'good morals' in the show.
In Deuteronomy and Leviticus we see what happens to people in the old covenant when they committed these sins like adultery. People were lead out of the city gates and stoned to death as an example of how much God hates this sin! He won't let anyone who commits these sins into heaven. So why, as His holy people, do we allow this into our homes? What's the difference if we are watching it on tv or in a movie theatre or doing it ourselves??
Turn it off!
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
Sunday, 13 September 2009
8 If you really fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgement is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgement.
Anyone who says that they keep the law but break at least one is accountable as a transgressor of all the law. Do not be like the Pharisees who teach the law but do the opposite. They preach the law but do not keep it. So anyone who keeps the whole law by faith is sanctified with the Lord. But anyone who says they keep the law and does not show the love of Christ is a liar. Everyone falls short of God's standard for the Law of Moses. All have fallen after Adam, and all are forgiven through continual repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
Show love and mercy for others and you will be rewarded in heaven. Do not seek rewards on earth. But strive for kindness, meekness, and forgiveness because these are well rewarded high in heaven. Do not be quick-tempered and quick to judge others without proof or witnesses. The power of overcoming temper and unforgiveness comes from peace in Christ who abides in us who believe. The goodness of Christ (in us) is the mercy we show for others who transgress the law or wrong us.
Show mercy and mercy will be given to you instead of judgement. So whatever you say or whatever you do, remember that you will be judged by the law that sets you free. Show mercy and you will be forgiven by the Father 'Most High' in heaven.
I thank the Lord that He gives me the wisdom and love of words to share with my brothers and sisters. He has patience and mercy on us, and is everlasting love.
To the Most High!
I Exalt Thee, Lord!
Reference: The English Standard Version of the Holy Bible
Friday, 11 September 2009
I could be quite satisfied and content knowing that the world revolved around me. But God is not an assistant or substitute for the joy that was missing in my life. God is the reason for our existence. He deserves our attention not because He demands it, but because He wants a personal relationship with us.
I didn't run to Him to feel better like Psalm 23. He opened my heart and mind so that I would fall to His feet because He did not want me to be selfish anymore. He wanted me to live my life for Him, and not for my body. To say that He is a crutch would make me self-glorified and making Him low. I praise Him because of what He did on the Cross, because He is forgiving, merciful, and because I owe my life to Him. He is my maker and therefore owns me. I was bought with a price on Calvary and therefore am a slave to Him forever. He gave me free will to disobey Him or to love Him back. He deserves my attention and obedience.
Thursday, 10 September 2009
"Sex in Eden was a selfless affection...
Pornography is selfish pleasure" - John Piper
2 Peter 2
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.
Every man needs accountability for his actions. If he thinks otherwise he is only fooling himself and invoking his own desires to ensnare him in sin, "and when it is fully grown bringing forth death" (James 1:15). I say, if a man chooses to do what his body desires, he will fall short of what "God has promise to the ones who love him", and he will perish (James 1:12).
12 Then he said to me, “Son of man, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the dark, each in his room of pictures? For they say, ‘The Lord does not see us, the Lord has forsaken the land.’ ” 13 He said also to me, “You will see still greater abominations that they commit.”
14 Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of the Lord, and behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. 15 Then he said to me, “Have you seen this, O son of man? You will see still greater abominations than these.”
Ezekiel was speaking about a hidden room where the elders had engraved creeping things and loathsome beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel. A hidden room of pictures is much the same as the internet and the filthy pictures you look at while no one is around. But God sees all things, nothing is hidden from the Lord.
my eyes cause me grief
at the fate of all the daughters of my city.
Such things are unpleasant to the Lord. Such things make mothers, wives, and daughters weep. Such abominations such as viewing pornography and masturbation can lead to greater sin. I am referring to fornication, homosexuality, rape, incest, orgies, and other sexually immoral acts.
15 Ah, you who hide deep from the Lord your counsel,
whose deeds are in the dark,
and who say, “Who sees us? Who knows us?”
16 You turn things upside down!
Shall the potter be regarded as the clay,
that the thing made should say of its maker,
“He did not make me”;
or the thing formed say of him who formed it,
“He has no understanding”?
You trick yourself into thinking that God does not see you. Do you think that The One who has made you does not understand your pain? The Lord who has intricately woven you in the womb.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
10 On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
God didn't make the Law so that we can't have fun. He made the Law to protect us 1 Timothy 1:10.
Warning Against the Adulteress
7 My son, keep my words
and treasure up my commandments with you;
2 keep my commandments and live;
keep my teaching as the apple of your eye;
3 bind them on your fingers;
write them on the tablet of your heart.
4 Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,”
and call insight your intimate friend,
5 to keep you from the forbidden woman,
from the adulteress with her smooth words.
6 For at the window of my house
I have looked out through my lattice,
7 and I have seen among the simple,
I have perceived among the youths,
a young man lacking sense,
8 passing along the street near her corner,
taking the road to her house
9 in the twilight, in the evening,
at the time of night and darkness.
10 And behold, the woman meets him,
dressed as a prostitute, wily of heart.
11 She is loud and wayward;
her feet do not stay at home;
12 now in the street, now in the market,
and at every corner she lies in wait.
13 She seizes him and kisses him,
and with bold face she says to him,
14 “I had to offer sacrifices,
and today I have paid my vows;
15 so now I have come out to meet you,
to seek you eagerly, and I have found you.
16 I have spread my couch with coverings,
coloured linens from Egyptian linen;
17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh,
aloes, and cinnamon.
18 Come, let us take our fill of love till morning;
let us delight ourselves with love.
19 For my husband is not at home;
he has gone on a long journey;
20 he took a bag of money with him;
at full moon he will come home.”
21 With much seductive speech she persuades him;
with her smooth talk she compels him.
22 All at once he follows her,
as an ox goes to the slaughter,
or as a stag is caught fast
23 till an arrow pierces its liver;
as ha bird rushes into a snare;
he does not know that it will cost him his life.
24 And now, O sons, listen to me,
and be attentive to the words of my mouth.
25 Let not your heart turn aside to her ways;
do not stray into her paths,
26 for many a victim has she laid low,
and all her slain are a mighty throng.
27 Her house is the way to Sheol,
going down to the chambers of death.
Here are the five S's to the walk to purity:
- Start walking with God
- Separation from triggers
- Someone to be accountable
- Stay sociable
1. First of all, are you saved? Do you know if you have been 'born-again'?
Here is a quick test to see if you're in the faith:
Luke 3:9 says, "Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Are you producing the good fruit? If you are truly born-again, you will bear good fruit.
Jesus says in Luke 6:43-45, "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."
Let's examine what the fruit of the spirit are in Galatians 5.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.If you have not hated your sins you are not saved. Look into the mirror of the ten commandments.
Please, take this short test as a self examination.
13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarrelling and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.
In the next verse it says "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ." You have to put on Jesus Christ like you would trust a parachute if you jumped out of an airplane. You not only have to believe in what He did on the cross, but you have to 'take up your cross' and follow him. You have to trust in him with your whole life. You have to let go of your own life, let go of your old self and put on Jesus Christ as your Saviour trusting that he is in control and delivering you from death and into everlasting life.
2. Second, once you are walking with God you are striving to know Him by reading His Word (the bible) daily.
3. Third, separate yourself from all forms of temptations - the t.v., internet, magazines, ads, etc..
4. Fourth, have someone who is mature in the faith to keep accountable to. Someone you can trust, preferably someone who has gone through this and has conquered it for 'x' number of years. Someone of the same sex would be most helpful. I have been told by many men that your spouse is probably not the best person to be held accountable to.
5. Last of all, get out of the house as much as possible. Keep yourself occupied with other believers and close friends. But don't do this as grace to yourself or just a task to do. If you truly love your Christian brothers and sisters you will want to be with them and not just as a task. If it is not possible that you have that many friends to keep in touch with, then create a new hobby or activity to keep yourself out off the computer or near the malls, wherever you are tempted. Keep busy and sociable!
Don't Waste Your Life! by John Piper
I have never regretted giving up my life for God. But I have countless days that I regret holding back from giving myself to Him.
I never regretted surrendering to His Lordship in obedience. But I have regretted many times of trying to be my own lord and not surrendering to Him.
Don't Waste Your Life!
Flee Sexual Immorality
1 Corinthians 6
12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Verse 18 says, Flee from sexual immorality! If the computer is the problem, get a filter, or just use the internet when people are around, keep the door open. Don't let any images into your mind. Take those thoughts captive! Verse 20 says you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. Do not pursue in fleshly desires and pleasuring your body by masturbation or feeding the brain with fantasies. Cut them off! Pluck them out of your mind! You have no authority to look at those images on the internet, or to fantasize about your girlfriend, or a friend's girlfriend. You do not own them. Leviticus 18:20 says, "you shall not lie sexually with your neighbour’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her." Even your fiancée doesn't belong to you yet until you have been married. Marriage is a covenant between your fiancée, God, and you. Hebrews 13:4 says, "Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." For married men, you don't even have the right to lust over your wife. You should love her the way Jesus loved the church. She is a daughter of God first and secondly your wife. She is a gem in God's eyes and should also be that precious to you. Love her as Jesus loved the church.
3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honour, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God
Take control of your body. Take those thoughts captive. You have to control yourself. It is His gift to us to have free will. We were created in His image and have the freedom to make our own decisions. So honour your body because it does not belong to you. Conduct your life to live in love and holiness so that you may display what Christ is like and bear as a good witness to others.
"Set soundly upon the mortifying of every lust. Pug none, sir, indulge none. But resolvedly set upon the ruin of every lust. Why? One leak in a ship will sink it. One stab strikes Goliad just as dead as twenty-three did Caesar. One Delila may do Samson as much mischief as all the Philistines. By eating one apple Adam lost paradise. One lick of honey endangered Johnathan's life. One Aiken was a trouble to all of Israel. One Jonah raises a storm too heavy for the whole ship. Just so, one unmortified lust will raise very strong storms and tempest in the soul. Therefore, as you would have a blessed calm and quietness in your own spirits on your sharpest trials, set thoroughly upon the work of mortification. Kill it, Christian! Do you not know what a world of mischief one unmortified lust may do? Therefore, let nothing satisfy you but the blood of all your lusts. Kill it and let your motivation not be that if you get busted that it could wreck your career, your reputation, your standing as an elder at your church, but because your God died for you. And when you commit that sin you are siding with His covenant—the enemy of our covenant partner. We do not want to sin because He has been so kind to us. Dwell on that, and then kill it... or He's gonna kill you!"
Punishments for Sexual Immorality
10 “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. 15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
17 “If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. 18 If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. 19 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for that is to make naked one’s relative; they shall bear their iniquity. 20 If a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. 21 If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is impurity. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.
Sexual immorality is taken very seriously to God. Before Christ came to abolish our sins, the old covenant said that 'he shall bear his iniquity' and 'shall surely be put to death.' This was a life and death situation. In Deuteronomy we can see that God took sexual sin very seriously. Rebellious people were taken outside the gates of the city and stoned to death. If you keep sinning in this area and don't fight it, you are of the devil and will surely die. Not only on earth but spiritually spending eternity without God. Imagine living without God's mercy in a place of fire and weeping and gnashing of teeth.
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 Paul clarifies that he was not just warning the people of Corinth to abstain from sexually immoral people outside the church, but also inside the church and to outcast them from infecting all of the members of the body. He says in verses 12 and 13, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.'" If you know someone in your congregation is living in this sin, come forward to them alone with love and talk about it. If they do not resist to fight their sin, bring another brother or sister and talk to them, then a third time if they still don't resist, cast them out. It is better to have lost one member of the body than to have the whole congregation suffer. If they are struggling with this fight to purity, encourage them and build them up with the Word and love.
One might ask, "How far can I go as a Christian?" The proper question to ask is, "How holy can I be?" This is how it is with sinful people. They are not interested in abiding by the law; they are interested in the loop-hole.
The purpose of marriage is determined by the purpose served. Why get married? The first thing that many would think of is to have sex. Marriage is the institution where you are in a position to raise children. The natural consequence of sex is to have children and the natural goal of sex is to have children. One reason you get married is to have children. Marriage creates the environment where children can mirror the same. Sex isn't there to have fun or have kids to have fun. It is not fun! You get married for richness and death. Sex does not make the marriage. It is the covenant that makes the marriage.
Many people forget what marriage is all about. You have the responsibility to take care of other people; your wife or husband, and children. And not just for a few years, but for the rest of your life. It's a selfless act to commit to a marriage; to be unselfish by raising and taking care of someone else. It's a long term responsibility and a public commitment. This is the point of getting married. You have the responsibility as a couple of raising the next generation for the community. It is a pledge and commitment for life that should not be broken. The Lord has affirmed marriage but hates divorce.
Words of Encouragement
No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you.
2 Timothy 2
21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonourable, he will be a vessel for honourable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.
22 So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.
1 Timothy 1
12 I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, 13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
1 Timothy 2:9, 1 Peter 3:3-5, 1 Corinthians 7:25-40
The Puritans on Sex
References: YoutTube, The Good Test, I'llBeHonest, The English Standard Version of the Holy Bible
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
by an unknown author from TruthorTradition.com
Homosexual, lesbian (gay) behavior (same sex relationships, marriage...) is sin, and is forbidden in the Bible. The graphic word arsenokoites (from arsen, “male,” and koite, bed) describes a man who “beds” another man. Although arsenokoites is sometimes used in a wide sense referring to all homosexuality, it also had a narrower sense, referring to the one who took the active or “male” role in the homosexual relation. The one who took the passive or “female” role was called the malachos. The word malachos literally means “soft” or “soft to the touch.” Although it had other uses such as “soft clothing,” it was the standard word in the Greek language for the “passive” one in the homosexual relation.
by Ken Ham
But some people think there must be different races of people because there appear to be major differences between various groups, such as skin color and eye shape.
The truth, though, is that these so-called “racial characteristics” are only minor variations among people groups. If one were to take any two people anywhere in the world, scientists have found that the basic genetic differences between these two people would typically be around 0.2 percent—even if they came from the same people group.19 But these so-called “racial” characteristics that people think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) “account for only 0.012 percent of human biological variation.”
Dr. Harold Page Freeman, chief executive, president, and director of surgery at North General Hospital in Manhattan, reiterates, “If you ask what percentage of your genes is reflected in your external appearance, the basis by which we talk about race, the answer seems to be in the range of 0.01 percent.”
In other words, the so-called “racial” differences are absolutely trivial— overall, there is more variation within any group than there is between one group and another. If a white person is looking for a tissue match for an organ transplant, for instance, the best match may come from a black person, and vice versa. ABC News claims, “What the facts show is that there are differences among us, but they stem from culture, not race.”
The only reason many people think these differences are major is because they’ve been brought up in a culture that has taught them to see the differences this way. Dr. Douglas C. Wallace, professor of molecular genetics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, stated, “The criteria that people use for race are based entirely on external features that we are programmed to recognize.”
If the Bible teaches and science confirms that all are of the same human race and all are related as descendants of Adam, then why are there such seemingly great differences between us (for example, in skin colour)? The answer, again, comes with a biblically informed understanding of science.
What Constitutes a “Race”?
In the 1800s, before Darwinian evolution was popularized, most people, when talking about “races,” would be referring to such groups as the “English race,” “Irish race,” and so on. However, this all changed in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Darwinian evolution was (and still is1) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their apelike ancestors than others. Leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould claimed, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”2
The Australian Aborigines, for instance, were considered the missing links between the apelike ancestor and the rest of mankind.3 This resulted in terrible prejudices and injustices towards the Australian Aborigines.4
At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes. Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live together in herds, like apes.6
Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely responsible for an African pygmy being displayed, along with an orangutan, in a cage in the Bronx zoo.7 Indeed, Congo pygmies were once thought to be “small apelike, elfish creatures” that “exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies.”8
As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in terms of the different people groups around the world representing different “races,” but within the context of evolutionary philosophy. This has resulted in many people today, consciously or unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices against certain other groups of people.9
However, all human beings in the world today are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. Scientists today admit that, biologically, there really is only one race of humans. For instance, a scientist at the Advancement of Science Convention in Atlanta stated, “Race is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological reality.” This person went on to say, “Curiously enough, the idea comes very close to being of American manufacture.”10
Reporting on research conducted on the concept of race, ABC News stated, “More and more scientists find that the differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial. Some even say that the word race should be abandoned because it’s meaningless.” The article went on to say that “we accept the idea of race because it’s a convenient way of putting people into broad categories, frequently to suppress them—the most hideous example was provided by Hitler’s Germany. And racial prejudice remains common throughout the world.”11
In an article in the Journal of Counseling and Development,12 researchers argued that the term “race” is basically so meaningless that it should be discarded.
More recently, those working on mapping the human genome announced “that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race—the human race.”13
Personally, because of the influences of Darwinian evolution and the resulting prejudices, I believe everyone (and especially Christians) should abandon the term “race(s).” We could refer instead to the different “people groups” around the world.
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the molecule of heredity that is passed from parents to child. In humans, the child inherits 23 chromosomes from each parent (the father donates 23 through his sperm, while the mother donates 23 through her egg). At the moment of conception, these chromosomes unite to form a unique combination of DNA and control much of what makes the child an individual. Each chromosome pair contains hundreds of genes, which regulate the physical development of the child. Note that no new genetic information is generated at conception, but a new combination of already-existing genetic information is formed.
To illustrate the basic genetic principles involved in determining skin shade, we’ll use a simplified explanation,26 with just two genes controlling the production of melanin. Let’s say that the A and B versions of the genes code for a lot of melanin, while the a and b versions code for a small amount of melanin.
If the father’s sperm carried the AB version and the mother’s ovum carried the AB, the child would be AABB, with a lot of melanin, and thus very dark skin. Should both parents carry the ab version, the child would be aabb, with very little melanin, and thus very light skin. If the father carries AB (very dark skin) and the mother carries ab (very light skin), the child will be AaBb, with a middle brown shade of skin. In fact, the majority of the world’s population has a middle brown skin shade.
A simple exercise with a Punnet Square shows that if each parent has a middle brown shade of skin (AaBb), the combinations that they could produce result in a wide variety of skin shades in just one generation. Based on the skin colors seen today, we can infer that Adam and Eve most likely would have had a middle brown skin color. Their children, and children’s children, could have ranged from very light to very dark.
No one really has red, or yellow, or black skin. We all have the same basic color, just different shades of it. We all share the same pigments—our bodies just have different combinations of them.27
Melanin also determines eye color. If the iris of the eye has a larger amount of melanin, it will be brown. If the iris has a little melanin, the eye will be blue. (The blue color in blue eyes results from the way light scatters off of the thin layer of brown-colored melanin.)
Hair color is also influenced by the production of melanin. Brown to black hair results from a greater production of melanin, while lighter hair results from less melanin. Those with red hair have a mutation in one gene that causes a greater proportion of the reddish form of melanin (pheomelanin) to be produced.28
DNA also controls the basic shape of our eyes. Individuals whose DNA codes for an extra layer of adipose tissue around the eyes have almond-shaped eyes (this is common among Asian people groups). All people groups have adipose tissue around the eyes, some simply have more or less.Reference: AnswersInGenesis.org
What about the similarities between monkey and human DNA?
by David A. Dewitt
For many years, evolutionary scientists—and science museums and zoos—have hailed the chimpanzee as “our closest living relative” and have pointed to the similarity in DNA sequences between the two as evidence. In most previous studies, they have announced 98-99% identical DNA.1 However, these were for gene coding regions (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly 3 billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, all of the previous work has been based on only a portion of the total DNA.
Last week, in a special issue of Nature devoted to chimpanzees, researchers report the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome.2 No doubt, this is a stunning achievement for science: deciphering the entire genetic make up of the chimpanzee in just a few years. Researchers called it “the most dramatic confirmation yet” of Darwin’s theory that man shared a common ancestor with the apes. One headline read: “Charles Darwin was right and chimp gene map proves it.”3
So what is this great and overwhelming “proof” of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers claim that there is little genetic difference between us (only 4%). This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percentage difference that has been claimed for years!4 The reality is, no matter what the percentage difference, whether 2%, 4%, or 10%, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right.
Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are ~40–45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence. (Substitutions and insertions are compared in Figure 1.) This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species.
To put this number into perspective, a typical page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such full pages of text to equal 40 million letters! So the differences between humans and chimpanzees include ~35 million DNA bases that are different, ~45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and ~45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human.
Creationists believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations—a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma.” This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. Instead, many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.
Some scientists are surprised at the anatomical, physical and behavioral differences between man and chimpanzee when they see so much apparent genetic similarity. With a philosophy that excludes a Creator God, they are forced to accept similarity as evidence of common ancestry. However, similarity can also be the result of a common Designer.
It is the differences that make the difference. The most important difference is that man is created in the image of God.Reference: AnswersInGenesis.org
Origin of People Groups
Those with darker skin tend to live in warmer climates, while those with lighter skin tend to live in colder climates. Why are certain characteristics more prominent in some areas of the world?
We know that Adam and Eve were the first two people. Their descendants filled the earth. However, the world’s population was reduced to eight during the Flood of Noah. From these eight individuals have come all the tribes and nations. It is likely that the skin shade of Noah and his family was middle brown. This would enable his sons and their wives to produce a variety of skin shades in just one generation. Because there was a common language and everybody lived in the same general vicinity, barriers that may have prevented their descendants from freely intermarrying weren’t as great as they are today. Thus, distinct differences in features and skin color in the population weren’t as prevalent as they are today.
In Genesis 11 we read of the rebellion at the Tower of Babel. God judged this rebellion by giving each family group a different language. This made it impossible for the groups to understand each other, and so they split apart, each extended family going its own way, and finding a different place to live. The result was that the people were scattered over the earth.29
Because of the new language and geographic barriers, the groups no longer freely mixed with other groups, and the result was a splitting of the gene pool. Different cultures formed, with certain features becoming predominant within each group. The characteristics of each became more and more prominent as new generations of children were born. If we were to travel back in time to Babel, and mix up the people into completely different family groups, then people groups with completely different characteristics might result. For instance, we might find a fair-skinned group with tight, curly dark hair that has blue, almond-shaped eyes. Or a group with very dark skin, blue eyes, and straight brown hair.30
Some of these (skin color, eye shape, and so on) became general characteristics of each particular people group through various selection pressures (environmental, sexual, etc.) and/or mutation.31 For example, because of the protective factor of melanin, those with darker skin would have been more likely to survive in areas where sunlight is more intense (warmer, tropical areas near the equator), as they are less likely to suffer from diseases such as skin cancer. Those with lighter skin lack the melanin needed to protect them from the harmful UV rays, and so may have been more likely to die before they were able to reproduce. UVA radiation also destroys the B vitamin folate, which is necessary for DNA synthesis in cell division. Low levels of folate in pregnant women can lead to defects in the developing baby. Again, because of this, lighter-skinned individuals may be selected against in areas of intense sunlight.
On the flip side, melanin works as a natural sunblock, limiting the sunlight’s ability to stimulate the liver to produce vitamin D, which helps the body absorb calcium and build strong bones. Since those with darker skin need more sunlight to produce vitamin D, they may not have been as able to survive as well in areas of less sunlight (northern, colder regions) as their lighter-skinned family members, who don’t need as much sunlight to produce adequate amounts of vitamin D. Those lacking vitamin D are more likely to develop diseases such as rickets (which is associated with a calcium deficiency), which can cause slowed growth and bone fractures. It is known that when those with darker skin lived in England during the Industrial Revolution, they were quick to develop rickets because of the general lack of sunlight.32
Of course, these are generalities. Exceptions occur, such as in the case of the darker-skinned Inuit tribes living in cold northern regions. However, their diet consists of fish, the oil of which is a ready source of vitamin D, which could account for their survival in this area.
Real science in the present fits with the biblical view that all people are rather closely related—there is only one race biologically. Therefore, to return to our original question, there is, in essence, no such thing as interracial marriage. So we are left with this—is there anything in the Bible that speaks clearly against men and women from different people groups marrying?
The Dispersion at Babel
Note that the context of Genesis 11 makes it clear that the reason for God’s scattering the people over the earth was that they had united in rebellion against Him. Some Christians point to this event in an attempt to provide a basis for their arguments against so-called interracial marriage. They believe that this passage implies that God is declaring that people from different people groups can’t marry so that the nations are kept apart. However, there is no such indication in this passage that what is called “interracial marriage” is condemned. Besides, there has been so much mixing of people groups over the years, that it would be impossible for every human being today to trace their lineage back to know for certain which group(s) they are descended from.
We need to understand that the sovereign creator God is in charge of the nations of this world. Paul makes this very clear in Acts 17:26. Some people erroneously claim this verse to mean that people from different nations shouldn’t marry. However, this passage has nothing to do with marriage. As John Gill makes clear in his classic commentary, the context is that God is in charge of all things—where, how, and for how long any person, tribe, or nation will live, prosper, and perish.33
In all of this, God is working to redeem for Himself a people who are one in Christ. The Bible makes clear in Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11, and Romans 10:12–13 that in regard to salvation, there is no distinction between male or female or Jew or Greek. In Christ, any separation between people is broken down. As Christians, we are one in Christ and thus have a common purpose—to live for Him who made us. This oneness in Christ is vitally important to understanding marriage.Reference: AnswersInGenesis.org
The geographical direction of different families in accordance with Genesis 10
by Cooper P. Abrams III
In the dispersion families were grouped together and for the most part migrated in one general direction. To illustrate, the following is a selected list of names from the genealogies of each of Noah's sons with the general geographical location associated with each, from the historical record.
The Descendants of Japheth: The Indo-European of western Asia and of Europe. (Gen. 10:2-4)
Gomer: Probably the Cimmerians which are mentioned by Homer as the people of the far north (Odys. xl. 14). They are believed to be identical with the Cimmerians of Roman times and the Cymry of Wales.12
Magog: Josephus and Greek writers generally relate them as the Scythians of Southern Europe. Also associated with the Tartars of Russia.13
Madai: Medes who lived in area of Caspian Sea.14
Javan: Comes from the term Ionian which means Greeks.
The Descendants of Ham: The Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites. Gen. 10:6-20.
Cush: Peoples of central and Southern Arabia.15 &nbshp; The Ethiopians are shown as being inhabitants of both sides of the Red Sea. Also, they had a skin of a different appearance. (Jer. 13:23) Pictures on monuments show that they were a mixed race, some Negro, some Semite and some Caucasian.16 This is a very important fact and will be referred to later.
Mizraim: Refers to areas of upper and lower Nile River of Egypt thus a reference to Egyptians.
Phut: Generally associated with the Egyptians and more specifically Libya.17
Canaan: The area settled by Canaan and his sons was west of the River Jordan. His first born
Sidon (Zidon) name stood for the whole Phoenician coast.18
The Descendants Shem: The peoples of the Middle East and Southern Asia. Gen. 10:21-32.
Eber: Abraham was the sixth generation of Eber who settled in Mesopotamia in the area of Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11).
Elam: Geographically the region beyond the Tigris River, east of Babylonia. The Elamites became a strong nation and were recognized as sovereign by the Babylonian states.19
Asshur: The Assyrians of the head waters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
Lud: The Lydians of Asia Minor.
Aram: Aramaeans of Syria and Mesopotamia.
From these observations it seems that Shem's progeny settled in the Middle East, Ham's people went south into Africa and Japheth's descendants migrated north into Western Asia and Europe.
It is important to recognize that from the Bible and from history, specific statements cannot be made that Shem fathered all Orientals, Ham all black people or Japheth all white people. Note that the Ethiopians are represented as being all three colors. This is a good example which shows that Ham produced peoples of varying colors. This point will become more evident when one sees the importance of genetics and how it works.
The Role of Genetics in Race
How genetics work.
At this point, three things should be evident. First, race is a term which attempts to define physical characteristics of peoples, and seeks to group them together.
Second, the physical characteristics appear to be closely associated with geographic locations. People who have the same combination of physical characteristics generally come from the same area on earth.
Third, as in the case of Ham being the progenitor of white, black and yellow peoples; the same physical characteristics can appear within any group of people.
The explanation of these seemly confusing conclusions is found in the study of genetics or the physical characteristic generator in man, the "gene."
Webster defines gene as:
In ‘genetics, any of the elements by which hereditary characters are transmitted and determined, regarded as a particular state of organization of the chromatin in the chromosome; factor: theoretically each mature reproductive cell carries a gene for every inheritable characteristic, and thus an individual resulting from the union of two such cells receives a set of genes from each of its parents.”
It can be seen from this definition that it is the gene which determines the physical characteristics of men. Each parent contributes his or her genes to their offspring and the child is a product of both.
The father of genetics, Gregor Mendel made this observation:
"A gene may be recessive and, in the presence of a dominant gene, it becomes latent, not causing the formation of its trait. In a later generation it may occur, not accompanied by its dominant partner and so produce its characteristic trait.” 20"
When the male sperm fertilizes the female egg, the genes of each are mixed. Some genes are dominant over other genes and these produce the physical characteristics of the offspring. An example would be a mother having brown eyes and a father with blue eyes. They could produce either brown-eyed or blue-eyed children. If the child produced would have brown eyes, it can be seen that the genes which produce brown eyes won out over the blue eye producing genes and are the dominant ones. The blue eye producing genes are called "latent" and although they did not produce blue eyes in this mating, they are present in the child, and they could reappear in later generations.
When we look around us today and see all of the different physical characteristics in people and relate this to Adam, who was the first man, we can see that in Adam the potential combination of genes was enormous. Francesco Ayala states that:
On the basis of only 6.7% heterososity the average human couple could have 10 children before they would have to have one child identical to another! That number is far greater than the number of atoms in the known universe!”21
Considering this fact, it is easier to understand how Adam produced all the different varieties we see in people today. Also very important is the evidence that after a number of generations, there appears to be strong evidence that certain genes become dominant and the variability of characteristics is limited.22 This does not mean that other genes are not present. However it does mean some genes, once they reach a point, become dominant and continue to be dominant in future generations. This only occurs with in breeding or selective breeding.
An example was my FDS (Field Dog Stud Book) registered Irish Setter "Bryan's Red Sun" (we just called him "Sam"). He was the product of selected breeding over many generations. As a dog breeder, one basic rule I quickly learned was that to produce an Irish Setter, I had to breed a male and female Irish Setter. This is where the term "pure breed" comes from. In other words, in Sam's historical blood line for several hundred years only dogs of the same family were bred together. No other breed of dog was allowed to "cross breed" into his blood line. The key to producing a particular breed is in isolation from other breeds. The genes which produced the red-colored hair and general physical appearance of the Irish Setter have become dominate by selective breeding, and consistently produce the same characteristics over and over again in every generation.
Through the example of Sam, we see that isolation of a group of dogs from other groups of dogs produces what could be called "race." Note, however, that even within the "race" or "breed" called Irish Setter there is still much potential for variation.
Isolation of peoples and genetics.
In this paper we have seen that the decedents of Noah's three sons were generally dispersed over all the earth. Also, the physical characteristics of any of his sons were not exclusive to his progeny. Each could and did produce different colored offspring.
The most important factor in reaching an explanation for the origin of race is the understanding that as the migration from the Middle East proceeded, contact with other groups became less frequent, and finally each group became isolated from all others, and the groups became smaller. Because of this isolation men and women married within their own group. Thus in breeding took place within an isolated group and between kin.
An example of how isolation caused particular characteristics in a group of people would be the American Indian. The American Indian originated from oriental peoples who came across the Bering Strait which connected eastern Asia and Alaska. As they migrated south and east, they became isolated from the peoples of Asia. American Indians are considered to be Mongoloid people, but differ from Asian Mongoloids of China and Japan. One must assume that genetics caused the American Indian to be somewhat different from other Mongoloids of Asia. By moving into North America they became isolated from other Asian peoples. Their group was at first small and they married among their kin from within his group. The dominant genes of the group surfaced within a few generations and began to produce the general characteristics which are common to the American Indian today.
Some groups moved further south into Mexico and South America, and they, too, became isolated. This isolation caused somewhat differing physical appearances in each group. Thor Heyerdahl, the anthropologist, studied the people of North America and the Pacific islands for years. He has shown that the Polynesian people came from North America and migrated (in boats) to the Pacific Islands. The isolation of these people produced the Polynesian peoples.
Without isolation it is unlikely that "race" would have ever occurred. It is a vital part of understanding how genetics caused the different physical characteristics of isolated groups of people which we call races.
As Noah's decedents migrated from the Middle East after the Towel of Babel, their numbers grew smaller as they extended further out. As the groups grew smaller, close kin inter-married and the certain genes within the gene pool became dominate, while others became latent. Within a few generations these genes produced the skin color, hair color and texture, bone structure and other physical characteristics that made each group distinctive within its isolated geographical area. Generally, the people of northern Europe were white. South Africans were black. People of the Middle East and the Far East were yellow.
This paper has tried to show that the findings of modern science in genetics have offered a reasonable and logical model, which when combined with Scripture, explains how the races came to be. I have deliberately ignored the evolutionary model of the origin of races in this paper, as my primary purpose was to present a biblical and scientific model. There is no empirical evidence for the hypothesis of evolution and it has never been shown that evolution happened in any degree. Evolution in all aspects, including theistic evolution, is contrary to the Word of God and true science. All of the empirical evidence supports the Creation Model. The lie of evolution has been the source of ethnic genocide since its inception. This false humanistic ideas has been at the heart of the decline in morals of the once great United States. At best, evolution's explanation for the origin of race is silly and a child's fairy tale.
The model or explanation or the origin of race as presented in this paper can afford the Christian with a basic understanding of how race came to be. It is easily understood when all the evidence is considered. Racial differences can never honestly be said to be the result of curses placed on people by God, or the nonsensical theories of evolution. Race occurred because of the work of the physical laws of human genetics that Almighty God instituted and race has no spiritual significance.
Reference: Cooper P. Abrams III at bible-truth.org