Just as Nietzsche had foretold, freethinkers who mock the very idea of a god as a dead thing, a sky fairy, an imaginary friend, still piously hold to taboos and morals that derive from Christianity. In 2002, in Amsterdam, the World Humanist Congress affirmed ‘the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others’. Yet this—despite humanists’ stated ambition to provide ‘an alternative to dogmatic religion’—was nothing if not itself a statement of belief.

Where do morals come from? Are they objective or subjective? Are their origins from God or are they somehow a result of evolution, a byproduct of Social Darwinism? Our answers to these questions largely determine how we live with and treat other humans and often even define which humans have human rights that should be protected.
About a decade ago, we watched an interesting series by the Dutch public broadcasting system, VPRO. The question of the origin of morality was put to Darwinian paleontologist, the late Steven Jay Gould, in part 6 of their 7-part series, “A Glorious Accident”:
Interviewer:  You said morality cannot be taught by nature – if you seek in nature for morality, or free will or rationality, you won’t find it.
Stephen Jay Gould: I said you won’t find morality which is a question of how we ought to behave… Moral questions are questions about oughts. Nature, as science understands it is a factual set of properties. There’s no way you can go from the facts of nature to the oughts of actions. They’re just different things.
Interviewer:  Nature is non-moral?
Stephen Jay Gould: Yes.
Interviewer:  Amoral?
Stephen Jay Gould: Non-moral. It’s just not, not a theme.1
When pressed as to why we should be “moral,” Gould could only appeal to pragmatism – we should be moral, so we won’t kill each other. But why not kill each other? Given the opportunity, those that are more able to survive will do so, and those less able will be eliminated and be less of a drain on natural resources. Recognizing these enormous global benefits, why not kill each other? Who is to say that would be wrong? Evolution is served very well by killing. Men in competition for mates and necessary goods would all try to kill their rivals, driven unconsciously by the all-important evolutionary drive to survive and reproduce. Since, in a Darwinian world, those are the only two important pursuits, how could that possibly be judged as wrong? And who has the right to place other people under such a burden? Killing others may not be right for you, but it may be completely right from another’s perspective. Evolutionarily speaking, it is just the way it is. Whoever survives will go on to reproduce, provided that some biological females also survive. And if the females should decide for whatever reason that they are not sexually attracted to the available males, evolution has already solved that dilemma by increasing the size and strength of the males while keeping the females smaller and weaker so that the survival of the species would not be hindered by something as silly as mere feelings and/or personal preferences. Evolution is inexorable and not hampered by niceties. The female would simply have no veto power in the matter. As we discover in the book A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion by evolutionists Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, rape is simply a part of the evolutionary process by which a less desirable male continues to propagate his gene pool. The authors helpfully point out that rape isn’t a question of morals:
The biologist George Williams, in his 1966 book Adaptation and Natural Selection, clarified what Darwin meant when he wrote of natural selection’s rejecting all that was “bad” and preserving all that was “good.” First, Williams noted, these words were not used in a moral sense; they referred only to the effects of traits on an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce. That is, “good” traits are those that promote an individual’s reproductive interests. We evolutionists use the term reproductive success to refer to these reproductive interests, by which we mean not the mere production of offspring but the production of offspring that survive to produce offspring (Palmer and Steadman 1997). A trait that increases this ability is “good” in terms of natural selection even though one might consider it undesirable in moral terms. There is no connection here between what is biological or naturally selected and what is morally right or wrong. To assume a connection is to commit what is called the naturalistic fallacy. In addition, Williams clarified that natural selection favors traits that are “good” in the sense of increasing an individual’s reproductive success, not necessarily traits that are “good” in the sense of increasing a group’s ability to survive.2
So, in a culture that has Christian morality woven into its fabric, rape may be viewed as “undesirable in moral terms,” but from a Darwinian perspective, it is not wrong – in fact, it is good. It is merely an essential tool of evolution. Perhaps women at least need to seriously consider the implications of evolutionary theory.
We are, as a culture, opposed to slavery, but is slavery intrinsically wrong? If morals are simply pragmatic social constructs, without reference to an all-powerful God, on what basis can anyone today claim that the former enslavement of Africans, for example, was immoral?  Why all the judgmentalism? After all, the scientific consensus of evolutionists at the time of the Civil War was that blacks were lesser evolved beings. The people just “followed the science,” and science said the evolutionary gap between blacks and whites was far greater than the evolutionary gap between blacks and apes.
Read More
Related Posts:

With more couples delaying marriage and children, it’s inevitable that children will come later, if they come at all. Of course, that’s the crux of the crisis facing the family. That’s why all this talk about over population is such utter nonsense. We’re not suffering from too many people. We’re suffering from too few.

Most families have running jokes, memories and moments talked about and discussed repeatedly across the years. They can bond us and help elicit happy recollections of days gone by.
My mother, whose been gone since 2012, loved to bring up something I said when I was just ten years old. She said it always tickled her. We were at church, milling about and talking with the pastor and some friends. The subject of age came up, and I apparently blurted out, “I never knew my mother when she was young!”
At the time, my mom was fifty, which is actually my age now. You can do the math. That means she had me when she was forty. Back in 1982, a half-century ago seemed ancient to me. It was the Great Depression – and nine years before the start of World War II. Thinking of my mother’s childhood and era, I may have even thought of those days in black-and-white. I wasn’t trying to be witty or sarcastic. It was just a matter of fact. From the lips of a child, so to speak.
I thought of that story this morning after seeing that just yesterday, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released its annual report concerning births in America for 2021. This particular edition, published under the banner of “National Vital Statistics Reports – Volume 72, Number 1,” paints the picture regarding not just the numbers of births, but also maternal demographic and health characteristics, medical and health care utilization, source of payment for the delivery, and even infant health characteristics.
The main headline was that there were 3,664,292 births in the United States, an increase of 1% between 2020 and 2021.
Read More
Related Posts:

Since we are saved by grace and not by our merit, God will no doubt forgive some of our theological shortcomings – places where our thinking does not currently align with Scripture.  But when a person denies certain core aspects of the Gospel, this indicates that he or she has not been granted saving faith in Christ.  The Bible itself teaches that certain core doctrines cannot be rejected by a saved person.  Let’s examine these.

What doctrines are absolutely essential to Christianity?  As the Word of God, all Scripture is equally and absolutely authoritative.  But not all Scripture is equally clear, nor equally central to salvation.  Christians disagree on certain nuanced details, yet are united by our common salvation by God’s grace through faith in Christ.  On the other hand, there are people who profess to be Christians, but who deny central, core doctrines of the faith.  Where is the line that divides genuine faith from a false faith?  At what point does theological error become heresy?
Heresy is defined as “adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma” or “an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards.”  The problem with using such definitions is that different churches themselves disagree on some issues of doctrine.  Even individuals within the same local church may disagree on what is “generally accepted.”  Perhaps the word ‘heresy’ ought to be reserved for the most serious of theological errors – those that deny an essential aspect of the Gospel.  Then we can define ‘heresy’ as a theological error so severe that it indicates that a professing Christian might not be truly saved.
Since we are saved by grace and not by our merit, God will no doubt forgive some of our theological shortcomings – places where our thinking does not currently align with Scripture.  But when a person denies certain core aspects of the Gospel, this indicates that he or she has not been granted saving faith in Christ.  The Bible itself teaches that certain core doctrines cannot be rejected by a saved person.  Let’s examine these.
1. The Deity of Jesus Christ
The Bible not only teaches that Jesus is God, but it also teaches that anyone who denies this core principle is not saved.  Professing that Jesus is Lord (Yahweh) is necessarily associated with salvation according to Romans 10:9-13.  Verse 9 gives two conditions that must accompany salvation; the first is that a person must confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord.  The author (Paul) then proceeds to prove that this is a necessary condition by quoting Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13, “For whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  Jesus is the Lord, and professing this with the mouth is thus necessary to demonstrate that a person’s faith in Him is genuine.
The critic may object, “But couldn’t this just mean that Jesus is a lord, not the Lord God?”  No.  Context shows that the word “Lord” is being used here to refer to Yahweh, the almighty God.  Paul cited Joel 2:32 in his proof that calling upon the name of the Lord is necessary for salvation.  And the word translated “Lord” in Joel 2:32 is Yahweh – the unique name of God.  Paul is therefore claiming that those who call upon Jesus as Yahweh will be saved.
Jesus Himself said as much in His earthly ministry.  In John 8:24, Jesus said, “for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”  Some English translations add the word “He” as in “I am He.”  But in fact, this word is absent in the original Greek text.  Jesus was actually saying that people would die in sin (unsaved) unless they believe that He is the “I am.”  The “I am” is one of the names of the Holy God, first used in Exodus 3:14, and then later in Isaiah [e.g. Isaiah 43:10, 25, 45:18, 46:4].  Jesus refers to Himself as the “I am” again in the same chapter: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am’” (John 8:58).  The strange grammatical construction shows that Jesus is indeed applying one of the names of Yahweh to Himself.  It would be blasphemy if Jesus were not in fact God.
God the Father refers to Jesus as “God” in Hebrews 1:8-12.  Hebrews 1:8 states, “But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.”  Here, the Lord quotes Old Testament passages describing Yahweh, and applies them specifically to Christ (compare Psalm 102:1,24-27).  The Lord God says in Isaiah 45:23 that “to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear.”  In Philippians 2:10-11, Paul explains that this was Jesus speaking: that to Jesus “every knee will bow” and “every tongue will confess.”  That’s because Jesus is the Lord God.
Yet, unsaved people cannot accept and embrace that Jesus is God.  A genuine saving faith that Jesus is the Lord is something only the Holy Spirit can give (1 Corinthians 12:3).  Thus, a rejection of the divine nature of Jesus Christ is an indication that a person is not (as yet) saved (John 10:25-30).
2. The Resurrection of Christ
The other criterion for salvation that Paul gives in Romans 10:9-10 is that a saved person must believe that God raised Christ from the dead.  The resurrection of Christ shows that He has authority over life and death (John 10:17-18).  It establishes that what He said about Himself is true.  According to the Apostle Paul, faith that Christ rose from the dead is what results in (imputed) righteousness (Romans 10:9-11).
Resurrection means being raised up from the dead – going from a state of death to a state of life.  But there is an important caveat to consider when discussing life, death, and resurrection.  The Bible speaks of two types of life, two types of death, and therefore two types of resurrection.  On the one hand, there is physical life, death, and resurrection.  And on the other hand, there is spiritual life, death, and resurrection.  Physical life, death, and resurrection all pertain to the physical functioning (or lack thereof) of physical bodies.  A person is physically alive when his heart is beating, blood is flowing, and so on.  When those functions cease, a person dies.  The Bible speaks of the physical resurrection of several individuals, such as Lazarus (John 11:14-45), and Jesus Himself (Matthew 28:6-7).
Spiritual life and death both pertain to the state of a person’s immaterial spirit.  God designed humans to love Him and obey His commandments.  This is the function of a living spirit.  When Adam sinned against God, his spirit “died” in the sense that it no longer sought to live for God, but for sin.  Adam’s descendants have inherited a dead spirit and do not seek after God (Ephesians 2:1).  However, God has mercy on some and resurrects their dead spirit, resulting in spiritual life (Ephesians 2:5-6).  All true believers have already experienced this spiritual resurrection.
Jesus spoke of the difference between these two resurrections in John 5:24-29.  He first addresses spiritual resurrection: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John 5:24).  This spiritual resurrection is applied to everyone who trusts in Christ for salvation, and only them.  Thus, the Lord says in John 5:25, “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”  Notice that Jesus indicates that this spiritual resurrection (1) applies only to some – “those who hear,” and (2) takes place both in the present and also in the future – “an hour is coming and now is.”
Then Jesus describes the physical resurrection of the dead in John 5:28-29 which states, “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.”  To clarify that He is speaking of the physically dead, He refers to them as those “who are in the tombs.”  Those would be physical bodies of course.
This physical resurrection differs from spiritual resurrection in two ways.  First, it applies to everyone who has ever died – “all who are in the tombs will hear His voice and will come forth.”  Second, it is entirely in the future: “an hour is coming” (but not “and now is”).  Thus, Jesus indicates that there will be a time in the future when everyone who has ever died will be resurrected.  Jesus said that this general resurrection will occur on the “last day” (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54).  This indicates that temporal history will end at some point, ushering in the eternal state.
So, which of these two resurrections did Christ experience?  Clearly, Jesus rose from the dead physically.  Unlike all other men, Jesus never experienced spiritual death because He never rebelled against God (Hebrews 4:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21).  Christ obeyed His heavenly father perfectly and never needed any sort of spiritual resurrection because He was never “dead in sins.”  Moreover, Jesus physically died by crucifixion (Mark 15:24; Luke 23:46), and was therefore physically raised on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:4; Acts 10:40).  He claimed that His physical body was proof of His bodily resurrection (Luke 24:39).
Therefore, it is a belief in the literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Christ that is necessary for salvation (Romans 10:9-10).  Those who believe that the resurrection of Christ is merely a spiritual resurrection, or otherwise non-literal, do not have salvation.  The physical resurrection of the dead is an essential part of the Gospel.  The Bible says, “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.  Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.  For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:13-17.  Hence, the resurrection of Christ is essential to the Gospel.  Anyone who rejects that Christ physically rose again does not have salvation.
3. The General Resurrection
The resurrection of Christ foreshadows the future resurrection of all the dead.  1 Corinthians 15:20 states, “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.”  In the Old Testament administration, the Israelites celebrated the Festival of First Fruits after Passover.  In this festival, they offered a sheaf of the first fruits of their first crop to the Lord (Leviticus 23:9-11).  This showed the gratitude of the people toward God who provides the harvest.  And it also shows their trust that God would also bring forth the rest of the harvest in time.   That is, if God was faithful to bring forth the first fruits, then He will be faithful to bring forth the rest of the harvest in season.
Read More
Related Posts: