____________________________________________________
THE GOSPEL OBSERVER
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations...teaching
them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you
always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20).
____________________________________________________
August 13, 2000
____________________________________________________
The Basics of Human Life
by Jere E. Frost
THE TWO BASIC VIEWS of human life and rights are
(1) creation and (2) evolution.
Creationists hold that human beings are made in the
image of God (Genesis 1:26; Acts 17:28). As such, there are
moral absolutes, and there are rights issuing from those
absolutes that can be applied to all men.
Evolutionists hold that human beings are accidents of
nature. They come from the same once-lifeless mass as all
other animals. There accordingly are no moral absolutes.
There are no intrinsic rights.
Illustrated
The small fish has no moral right to safely swim by a
big fish. The big fish commits no moral outrage or injustice
when it chooses to take a bite out of the small fish, or to
eat it altogether. The wolf may have found the den first,
and even have raised a litter in it, but it has no moral
right of ownership, and a bear commits no moral outrage
when he dispossesses him.
A little fox that attacks a grizzly bear is not immoral.
It is a little dumb, but it is not immoral. The grizzly bear
that attacks a little fox is neither immoral nor dumb; it gets
a meal out of it. An animal does what it wants to do that it
can do. There is no morality about it. Animals simply do not
have ``moral law.''
Morality and Rights
When we talk about a thing being right or wrong, it
must issue from one of those two stems: (1) creation -- the
absolutes of God or (2) evolution -- the relative values of
men, whose values fluctuate and evolve, but that
consistently object to moral absolutes. I have personally
never been in a discussion with a relativist who did not
object to moral absolutes. There is, to them, no absolute
prohibition of anything -- period.
The standard reply to references that something is
immoral is, ``In whose eyes?'' ``By whose standard?'' as if a
moral approach is arbitrary, but an amoral approach is
reasoned.
But the relativists and amoral who want you to keep
religion and God at a distance recognize that it is indeed
necessary to have national laws. So what is the rationale for
the laws they favor? Of necessity, everything is evaluated
by their feelings, their judgments. Their aggregate feelings
and judgments are, by definition, political decisions. Thus
men who reject Scripture by saying, ``You cannot bind
morals,'' turn around and by a political process establish a
morality! Every law they enact is an imposition of their
morals.
Racial Differences
It may be observed that species differ as to their
size, intelligence and other characteristics. Evolutionists
claim that the bear tree and the ape tree branched off their
common trunk some time ago, and apparently the bear tree
and ape tree have branched out even further with different
levels of strength and intelligence in the different kinds of
bears and apes.
Bears are bears, but polar bears are much larger,
stronger, and more aggressive than their black bear cousins
in the Appalachians. They are not equal. It is no bias to say
this, or to note that gorillas are stronger than spider
monkeys. Chimpanzees are smarter than other apes, such as
gorillas, orangutans and various monkeys. There simply is
no moral issue involved when one says such.
Now if this is correct -- if evolution is the
explanation -- then it is likely and reasonable that some
branches of men have developed more than others just as
evolutionists argue has happened in apes. Say that out
loud, and see how fast you get into trouble!
But why would not some races of men be better
developed than others, given evolution's premises? If you
buy the theory, you buy the consequences.
And if we are all only evolved animals anyway, what
is the big deal in having an incorrect judgment on the
subject? It certainly shouldn't be a crime to think that
maybe they did.
But relativists want it both ways. They want it to be
against the law to racially discriminate! (I'm glad it is, but I
believe in creation. I therefore have good reason for that
conclusion. But evolutionists and relativists meet themselves
coming back in a gross inconsistency. Follow me.)
If they are right when they say (1) there are no
absolutes and (2) you cannot bind your morality on others,
then (3) how come they make an absolute law here and bind
it on the whole country?
Racism cannot possibly be wrong, and therefore
should not be deemed criminal, if there is no such thing as
immorality. If no one can bind his view on anyone else, no
one's views on race or discrimination should be bound on
others.
``No Respect of Persons''
God prohibits respect of persons (James 2:9). It is an
absolute principle. He has made of one blood all men who
dwell on the earth (Acts 17:26). He has one gospel that is
to be preached to every man (Mark 16:15-16). The man who
accepts and does righteousness is accepted regardless of
his racial descent or pedigree (Acts 11:35). He obliges us to
love one another, and to not practice respect of persons.
But God is rejected, and men who reject God cannot
see their fellow man as their equal and fellow traveler to
eternity. This failure to see the commonality of all men is
why there are so many ethnic wars around the world, and
why it is so pernicious for men to reject God. Put God in
the equation and the issue is over.
The believer does not play a game of judging who has
evolved the most; he knows we were all made in the image
of God and share a common root back to Adam through
Noah. There is no ``evolution'' -- it is an evil myth.
But godless men can hardly resist the temptation to
so evaluate races. Hitler is a good example of the natural
consequence of what behavior follows if men believe in
respect of persons or see some classes as sub-human or
inferior. On a political basis he decided Jews were bad for
the human species, and he went about eliminating them.
Given these premises, the absence of God and a void of
moral absolutes, his land's laws gave him legitimacy in
killing Jews. No man or group of men can object without
``binding their morality on others.''
Remember, morals cannot be involved because (1) we
are keeping religion and moral absolutes out of it, and (2)
whatever a government and most people decide legal is...is
legal!
You may disagree with Hitler, but the law of the land
was to kill Jews. And who could object without trying ``to
bind his morality on others?'' Oh, the seeds of confusion
evolution and moral relativism sow. Besides, in killing Jews,
he was only killing animals.
True Racial Equality
The idea that all men are ``created equal'' is based on
a belief in God. Created! That inheres the idea of a Creator.
All men are indeed equal before God as to their
rights. There is no racial advantage, such as Jew over
Gentile, Asian over European, or white over black. He has
made of one blood all nations of men who dwell on the earth
(Acts 17:26).
Abortion:
Human Life Is Politically Expendable
The same principles apply, on all counts, to the
unborn. Live human beings with all the organs of human life
either do or do not have a right to live. The issue will be
decided morally -- by absolutes -- or by feelings and whims
-- politically.
Little babies have no sacred, inherent or absolute
rights in the eyes of relativists. Politicians have the power
to decide whether they shall live or die.
In our culture the mother is given ``freedom of
choice,'' a benign slogan for a vile action. She is free to
murder her baby before it is delivered. If this is accepted,
kindly note that it does mean the baby itself has no rights
in and of itself.
I was musing on this point when I read of China's
forced abortions. The government permits a couple to have
only one child. If the mother conceives again, the
government's law and practice is that it will kill the baby. I
was appalled. This, I thought, will awaken some folks. I
passed it by some folks who say they are not ``for''
abortion but they do believe in freedom of choice and that
the mother should be able to kill the baby if she pleases.
They utterly surprised me. ``I'm not for government doing
that, but....,'' and they went on to say they thought the
government had the right just as the mother does.
They are consistent. The underlying rationale is that
it is not intrinsically wrong to kill an unborn baby. There
is, in this view, nothing special or sacred about human life.
The baby is not considered to have a right to life. It holds
that mothers have the right to kill it at will and government
has the right to kill it at will -- again, there is nothing
special or sacred about human life.
But if you hold that there are no moral absolutes
about life, and that human life is not sacred, the carnage
can be dismissed with a shrug. We are now thirty-eight
million (that's 38,000,000) shrugs into legal infanticide. I
acknowledge the consistency of the reasoning, but I
shudder at its gross and cruel immorality. It is a philosophy
that would have to say, as millions did in Hitler's Germany,
``I'm not for killing Jews, but....'' and then shrug, and
proceed to make the same argument for Hitler then that is
being made by and for China's governmental infanticide and
America's abortion at will now.
Conclusion:
They Have It Backwards
It is another one of those political decisions when it
is decreed that a segment of society -- Jews, Albanians,
Sudanese, unborn babies -- may be legally put to death.
But then that's what it always is when men decide that a
race or classification of human beings may be exterminated
at someone's whim and will.
The Moral Conundrum
``Keep religion out of it.'' They sure do that. They
decide it politically! God forbid. ``Professing themselves to
be wise, they become fools'' (Romans 1:21-22). Life is
cheapened. They should not be surprised by mayhem at
schools or other expressions of disdain and disrespect for
life when those in authority exhibit disdain and disrespect
life.
Instead of trying to keep God and moral absolutes out
of politics, the process needs to be reversed. Politics is no
basis, and government has no right, to ignore God and
moral absolutes. It has no right to try to silence religious
voices; the Constitution says nothing of keeping religions
silent. It says virtually the opposite, that ``Congress shall
make no law abridging the free exercise and expression of
religious views.''
--Via The Bulletin of the North Courtenay church of
Christ, August 1999
___________________________________________
NEWS & NOTES
We are always glad to have visitors come our way, and
last month was a good one for the many that we had--some who
had been here before, and others who were here for the first
time. All in all, we had 31 different guests for July! If
you were one of this number, please come again. Your very
presence is greatly appreciated!
Write today for a free Bible correspondence course!
________________________________________
Avondale
CHURCH OF CHRIST
P.O. Box 421
1606 Glen Willow Rd., Avondale, PA 19311
(610) 268-2088
Sunday: 10:00 A.M. Bible class
11:00 A.M. Worship
6:00 P.M. Worship
Wednesday: 7:00 P.M. Bible study
evangelist/editor: Tom Edwards (610) 925-3567
e-mail: tedwards@onemain.com
web site: http://www.mypage.onemain.com/tedwards/avondale
________________________________________