____________________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________