Heavenly Origins of Marriage

A growing number of people are challenging the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion and that it is the state or the community that defines marriage. While it might appear so today in an increasingly secular society, the vast majority of ancient literature tells us otherwise!

A number of modern articles written about marriage agree that marriage is truly an ancient institution that pre-dates any recorded human history [2], yet these articles choose to ignore the original account of marriage particularly when it is recorded in religious based historical texts.

Dr. Ashley Montague (1959), a prominent anthropologist, wrote: “There are no societies in which marriage does not exist” [1]. If marriage developed in a random, haphazard, evolutionary fashion, one might expect that “marriage” would be found in some cultures but not in others. The evidence, however, simply does not support that view. The fact is… every written ancient marriage custom and ritual is based on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It is also evident that every ancient marriage custom and ritual invoked the blessings of a God, the heavens, deities or spirits. There is a general understanding in all cultures that marriage is somehow holy and/or spiritual and the joining of the man and woman must be blessed by heaven. This would seem to point to a common origin of marriage and its sacredness in the history of mankind.

The Christian and Jewish scriptures contains the earliest written account of the origin of marriage – that it was given to mankind by the Creator of the universe when He created the first man and woman. This account found in Genesis 2:18-22 (below) offers the best explanation for the sacredness and universality of marriage in all cultures and societies as it is at this precise point in time that the history of mankind converge.

Genesis 2:18-22 ¹⁸And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”… ²¹ And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. ²² Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

It should be noted that neither Christianity nor Judaism claim that marriage originated with them because neither religions or people existed at the time of its creation. However, it is only within these scriptures that the interaction of God with mankind (including marriage) is faithfully recorded.  And by default, the record of God’s interaction with his chosen people – the Hebrew/Jewish people and the Christian church.

Scripture also records the first corruption of marriage through a man named Lamech (a descendent of Cain) who takes on two wives (Genesis 4:19) and its subsequent erosion over time. By the time Abraham came into the biblical scene, everything that was good and holy in marriage had become vile and corrupted. Sex was no longer confined to the marriage bed of the husband and wife but had become a means of fulfilling all forms of sexual debauchery.

With the advent of Christianity through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christians in their desire to honour God in everything also sought to honour God in their marriages thereby restoring marriage to its original heavenly design in their communities. This design was restated clearly by Jesus in…

Matthew 19:4-6: “Haven’t you read . . . that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Jesus reaffirmed the reality of the original account of creation by God, our first parents and the sacredness of this institution found in Genesis 2:24: Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Together with the commandment “You shall not commit adultery,” God protects marriage and allows sexual intercourse only inside this marriage union (Eccles. 9:9) 

Unlike the pagan world at the time of the early church, Christians stood out in their purity and their commitment to one spouse. This practice made the Christian communities the laughing stock of the pagan world. But that all changed when the emperor of the then known civilised world converted to Christianity. 

China’s earliest dictionary – ‘Shuowen Jiezi’ (c. 58AD – 147AD) also have an account of the first marriage between the god Fuxi and goddess Nuwa (or Nugua). After creating the earth and all its creatures in seven days, they requested heaven to remove their deities in order that they might marry and establish the marriage institution on earth. While this account holds little relevance in western society, it nevertheless underscores the sacredness of this institution in the Chinese culture involving the deities and mankind at the beginning of creation. It also prescribes the marriage bond as a bond between a male and female.

The Islamic Quran which appeared in written form 1000 years after Christianity describes the creation of man and woman and their purpose of marriage – to multiply:

“And among His signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in peace and tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): Verily in that are signs for those who reflect” (Surah 30:21).

“O Humans revere your Guardian Lord, Who created you from a single person created of like nature its mate, and from this scattered (like seeds) countless men and women. Reverence Allah through Whom you claim your mutual rights” (Surah 4:1).

Although it does not directly state that the ‘mates’ refer to a man and a woman it is inferred and taught by tradition that the “mates” consist of a man and a woman by reference to Surah 4:1 that “mates” must consist of a male and female in order to produce offspring.

While I agree some of these stories have morphed into myths, I believe the biblical account to be the true account and the others are simply variations of the original. Hence the accounts of creation and the purpose of marriage are incredibly similar despite the fact that these different races of people are found at the opposite ends of the globe.

The refusal of same-sex proponents to even consider these texts in their crusade to re-engineer marriage and society is clear evidence of research bias. Their incessant claims that marriage does not have a religious basis is inherently false since its foundations is found, and can only be found in religious historical text.

Aldous Huxley (1894–1963), the famous atheist philosopher gave his reason for his anti-God / religion stance: “I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning … the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.” [3]

 

REFERENCES

1. Montague, Ashley S. (1959), The Cultured Man (New York: Permabooks), p.240.
2. Ghose, Tia (2013) History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts
3. Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270.

“Monogamish” the next-next-step after same-sex marriage?

The ink has barely dried on the legalisation of same sex marriage laws in certain western countries and the outspoken gay activist Dan Savage has already launched his idea of taking marriage to the next level of depravity.

In the New York Sunday Times, Savage prescribes ‘monogamish’ as being a better form of sexual arrangement in a marriage. He believes that straight married couples can learn from gays couples… instead of monogamy, he recommends “monogamish” where 2 persons are still required for a marriage BUT couples should be free to enjoy sex with other people outside the marriage – so long as long as both spouses agree to it. There shouldn’t be an expectation of exclusivity because it is unrealistic and inhuman to expect someone to be tied to one sexual partner from your wedding night on.

Now I’m sure it’s already happening in some straight marriages – it’s just human nature when boundaries and caution are all cast aside. The next step would be to remove the notion of ‘exclusivity’ from the definition of marriage relationship – that’s what he’s really advocating for. What a boon this will be for the polyarmorists who are already clammering for their rights to be able to marry multiple partners.

The issue of marriage will continue to be dragged down a sewer where stable families, healthy children and healthy nations are no longer the central issue but the rights and desires of individuals will over shadow everything that is good for families and society. 

It makes you wonder – why did they even want to redefine marriage when they really never intended to live up to its standards in the first place? Why drag down the standards of marriage to fit one’s level of depravity? We are seeing the tip of the iceberg and the true colors of those fighting for same-sex marriage. It will destroy the next generation as families are further torn apart when depravity is legalised as good.

I want my children to know that their parents love one another exclusively and will do everything to love, honour, care and protect one another – if necessary, to give up my own life to protect my wife and children…  just as Christ did for His church. It is for this reason that the fight for traditional marriage is worth fighting for.

 

Love is all that matters & Leviticus 18 – here we go again (Part 2)

Point 2: The books of the law were culturally based and would not necessarily apply to our culture today.

The idea that the books of the law were culturally based began back in the mid 70’s. This idea became entrenched with the creation of the NIV bible in 1976 when Dr. Marten Woudstra (who was later exposed as a closeted homosexual) headed the Old Testament translation committee on the NIV bible and Dr. Virginia Mollenkott – an advocate of LGBT, a lesbian and employed as a consultant to the project. Her writings have greatly influenced this idea. In the Episcopal magazine, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, “My homosexuality has always been a part of me…”. Also take a look at her official website n which she describes her journey as a lesbian and her re-interpretation of Scripture based on her personal experience and the “Law of love” which I dealt with in Part 1. Her re-interpretation of scripture have been snapped up with rave reviews by pro-LGBT writers who have spawned an avalanche of books re-hashing her views.

In the Old Testament. Leviticus 18 contains the clearest commandments from God regarding prohibited sexual relations. In a nutshell it boils down to these:

• No incestuous relationships (sex among relatives) and no removal of clothes belonging to relatives to satisfy a lust (a form of pronography) (v. 6-19)
• No adultery (v.20)
• No homo-sexual intercourse (v.22)
• No bestiality (v.23)

There does not appear to be any cultural context. It is a straight out prohibition. These particular set of laws apply not only to the Israelites but to ALL nations. This is clearly stated in verses 24-29 that the nations who were being punished by God, were being punished precisely because they had committed these very abominations. Israel was warned not to go down the same path because they would face the same fate.

Gay-gospel proponents argue that homosexual ‘acts’  relationships in that period were unlike the LGBT community of today. Here are the 2 reasons why they argue it cannot apply to our culture today:

1. According to Mollenkott (2012), the prohibition “stems partly from a small and embattled Israel’s need for population, whereas our situation today is quite different and we are vastly overpopulated”.

Really? Did she read verses 24-29?!? This is pure speculation! God was going to destroy entire cities and countries with vast populations because they had practiced these terrible things. These were not Israelites at all! Furthermore, when the Israelites left Egypt, scholars agree that they numbered between 3 – 4 million. Now – I would think that this sizable population would be capable of multiplying rapidly even if 90% of the population were heterosexual. The homosexual population would simply die off as they would be incapable of reproducing.

 If re-populating the nation was the context, why is adultery and incestuous sex prohibited? After all these proclivities are capable of producing offspring. There is a problem when only homo-sexual intercourse is singled out as a ‘bad’ interpretation for this reason.

2. “The biblical authors did not know the term homosexuality or that there was such a thing as a same-sex orientation; that was first recognized in the 1890’s. The biblical authors knew about certain same-sex abuses, but they did not have a clue about an authentic life-long orientation toward loving one’s own gender/sex” (Mollenkott 2012).

Of course this is another speculation and it’s based on a single event in Sodom where all the men in the city gathered around Lot’s house to ‘rape’ the 2 visitors at his house. So the reasoning goes thus… homosexual rape is bad BUT consentual loving homosexual intercourse is OK.

The context of this passage has no bearing on Sodom at all. It is also poor scholarship to suggest that the biblical authors had no term equivalent to homosexuality. Ummm why on earth would you need a term when you can spell it out literally as verse 22 has… “Men, you can’t have sex with a male as you do with a woman”.  Nevertheless, the apostle Paul uses the term ‘arsenokoitai‘ in the New Testament (1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10) that is the equivalent to the term ‘homosexuality’. It does not refer to rape as Mollenkott suggests. It does however refer to the naturally created order of things and the natural biological law – that sex is between a man and a woman whose bodies are complementary to other.

It is very poor form to attempt  to read INTO these scripture passages what they do not contain simply because it suits one’s theology.

Now before you get all hot and bothered about me singling out homosexuality as the most terrible sin, let me just say that Leviticus 18 deals with a whole bunch of OTHER SINS ALL OF WHICH ARE EQUALLY TERRIBLE. I am dealing with this topic due to my encounter with a gay who has brought up the issue. I have not yet encountered a bunch of adulterers trying to reinterpret the Bible to suit their lifestyle – when I do, I’ll evaluate their reasoning and critique on that too.

Love is all that matters – here we go again

I’ve just come from chatting with a very pleasant fellow who told me he was gay after I’d mentioned that I am a Christian. You guessed it… the inevitable discussion on biblical law came up and he raised 2 points:

1. That the Christian message and the law is all about love.
2. He stated the book of law was culturally based and therefore would not necessarily apply to a different culture and that the translation on sodomy and homosexuality by the Christian church was contextually wrong.

I’d like to deal with each point thoroughly…

Point 1: The Christian message is all about love  

By implication the homosexuals are really saying that if two homosexuals love each other than this so-called law of love permits them pursue the relationship and should be the basis for marriage. But does it really? This is an often misquoted verse and very clearly demonstrates the twisted understanding (or lack of it) of the passage which comes from Matthew 22: 37-40 when Jesus responds to a question on the law:

36 “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said unto him, “‘Thou shalt love (αγαπω) the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.’
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it: ‘Thou shalt love (αγαπω) thy neighbor as thyself.’
40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Not only is it often misquoted but quite often the gay-gospel proponents ignore 3 vital facts:

1. The meaning of love in this passage.

The Greek word used for love is αγαπω (pronounced a-ga-pow or a-ga-pe). It is a love which is holy and quite different to the idea of love that most people in the western world understand. It carries with it a love that is holy, righteous, benevolent and kind. It is devoid of any hint of lust or physical attraction. It is the same love that God has towards us. It does not refer to the type of love between lovers

2. The Object of this love is to WHOM?

Whilst it it easy to quote that the law is about love, the primary object of this love is toward God and toward all people (even our enemies). Again it is not about the love between lovers nor should it be used as a guide to redefine marriage. According to John 14:15, 21, love toward God is demonstrated through obedience to his commandments.

3. How does the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments?

The law refers to the first 5 books of the Old Testament and the prophets refer to the remaining prophetic books in the Old Testament. The basis of the moral law is distilled in the Ten Commandments. It reflects the holiness of God and it has a three-fold purpose

• it serves to show us how sinful we really are
• it serves to guide us in righteousness
• it shows us the hideousness and terrible consequence of sin – that there is punishment for sin and this punishment is extremely harsh.

This raises an interesting question… does love ignore judgment and punishment? According to the law it does not.
What was the function of the prophets? Quite simply to be God’s spokesperson and to preach to Israel and the surrounding nations – often with warnings of punishment if they did not obey God!

Yet we are told that the law and the message of the prophets are based on God’s love! This kind of love is not mocked. It requires God’s people to reflect God’s holiness.

To sum it up, this love is all about loving God and walking in obedience to Him and loving all man because they are made in God’s image. This love is righteous, holy and kind but this love hates sin! In no way does this kind of love give licence to the redefinition of marriage nor does it condone homosexual intercourse  as the lgbt propaganda machine might have us believe.

Point 2: That the law is culturally based and does not necessarily apply to different cultures

 

Heaven and Hell

From an atheist (Bertrand Russell, 1927)

“There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell” and “I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture”.

From a Christian theologian (Clark Pinnock)

“How can one imagine for a moment that the God who gave His Son to die for sinners because of His great love for them would install a torture chamber somewhere in the new creation in order to subject those who reject Him to everlasting pain?”

These are the 2 common views espoused by atheists and liberal Christians respectively.

To find a ‘concept’ not to one’s liking and dismissing it simply for that reason, does not prove that it isn’t true. It’s almost like saying that “Well, I don’t like the idea of prisons, because I don’t think a judge could be that mean to send someone to prison for the rest of their lives, so I’m just going to believe that prisons simply don’t exist! ” For the atheist, this rests on one single preconceived bias – the believe that there is no such thing as “God” or “gods”. If one accepts this position from the outset, then the only logical conclusion must be that neither heaven nor hell exists. After all, the person positing the idea of heaven and hell (i.e. God) supposedly does not exist.

The challenges (or problem) I find with this position are:

1. Does one wait till death to find out the truth? Will it be too late then?
2. Are there sufficient evidences and testimonies that heaven and hell is real? If so, how trustworthy are these testimonies?
3. Can I rely on the ‘all-knowing’ knowledge of the atheist who has limited knowledge in virtually every area of life and the universe and who has lived a mere short lifespan to be the expert on the subject of anything beyond death and the grave?  How trustworthy are their knowledge and moral character?
4. Can I rely on the claims of the liberal Christian theologians

Waiting till death to find out – is that too late?

Hmmm… oh wait…. umm…. Yes?!?

To my mind this has to be the dumbest proposition ever!  Yet it amazes me that so many are quite prepared to live out their lives on this decision. If there are sufficient evidences and information available, why would I not research it and get to the truth of the matter?

 

Can I rely on the assurances of the atheists?

There have been some great atheist thinkers and philosophers

The majority of the young atheists out there have posts and blogs that spend a great deal of time belittling others who believe in God, heaven, and hell. They seem to come up with clever little cliches, cartoons and slogans that are catchy but in truth lack any real in-depth knowledge and understanding.

One trait stands out – there is no compassion or love or respect that are reflected in their debates and rantings. Most live out their lives in anyway they desire believing ultimately that they are accountable to no one – unless of course they are checked a particular set of laws prevailing in that country at that time.

They are redefining good and evil. Things that were previously considered morally wrong and evil is now good and acceptable. Then they force the whole of society to accept their version of good. They have become little gods pushing out their brand of morality and punishing and debasing anyone who disagrees with them – the very thing they are accusing religions of doing.

There is a lot of ranting and raving  and ridiculing on a subject that they really know nothing about. Yep – that’s the honest truth. They are neither masters on the subject of life and death. They didn’t have a choice of being born into this world and they certainly won’t be able to prevent their eventual death. Both events are totally out of their control. But they tell us that they know for sure there is absolute nothingness and no consciousness after death. Really? Self-proclaimed masters on this subject too huh?

Yet none have actually died and return to life to tell us what’s on the other side of death. And those who have died and have returned to life to tell of their experience have been belittled and ridiculed. Being neither masters of life nor death I can safely conclude that their opinions and theories are just that – they cannot substantiate their claims and no assurances can be gained by believing their claims. It will require more faith to believe in their opinions and ravings then it will to believe in the ‘religious’ people who have compassion and truly care about where I end up.

The biggest problem with the atheists’ stance is that they reject any possibility of a divine creator and by default, any evidences that point to a creator is also rejected. This pre-conceived bias prevents any objective investigation.

Can I rely on the claims of the liberal Christian theologians?

In the last few decades, we have seen a number of orthodox Christian doctrines being challenged by liberal theology – the subject of ‘hell’ being one of them. I find it funny that no one really wants to change anything about heaven because it sounds too good. A bit too one sided if you ask me.

The issue of God’s love is also tied directly to this subject. Again the ‘justice’ of God is challenged – they argue that God never punishes but the love of God is never changed but is expanded to eclipse everything else. Again – terribly one sided.

So these liberal theologians provide a single interpretation for what hell means – ‘separation from God’ (just one of the many descriptions of hell while leaving out all the other descriptions) and total nothingness (this is an add -on by the way)… you just go to this nothingness, no consciousness. Hmm – sounds like the atheist version of death actually.

Here are some problems and conclusions with this crazy theology:

1. If God never punishes anyone (i.e. hell), why would he have bothered to send his son Jesus to be a propitiation for man’s sin in the first place?
2. Hmm – what would he need to save man from? The comeback line that these liberal Christians use is ‘separation from God of course’! Well read on…
3. If I really don’t care about God, and I have never loved God, and I don’t believe in the Bible – why would I want to spend eternity with him? Wouldn’t that simply be torture??!! The total nothingness and no consciousness sounds like bliss to me!
4. So people like Jack the Ripper who murdered countless women, Stalin who butchered 15 million of his own people in Russia, Hitler who butchered 6 million Jews and countless lives in the battlefield are relaxing? The same for murderers? No justice?
5. So if there is really no accountability or justice, if I can get away with living any way I like, live for my own glory and power, butcher a few people along the way, what’s wrong with that? I’d be doing some of these people a bit of good by sending them off to nothingness and bliss, and if God’ is their thing, they would be with God.

This love-love-love, one-sided theology sounds nice BUT it now brings into question the need for this whole salvation thing by God, his sense of justice, his very character, wisdom and trustworthiness. In fact it would be sheer lunacy to even bother with the Gospel of Jesus Christ if this theology were true!

 

Are there sufficient evidences and testimonies that heaven and hell is real?

Now if I were an atheist and I’d like to find out if there are any atheists who have actually died returned to life – so I can get their account of what they saw on the other side of death. I’m not interested in those who have a religious belief about any God or heaven and hell because I’m thinking that they might be putting on a bit of show (i.e. faking it).

Not interested in those who ‘claim’ they can experience the same thing with certain kind of drugs – sorry – you have not died yet. You ain’t the real thing.

Not interested in  testimonies that tell you that a bunch of  priest chants and lead you into a trance where you get to see the after-life and your dead ancestors welcoming you – sorry – you have not died yet. You ain’t the real thing

I’m interested in the testimonies of those who have flat-lined or died for 15 minutes or more (even up to several days) to return to life and to tell the tale and how closely their accounts resemble a particular religion. Then I might be tempted to examine that religion’s claims. And there have been many such cases. These (ex) atheists have taken great pains to  record their testimonies and distribute them freely and some have now found their way into YouTube.

Yet it’s amazing that there are fellow atheists who end up ranting and raving and belittling their fellow atheists for having converted after returning from death to life. This is clear proof that many atheists are not interested in the truth when the truth does not agree with their belief system and preconceived bias. It is clear that it is not a question of  logic or evidences but an issue of the will. In which case, all evidences and arguments are useless against a darken heart and mind.

Reminds me of the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) – that such people will not believe even if the dead should return to warn then.

The greatest tragedy is that because these closed minded people have convinced themselves there is no God and have closed their ears against all testimonies, all the messages and the messengers of God are scoffed at. When finally God came down himself as a man to give this warning, they crucified him.

Here’s a testimony from an atheist who died and returned to life. There’s lots more on YouTube if one cares to search for it.

Remarkably, the majority of these atheists become Christians! Why not become a buddhist, or a muslim, or a hindhu?

If there was a Creator /God and there is sufficient evidence that he exists, and the fact that he has given all of humanity all the necessary information to make the right choice. God then can hardly be blamed for each individual who chooses to reject his free gift of salvation and his hand of friendship.

Can we rely on the Bible to explain this truth? How reliable and trustworthy are those who contributed to it? Are they men of honour? How do their writings correlate with the testimonies of those who have returned?

Ravi Zacharias relates this humorous account of the closed mindedness of such people who refuse to believe despite all the evidences. He tells of a man who one day, comes home from work and tells his wife that he believes he is dead. So the wife takes him to see a string of doctors who try and convince him that he is in fact alive. But all this was to no avail. So finally after some careful planning , the wife organises for a panel of medical experts to prove to him that he is alive. And they showed him slides of medical research and pictures which boiled down to this … Only living creatures bleed. So after some time, the man says to the panel of experts, “alright – I’ll grant you the fact that only living creatues bleed”. At which time, one of the medical doctors promptly pulls out a pin and pricks the man on his finger and blood started flowing out. “Great Scott!” exclaimed the man, “dead people do bleed after all!”.

Descriptions of other marriage models in the Bible is not a prescription from God

Anywhere in the Bible that God and Jesus speaks about marriage – it has always been to reaffirm the marriage of one man and one woman to the exclusion of anyone else.

The Bible does show how marriage deteriorates over time – only 4 generations after Adam, beginning with Lamech (Gen 4:19) who is the first person who takes on 2 wives and then a worsening state of people over time which we read of throughout the Bible. Abraham had one wife and a concubine, Jacob had 2 wives and several concubines, King David had multiple wives, King Solomon had multiple wives.

The 10 commandments given to Moses by God has one commandment that deals with marriage quite comprehensively…
Thou shalt not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14) – in other words, YOUR MARRIAGE IS SACRED! No sexual relations outside your marriage.

Well, men being men who are lusting after other women got together a bunch of ‘academics’ who worked out how they could get around this law on a technicality (Hmmm – beginning to sound familiar?). After all God didn’t actually say that multiple marriages were wrong did he? Therefore if one married again, sexual relations within theses multiple marriages must be construed to be legal.

We subsequently read that Moses had to draft a whole set of laws in regard to sexual relations, marriage and divorce to deal with the headache it was causing society (viz. Book of Deuteronomy). And if one were to read the laws in relation to marriage, it always refers to a relationship between a man and a woman.

But let’s not confuse description with prescription! Just because the Bible describes the deterioration of marriage and the corruption of the original divine model and the bad behaviour of its people, does not mean that is is prescribed by God and the Bible. Jesus in fact reaffirmed the original model of marriage (Matthew 19:4-6)… and that is a marriage between a husband and a wife (not multiple husbands or wives).

Jesus goes on to say that if a man or woman marries a second time (even after a legal divorce has taken place), he or she remains is in a state of adultery (Matthew 19:8).

Getting a bunch of ‘academics’ with PhD’s to deceive the gullible public about what the bible teaches and to cast doubt over those who are honest and truthful in study of the Bible is an old, old tactic. After all, how many people have actually studied the Bible to know the truth? Nothing much has changed in over 6,000 years. This form of attack has intensified over the last decade – particularly from pro gay newspapers and publications like the “Huffington Post” in it’s editorial below. It’s ‘sensational’ news that people love to read and it sells!  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/biblical-marriage-iowa-scholars-op-ed_n_3397304.html

I understand that the 3 academics wrote this as an article for a magazine and was not a proper research paper that was subject to any peer review but then again, this same topic has been rehashed and republicised many times over that it has already been repudiated comprehensively by other scholars.

Greens are bankrupt in values and policies

THE GREENS

When I ponder on the policies and bills that have been pushed by the Greens in the past decade, I cannot find anything of note that improves the lives of Australians or the economy. All I find is a radical agenda to re-engineer society by shoving their idea of morality onto society. But more disturbingly, I find their agendas contradictory to human decency and to the speeches they spout. For example, they:

• Hate innocent children and support their murder through abortion (up till birth – same as the communist countries) but continually proclaim their love for boat people.

• Hate any religion that has a Creator who defines morality but love any religion that allows them to define their own morality AND to impose it on everyone else.

• Hate the mining and manufaturing industies but love to impose taxes on them as a source of revenue. Has anyone ever checked their homes that are filled with modern gadgets and cars that are a direct result of the mining industry? Surely purists should remain faithful to their ideology.

• Hate the idea of a god given institution of marriage but insist that society should accep their idea of marriage – namely, same-sex marriage

• Hate Israel and their right to defend themselves but support the Palestinian movement and the Islamic nations that vow to remove Israel from the face of the earth (some of us refer to them as terrorists??).

Marriage globally and historically linked to religion and spirituality

So in a response to my blog, a blogger from the USA suggested that “marriage” is a constitutional issue – not a religious issue.

In light of this I would have to question how were marriages defined prior to the introduction of the US constitution or in the case of Australia, the Marriage Act of 1961. In the absence of any law, how did nations, kingdoms, states and tribes and individuals define and solemnize marriages.

Overlooking the fact that marriage can be monogamous as well as polygamous, one common factor shared globally across nations, societies, tribes and tongues since the dawn of time, and before the passing of any legislation, is the fact that marriage is between man and woman.

Much has been written about the purpose of marriages in history – e.g. to secure ties between nations, trade, etc. But for the everyday person who did not have these grandiose ideas and opportunities, it was simply a special event to perpetuate the family line and to ensure that any property within the family was secure for the future generations of the family. In wealthier families it usually fell upon the husband to protect and to provide for his wife (or wives) and the children they had. In poorer families both husband and wife worked together to protect and provide for their children. This is still true throughout many civilisations today.

The introduction of the marriage act simply reaffirmed the natural laws of marriage, ensured the protection of the parties entering into the marriage, and ensured the uniformity of marriage laws across the country. It was never the intention of the law makers to redefine a natural law.

Further more, the vast majority of wedding ceremonies across all cultures and nations were conducted against a religious backdrop – whether the religion is monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic, ancestral. This has not change in several thousands years and continues to be perpetuated today in the vast majority of nations and cultures. For those who have never taken a trip abroad – DO IT and you will find that this is true! To argue that this is not a religious affair is a deliberate lie and reflects the arrogance and deceitful motives of those pushing the same-sex agenda who will twist the law to suit their purposes.It is also based on very narrow view of a minority who are intent on destroying the marriage institution itself. It is ultimately aimed at desacrelising and lowering the value of marriage.

And to prove this point of maliciousness, in the UK, a homosexual couple successfully sued a church who refused to conduct a same-sex wedding ceremony. Talk about bigotry! For a group of people who continually raise the separation of state and religion argument. For God’s sake – get a civil wedding if they want freedom from the so-called perceived shackles of religion which they have been so ardently promoting instead of being the malicious bigots and hypocrites which they try and make out Christians to be.

Marriage – the original model

Genesis 1 – 2 paints a picture of what the world was like and what should have been had not sin and corruption taken a hold of it… a brand new world, where man and woman was blessed, the earth itself was blessed, food was abundant, there was freedom of fellowship and intimacy with God. There was no pain, no sickness, no depression, no death – everything was good!

In this book of beginnings, not only was man and woman created, but we see the first marriage ceremony given by God in a pure and uncorrupted world and before corruption in the hearts of man perverted the beauty and sanctity of marriage within a short span of time.

We take up the creation account from Genesis 2:18…

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”… 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

1. The woman was created so that she would be ‘just right’ for the man
2. The life partner or marriage partner for man is a woman.
3. God gives the woman to the man – a tradition which is re-enacted in many modern western weddings where the father of the bride hands over the care and protection of his precious daughter to the man she is about to marry.

And then this is expressly stated in immediately after…

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

This is the clearest statement from God on the proper foundation for marriage and sexual intimacy where:

• There must be a leaving and a cleaving. The man must leave his family (as must the wife) to start a new family of their own.
• A right marriage is that between a man and a woman
• Sexual union is only right within the bounds of marriage.

This is how God intended marriage to be before sin and corruption started corrupting this institution. It not open to reinterpretation yet it would seem there are those who will try.

In the New Testament, Jesus, when asked about divorce, simply re-affirmed the original divine plan and model for marriage (cf. Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-8) and added to it by saying that such a union should not be broken by others.

Matthew 19:4-6
4 He (Jesus) answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Some argue that all that matters is love. Yes – marriage is also about love but not to the exclusion of the conditions outlined by God in both the old and new testaments.

Homosexual marriage debate – my “right” or what is “right”?

The current debate surrounding the redefinition of Marriage will continue so long as militant homosexuals continue to shout down and denigrate all reasonable voices that dare to take a stand for the original design or template.

Sadly the voices that the media is focused on is NOT on what is “right”, nor what is “right” for a family, nor what is “right” for society. The focus is on personal “rights” and their willingness to trample and destroy anything or anyone that might stand in the way – whether it be sacred or not. Quite naturally as more and more people move away from the sacred or the holy, the idea that there is a God-given design or model is ridiculed, trampled on and thrown in the rubbish heap of ‘out-moded traditions and laws’. So much so, we constantly hear the term ‘separation of state and religion’ without any clear understanding for the basis of our morals and values.

Food for thought… why is it that every culture, tribe, race, country and throughout history  (till very recently) recognise marriage as that between man and woman, male and female, whether or not they subscribe to the mono-theistic religions that the west are so familiar with?

I believe it is because this original design has been passed down from the very beginning and that in each person is the genuine knowledge that marriage is truly between a man and a woman in spite of the fight to change its meaning to validate one’s sexual deviation.

What did Jesus say about homosexuality??

One of the many topics raised in this debate is “If homosexuality is wrong, why didn’t Jesus talk about it or condemn it?

Just because it is not mentioned in the New Testament that Jesus spoke about a certain issue, does not mean that he approved of it or sanctioned it. After all, there is no record of Jesus speaking specifically about pornography, beastiality or paedophilia! Would that mean that he approved of them?

Jesus did however state the following about sex and marriage:

Matthew 19:4-6…

4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (also cf. Mark 10:6-8)

In fact Jesus re-affirmed the 2 conditions for sexual union (as stated in the Old Testament):

1. It must be in the context of marriage
2. it must be between a man and a woman

Sexual intercourse is only right between a man and a woman and it is only right in the context of marriage. Without the conditions being met, every other sexual proclivity is a perversion of God’s original design.

Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”

So we’re back to the uncaused, first cause – something kickstarted the universe because it has a beginning.

To quote the New Scientist, “YOU could call them the worst birthday presents ever. At the meeting of minds convened last week to honour Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday- loftily titled “State of the Universe” – two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.” (Grossman, L, 2012, New Scientist, Issue 2487, 11 January 2012)

Thanks for this WIntery Knight!

WINTERY KNIGHT

I’m hearing from atheists that the universe did not begin to exist, so I thought I’d explain why physicists can’t avoid a creation event – or rather, I’d let famous cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin do it.

From Uncommon Descent.

Excerpt:

Did the cosmos have a beginning? The Big Bang theory seems to suggest it did, but in recent decades, cosmologists have concocted elaborate theories – for example, an eternally inflating universe or a cyclic universe – which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos. Now it appears that the universe really had a beginning after all, even if it wasn’t necessarily the Big Bang.

At a meeting of scientists – titled “State of the Universe” – convened last week at Cambridge University to honor Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston presented evidence that the universe is not eternal after all…

View original post 844 more words

Large-scale UK study confirms the importance of fathers to children

Great article

WINTERY KNIGHT

Dina sent me this article from the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

A father’s love is as important to a child’s emotional development as a mother’s, a large-scale study has confirmed.

Examining the cases of more than 10,000 sons and daughters revealed how a cold or distant father can damage a child’s life, sometimes for decades to come.

The review of 36 studies from around the world concluded that his love is at least as important to youngsters as that of their mothers.

Researcher Professor Ronald Rohner said that fatherly love is key to  development and hopes his findings will motivate more men to become involved in caring for their offspring.

‘In the US, Great Britain and Europe, we have assumed for the past 300 years that all children need for normal healthy development is a loving relationship with their mother,’ he said.

‘And that dads are there as support…

View original post 524 more words

Burying the truth – the true motive of atheism

Just watched the debate between Professsor John Lennox (Christian) and Professor Peter Atkin (atheist) on this link… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx0CXmagQu0

Some general impressions and remarks on the issue of design from this dialogue:

Peter Atkins (atheist) states it is NOT design – just apparent design or the illusion of design! Molecules somehow by accident stumbling over each other and connecting together in a way through natural selection that provides the illusion of design. Oh dear! Poor man! Looks like it’s designed, functions like it’s designed BUT it’s not designed!! Hahaha! imagine that… non animate matter can somehow stumble across each other and create a design!

Oh wait – He neatly avoids the word ‘design’ as to how his book came into being. He states in the discussion that he used amino acids, proteins and chemical reactions to create it. But that’s not designe either! Wow! This man is brilliant! Get all the chemicals found in the brain and human body, dump it in a bowl, stir it, and I can guarantee you that all these chemicals and molecules are not going to somehow connect together to produce a book let alone create the DNA of a human being even if you wait a million years. Scientifically, these molecules should automatically combine to create a self-replicating organism since they are what is found in the human body.

I’m just wondering whether his use of amino acids and chemical reactions just happened by accident or did he purposefully set his mind to think about it thus causing the neccesary chemical reaction that brought about the book. Isn’t that what happens anyway when someone sets out to design something?

Using words to side-step the concept of design and to redefine the meaning of design doesn’t change the fact that design has happened. It’s all fluff and words to bury truth – contrary to his assertion that he is interested in truth.This is so self evident at 1:05:21 when the dialogue goes like this:

Peter (atheist): But if in the end we come to the conclusion that an external intelligence must have done it, then we will have to accept that.

John (theist): Would you be prepared to accept that?

Peter (atheist): No! Because I’m going to ummm…

John: But you just said you had to!

Peter (atheist): But yeah I’m going to <mumble>

John: So your atheism doesn’t depend on your science then.

Despite where the science and the data might lead, he will reject it if the data leads to an intelligence (a.k.a God). So much for seeking truth. It is not an issue of the truth but an issue of the will.

All that’s needed for marriage is love! Didn’t Jesus say “love one another as I have loved you”?

It is true that the Christian message of hope is about love. It is the only religion which commands us to love our enemies. In fact Jesus also states that all the law and the prophets of the old testament can be encapsulated in 2 basic commands…

1. Love God
2. Love others (… and your enemies) Matthew 22:34-37

Here is the thing if I am to love you like God loves you, God is talking about a very different kind of love that is often misquoted via this Bible verse. He is talking about a love that is full of grace, faithful, forgiving and sacrificial. This love recognises the value in the other person because it bears the image of God and it is a life that is worth saving and dying for.

Even though God loves us, that doesn’t mean that he permits us to pursue any proclivities or marriage relationships we desire. Throughout the Bible, we read that God requires accountability, restitution and justice to be served. Some churches would prefer to ignore the idea of discipline and punishment that is mentioned throughout the Bible

There are clear boundaries when it comes to marriage and sexual relationships. The Bible is clear when it states that marriage must be between a man and a woman and any sexual relationships must be within the bounds of marriage. The area of marriage is the most sacred because we are told that this must reflect the relationship between Jesus Christ and his bride (unless someone redefines the word ‘bride’ I believe it has always meant a ‘virgin girl who is chaste and pure’ in the context of the Bible).  And to put it succintly… anything else is an abomination.

So ‘no’ the ‘love is all that matters argument’ is really a diversion. If I love my son, it doesn’t mean that I can marry him. If I love my daughter and she loves me, it does not mean that I can marry her. If I love another woman aside from my wife, it doesn’t mean I can marry her.

It is tragic when churches who are suppose to shine in goodness and holiness begin to pander to the world’s values. Instead of reflecting God’s glory, they begin to reflect the darkness of the world.