Where Do These Ideas Come From?
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
Recently, one of our college students shared some correspondence with a friend. Both are college students—one is a Christian; the other belongs to a large and well-known religious group that is supposed to be Christian in philosophy. It is hard to imagine that anyone could think the way the friend does, but it may not be unusual for many young people. One continually finds himself asking: "Where do young people come up with these arguments? Are they being taught these things by someone, or did they originate them themselves?" In either case, the illogical arguments are appalling. For purposes of this publication (and to preserve anonymity), our college student will be called A, and the other one will be B. (All edits are only for clarity and spelling, and my comments begin with G.)
B: My other cousin that hasn't lived at home for 3 years moved in with her boyfriend of 4 years, and her mother is being a baby about it. They were all, "You're going to ruin your life; you're a slut," etc., but, hey, the woman is about to graduate from nursing school, having made the dean's list; she's not a moron, she can make her own choices.
A. But she is not married to him, am I correct?
B. No, but in our modern society, it should not matter. Plenty of people live together that aren't married. We live in today. Not then. Today. I wouldn't mind my child living with a man that is in a stable career, that can take care of her and himself, because I can trust my child to not be stupid.
G: Intelligence and morality are not the same thing. The mother probably erred by calling her daughter a slut. Although one definition is a woman of loose morals (which certainly fits the daughter), generally we think of this word in connection with someone who is promiscuous as well, which her daughter does not seem to be. By definition, however, she is a fornicator.
One would expect a woman who was raised to observe Biblical morality to be upset that her daughter regards herself so poorly as to engage in sex outside of marriage.
The idea that we are a modern society and things are different is an ancient ploy. Five minutes from now society will be more modern than it currently is. This is no argument whatsoever. Anyway, the definition of fornication has not changed in thousands of years. Hebrews 13:4 still reads: "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." The cousin is violating a moral principle given by God—not some antiquated cultural tradition. And how "smart" is it to rebel against God?
B: It would be insulting to say, "You can't live with someone you love, just because you're not married." Because what if they can't afford to live alone? She's 22. As an adult, she chose to live with someone she loves. It does not matter if she's married or not. It's insulting to say, "Oh she's not married, she can't live with a man." I don't care if I'm not married, if I live in a dangerous area, I'm living with a man, and she does.
G. It's insulting (and a matter of sin) to God who created man and woman to live with someone apart from marriage. And it's dangerous. One young college student began living with her atheist boyfriend because (even though she had been taught correctly) he loved her. About a year later he decided he no longer loved her and left. Of course, she knew that wouldn't happen to her. Their fornication was not like that. Right! If he loved her, he would marry her. Monetary concerns are irrelevant. Morality is more important than money. Who said marriage is irrelevant and that it doesn't matter? This individual is long on assumptions and short on proof. Speaking of intelligence and smart decisions, may I kindly suggest to B that if you are living in a bad area, you move—rather than living immorally?
B: That's like using natural theory to still argue against homosexuality: they can't have kids. Uh well, plenty of married heterosexual couples don't have kids by choice, or give their kids up.
G: Uh, well, while many heterosexual couples cannot have children, 100% of homosexual couples can't have children. Does that suggest something about the way God designed this world?
B. And today, homosexual couples can have kids: invitro adoption. So, that theory no longer counts. We live in a modern society, guys. Let's keep up. Also, I'd DEFINITELY live with my boyfriend if he was a former marine…. My mom and dad used to live in a building where there was a peeper, right? Well, they were in the supermarket one day, and some other guy pushed an old lady over and stole her purse. My dad chases after him and knees him in the chest, like a ninja (army strong, no?) The land lord told the peeper. The peeper moved out.
A: Okay well, how is "modern society" an excuse, so if "modern society" accepted the fact that killing people not of our country is ok, so we should follow? Or stealing used to be bad, but all of sudden, it's okay? Modern society is not consistent in morals, our standards are different, so what we may think to be good today, maybe be viewed as bad tomorrow. We cannot depend on society, only God because he is the higher standard and is consistent. "For God is not the author of confusion..." (1 Cor. 14:33).
No matter what happens, two men and two women cannot have children physically, no matter what. Sure technology has developed ways for homosexuals to have children, but they will never be able to have it by intercourse, because God created a woman to be with a man (Matt. 19:4).
G: It is the case that a homosexual couple could adopt a child or use some sort of technology, but the child will not be the product of those two individuals; it's not possible. And what if the peeper, being forewarned about Mr. Ninja, buys a gun and shoots him if he gets in the way? With all due respect to our military, no man can protect someone 24/7.
B: Quoting the Bible is not a good rationale for anything, because not everyone reads the Bible. The Bible you read was written in a SOCIETY that was overly cruel (Babylon, King James Bible), where the kings used religion to control. No one is bound to anybody! That way of thinking is what abusive husbands and boyfriends use! How dare you! How dare you quote the Bible in a world that strives to accept all ways of life! Does no one understand any more that we are all humans? That God is good and loving, regardless of who you are? God is the only authority in our lives, not the Bible. The Bible was written by man, and is only a guideline. I'm a ___. I believe in the same stuff you do, but I believe in progressiveness because without it, women will still be owned, blacks would still be slaves, and no one would care about anything but their miniature lives, and making themselves seem as perfect on the outside.
G: Wow! What a hodgepodge of gobbledegook! First, it does not matter if anyone reads the Bible or not; everyone will be judged by it (John 12:48). The people of Noah's day undoubtedly thought they were the "modern" generation and that they were old enough to live their own lives and make their own choices. (If being more than 900 years old isn't old enough to make decision, when is?) But their defiance against God did not avail them anything when the Flood came. People who reject God today will likewise fare no better when the Fire destroys the universe (2 Peter 3:10-13)!
The Bible was written in a society that was cruel and therefore kings used religion to control people. Where does this stuff come from? B might want to consider that Babylon, as a power, was over and done more than 2,000 before the King James translation was finished. Is there supposed to be a connection between these two things? Genesis was written by Moses around 1450 B.C. When Israel entered the promised land, there was no king who was trying to control the people. Moses revealed the truth about marriage in Genesis 1-3. It had nothing to do with kings or the KJV. God designed marriage before kings existed.
"No one is bound to anybody"? Really? Paul refers to marriage as one person being bound to another (1 Cor. 7:27). Was Paul trying to help out some king when he wrote that? Upon what authority should people take B's word over that of an inspired apostle? Abusive boyfriends (who are supposed to be protecting women who live in bad places) and husbands are absolutely wrong if they abuse women. They have no Bible verse that gives them permission to be abusive. Rather, they are charged to love their wives as Christ loved the church—and gave Himself for it (Eph. 5:25). This objection is preposterous.
How dare B defy the Scriptures with no more authority than that of a human being! The problem with the world is that it seeks to equate all ways when there is only one (John 14:6). The world and B seek to equate evil with good. Wrong is just as valid as right; error will do as much as truth. Who could honestly live this way? Yes, we understand that all are humans—and that the desires of humans frequently lead to evil and sins against God. God created humans, and He understands us perfectly (John 2:24-25). It is B who is lacking in understanding.
God is good and loving, but He does not accept sin or weak attempts to justify it. God rewards the righteous and punishes those who violate His arrangement of marriage. Romans 11:22 talks about the goodness and severity of God, as well as His punishment of the ungodly. Why is it that those who champion immorality always seem to forget about the "severity" part? Have they lost sight of the fact that there is a Day of Judgment and a Lake of Fire?
God is the only authority in our lives? What does that mean? We listen to God—not the Bible? Can B please explain how that works? God inspired the Scriptures to be written (2 Tim. 3:16-17). How can the two be separated from each other? How do we know anything about God apart from the Bible? Do we get it by osmosis? Or do we just create God in our own image? "Yeah, I want to commit fornication with a marine because I live in a bad place; therefore, the God I like is the one who allows me to do that—or anything else I take a fancy to doing." That is what it seems that B means. The Bible was not written by man; it was recorded by man. It is inspired of God and contains His words.
B does not believe in the same stuff A does. That really is an insult. A believes the Bible is the Word of God and that mankind has a responsibility to obey it. B is nowhere in the ballpark on that one. People make no progress when they regress from the Scriptures; instead, they transgress. The Bible does not speak about women being owned; B's knowledge is conspicuously deficient. The Bible does not teach anywhere that blacks should be slaves. If B knew the Bible even a little, she would know that Christians do not live only for themselves but show concern about others (John 13:34-35, 15:12-13; 1 Thess. 5:14; and dozens of other verses). Also, Christianity is not just about the outside—it deals with the heart (Matt. 15:18-20; et al.).
B: Stealing will always be bad, Murder will always be bad BECAUSE OUR SOCIETY STILL HOLDS THAT MORAL! Society IS directly related to morality! If you looked up from the Bible, maybe you would see that our society is striving to accept all, because we are starting to learn that just because someone comes from a different background doesn't mean they're bad. Japan is a different society and their morals are different. Are they bad? The people in old tribes that revered homosexuality, that didn't care who you loved, just that you loved with all of your heart and all of your goodness—were they bad? When did it become a matter of what you do, your outer shell, your summary on your back, and not what you say, not what you believe in, not your goodness?
G: B missed the entire question, which was: "What if society said stealing was all right?" But let B answer this question: "Was it all right for the Nazis to kill Jews, since it did not violate German law? If it was wrong, whose law did it violate?" Did someone say that the Scriptures teach that the Japanese are bad? Different countries, nationalities, and races are not good or bad; they are simply different, and God made them all. He did not create homosexuals, however, and it is wrong in any culture because it violates God's moral law, just as stealing and murder do.
If B knew the Word of God, she would know that what a person says and does comes from the heart—the inside (Matt. 15:18-20). Should society honor mass murderer John Wayne Gacy because, even though he outwardly killed more than 30 teenage boys, he really had a good heart, as reflected by his paintings? Who can believe this stuff?
B: You are what you are inwardly, but you wear pants. You realize that your own ancestors in religion would lynch you for such a thing—for being a woman yet acting masculine—and that they'd refuse you because of your color? And you say society isn't an excuse for anything? If we stayed in a world that was dominated by Christians in America like it used to be, you'd be a slave, I'd be lynched. Our society is why you live comfortably, why you can go out preaching the Bible, and no one can touch you. Back in old societies, no one cared if a woman was raped, and definitely not a black woman. You want to go back to those morals? Those morals that people used to their advantage? What's better—a world with the wrong morals, or one with none and open to change?
G: Seriously? Could we please pull up all the case files of women who were lynched for wearing pants? This is frivolous. Were some abused in times past because of color? Absolutely. But where did the principles of equality come from? Who put an end to slavery in England—and on what basis? Perhaps B could do a little research on the subject. Besides, when people act out of prejudice (and some religious folks did), they are not acting in conjunction with what the Bible teaches but rather contrary to it (Acts 10:34-35). This country was dominated by Christian philosophy, and this country put an end to slavery.
The fact that certain societies have been unjust with respect to women and minorities is true, but without the Bible, on what basis can B say that they were wrong? Whose standards were violated—God's? If societies ignored the rape of black women, that's not morality—that's immorality. In the Old Testament, a man found guilty of rape was to be put to death. The Bible values women—God values all human beings because He made us in His image.
The choice of the two societies given involves a false dilemma. The world has always had wrong morals, but God gave us the correct ones. The problem is not that we do not have the right set of morals; the problem is that people don't like them. Israel was told specifically not to have any kind of idols, yet they violated that commandment—within weeks of being given it! It is not a matter of, "We have tried old morals, and they didn't work." Man has yet to try them (except in part).
Does B really want a society with no morals? If someone uses her house for target practice, will she say, "I really like this change"? If she receives F's in all her college courses, will she say, "Oh, this is refreshing," or complain about the injustice? If someone is bribed to testify against her in a court of law for a crime she did not commit, will she say, as she is introduced to her jail cell, "This is sure better than that old morality"? B has not thought through what she is advocating. She certainly lacks Bible knowledge. Perhaps instead of complaining about the Book, she might read it.