Family choice, family destiny by Gary Rose

I used to say:"If God is not your father, then the devil is your daddy" a lot. I think I will make a point of saying it more often now, because people have forgotten that if they are sinning and loving it- The DEVIL is their "daddy"!!! Why? because the devil has always loved sin and hated God. This is reflected in his behavior of opposing God's will and doing as he pleases. The Devil sins and those who love sin and joyfully practice it are just like him.

The Scriptures tell us of the fate of all who love and practice sin without repenting.

Revelation, Chapter 20 (WEB)

  ¹ I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.  ² He seized the dragon, the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole inhabited earth, and bound him for a thousand years,  ³ and cast him into the abyss, and shut it, and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were finished. After this, he must be freed for a short time.  ⁴ I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as didn’t worship the beast nor his image, and didn’t receive the mark on their forehead and on their hand. They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.  ⁵ The rest of the dead didn’t live until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. ⁶ Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over these, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with him one thousand years. 

  ⁷ And after the thousand years, Satan will be released from his prison,  ⁸ and he will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to the war; the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.  ⁹ They went up over the width of the earth, and surrounded the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. Fire came down out of heaven from God and devoured them.  ¹⁰ The devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are also. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (emp. added, GDR)

  ¹¹ I saw a great white throne, and him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. There was found no place for them.  ¹² I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and they opened books. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works.  ¹³ The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works.  ¹⁴ Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.  ¹⁵ If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire. (emp. added, GDR)

We do not get to pick our biological family, but we do get to pick our spiritual one. And that choice will ultimately result in either eternal life or eternal destruction.

Hate sin, follow God and live!!!

Bible Reading October 12 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading  October 12 (WEB)

Oct. 12

Proverbs 9-11

Pro 9:1 Wisdom has built her house. She has carved out her seven pillars.

Pro 9:2 She has prepared her meat. She has mixed her wine. She has also set her table.

Pro 9:3 She has sent out her maidens. She cries from the highest places of the city:

Pro 9:4 "Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!" As for him who is void of understanding, she says to him,

Pro 9:5 "Come, eat some of my bread, Drink some of the wine which I have mixed!

Pro 9:6 Leave your simple ways, and live. Walk in the way of understanding."

Pro 9:7 He who corrects a mocker invites insult. He who reproves a wicked man invites abuse.

Pro 9:8 Don't reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you. Reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

Pro 9:9 Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.

Pro 9:10 The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom. The knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Pro 9:11 For by me your days will be multiplied. The years of your life will be increased.

Pro 9:12 If you are wise, you are wise for yourself. If you mock, you alone will bear it.

Pro 9:13 The foolish woman is loud, Undisciplined, and knows nothing.

Pro 9:14 She sits at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city,

Pro 9:15 To call to those who pass by, who go straight on their ways,

Pro 9:16 "Whoever is simple, let him turn in here." as for him who is void of understanding, she says to him,

Pro 9:17 "Stolen water is sweet. Food eaten in secret is pleasant."

Pro 9:18 But he doesn't know that the dead are there, that her guests are in the depths of Sheol.

Pro 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son makes a glad father; but a foolish son brings grief to his mother.

Pro 10:2 Treasures of wickedness profit nothing, but righteousness delivers from death.

Pro 10:3 Yahweh will not allow the soul of the righteous to go hungry, but he thrusts away the desire of the wicked.

Pro 10:4 He becomes poor who works with a lazy hand, but the hand of the diligent brings wealth.

Pro 10:5 He who gathers in summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during the harvest is a son who causes shame.

Pro 10:6 Blessings are on the head of the righteous, but violence covers the mouth of the wicked.

Pro 10:7 The memory of the righteous is blessed, but the name of the wicked will rot.

Pro 10:8 The wise in heart accept commandments, but a chattering fool will fall.

Pro 10:9 He who walks blamelessly walks surely, but he who perverts his ways will be found out.

Pro 10:10 One winking with the eye causes sorrow, but a chattering fool will fall.

Pro 10:11 The mouth of the righteous is a spring of life, but violence covers the mouth of the wicked.

Pro 10:12 Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all wrongs.

Pro 10:13 Wisdom is found on the lips of him who has discernment, but a rod is for the back of him who is void of understanding.

Pro 10:14 Wise men lay up knowledge, but the mouth of the foolish is near ruin.

Pro 10:15 The rich man's wealth is his strong city. The destruction of the poor is their poverty.

Pro 10:16 The labor of the righteous leads to life. The increase of the wicked leads to sin.

Pro 10:17 He is in the way of life who heeds correction, but he who forsakes reproof leads others astray.

Pro 10:18 He who hides hatred has lying lips. He who utters a slander is a fool.

Pro 10:19 In the multitude of words there is no lack of disobedience, but he who restrains his lips does wisely.

Pro 10:20 The tongue of the righteous is like choice silver. The heart of the wicked is of little worth.

Pro 10:21 The lips of the righteous feed many, but the foolish die for lack of understanding.

Pro 10:22 Yahweh's blessing brings wealth, and he adds no trouble to it.

Pro 10:23 It is a fool's pleasure to do wickedness, but wisdom is a man of understanding's pleasure.

Pro 10:24 What the wicked fear, will overtake them, but the desire of the righteous will be granted.

Pro 10:25 When the whirlwind passes, the wicked is no more; but the righteous stand firm forever.

Pro 10:26 As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to those who send him.

Pro 10:27 The fear of Yahweh prolongs days, but the years of the wicked shall be shortened.

Pro 10:28 The prospect of the righteous is joy, but the hope of the wicked will perish.

Pro 10:29 The way of Yahweh is a stronghold to the upright, but it is a destruction to the workers of iniquity.

Pro 10:30 The righteous will never be removed, but the wicked will not dwell in the land.

Pro 10:31 The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom, but the perverse tongue will be cut off.

Pro 10:32 The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked is perverse.

Pro 11:1 A false balance is an abomination to Yahweh, but accurate weights are his delight.

Pro 11:2 When pride comes, then comes shame, but with humility comes wisdom.

Pro 11:3 The integrity of the upright shall guide them, but the perverseness of the treacherous shall destroy them.

Pro 11:4 Riches don't profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.

Pro 11:5 The righteousness of the blameless will direct his way, but the wicked shall fall by his own wickedness.

Pro 11:6 The righteousness of the upright shall deliver them, but the unfaithful will be trapped by evil desires.

Pro 11:7 When a wicked man dies, hope perishes, and expectation of power comes to nothing.

Pro 11:8 A righteous person is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked takes his place.

Pro 11:9 With his mouth the godless man destroys his neighbor, but the righteous will be delivered through knowledge.

Pro 11:10 When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices. When the wicked perish, there is shouting.

Pro 11:11 By the blessing of the upright, the city is exalted, but it is overthrown by the mouth of the wicked.

Pro 11:12 One who despises his neighbor is void of wisdom, but a man of understanding holds his peace.

Pro 11:13 One who brings gossip betrays a confidence, but one who is of a trustworthy spirit is one who keeps a secret.

Pro 11:14 Where there is no wise guidance, the nation falls, but in the multitude of counselors there is victory.

Pro 11:15 He who is collateral for a stranger will suffer for it, but he who refuses pledges of collateral is secure.

Pro 11:16 A gracious woman obtains honor, but violent men obtain riches.

Pro 11:17 The merciful man does good to his own soul, but he who is cruel troubles his own flesh.

Pro 11:18 Wicked people earn deceitful wages, but one who sows righteousness reaps a sure reward.

Pro 11:19 He who is truly righteous gets life. He who pursues evil gets death.

Pro 11:20 Those who are perverse in heart are an abomination to Yahweh, but those whose ways are blameless are his delight.

Pro 11:21 Most certainly, the evil man will not be unpunished, but the seed of the righteous will be delivered.

Pro 11:22 Like a gold ring in a pig's snout, is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion.

Pro 11:23 The desire of the righteous is only good. The expectation of the wicked is wrath.

Pro 11:24 There is one who scatters, and increases yet more. There is one who withholds more than is appropriate, but gains poverty.

Pro 11:25 The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself.

Pro 11:26 People curse someone who withholds grain, but blessing will be on the head of him who sells it.

Pro 11:27 He who diligently seeks good seeks favor, but he who searches after evil, it shall come to him.

Pro 11:28 He who trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous shall flourish as the green leaf.

Pro 11:29 He who troubles his own house shall inherit the wind. The foolish shall be servant to the wise of heart.

Pro 11:30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life. He who is wise wins souls.

Pro 11:31 Behold, the righteous shall be repaid in the earth; how much more the wicked and the sinner!

 

Oct. 12

Ephesians 3

Eph 3:1 For this cause I, Paul, am the prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles,

Eph 3:2 if it is so that you have heard of the administration of that grace of God which was given me toward you;

Eph 3:3 how that by revelation the mystery was made known to me, as I wrote before in few words,

Eph 3:4 by which, when you read, you can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ;

Eph 3:5 which in other generations was not made known to the children of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;

Eph 3:6 that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of his promise in Christ Jesus through the Good News,

Eph 3:7 of which I was made a servant, according to the gift of that grace of God which was given me according to the working of his power.

Eph 3:8 To me, the very least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,

Eph 3:9 and to make all men see what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things through Jesus Christ;

Eph 3:10 to the intent that now through the assembly the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places,

Eph 3:11 according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord;

Eph 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through our faith in him.

Eph 3:13 Therefore I ask that you may not lose heart at my troubles for you, which are your glory.

Eph 3:14 For this cause, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Eph 3:15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,

Eph 3:16 that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that you may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man;

Eph 3:17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that you, being rooted and grounded in love,

Eph 3:18 may be strengthened to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,

Eph 3:19 and to know Christ's love which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Eph 3:20 Now to him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,

Eph 3:21 to him be the glory in the assembly and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

Hallowed be Your name Is there no respect? by Eugene C. Perry

Hallowed be Your name
Is there no respect?

Man’s failure to respect that which is sacred has, through the ages, been detrimental to the culture of the day as well as being displeasing to God. God’s name represents His person just as your name represents you. The scriptures in both Testaments are replete with instructions and examples emphasizing the sacredness of the names of the divine.

Personally, I am old enough to have experienced the days when mothers who heard their children use God’s name as an expletive or use other “swear words” and unbecoming language would threaten with “I’ll wash out your mouth with soap and water.” Using the name of Jesus and using substitutes for God’s name such as “gosh” or “golly” was also punishable. Things have changed since then. We now hear mothers themselves using such expressions in casual and otherwise wholesome conversations in front of their children and in public. Women, in their push for equality, it seems, feel that the use of such language is one way of being equal.

Perhaps my mother’s early efforts contribute to my reaction to the now so commonly heard, “Oh My God.” My involuntary reaction to hearing this phrase, especially from unexpected sources, is similar to the chills that run up my spine when a student playfully causes hard chalk to screech on the chalk board. The popular TV program, “Extreme Makeover, Home Edition,” serves as an example. For me, a very fine program that encourages the Biblical concept of helping the less fortunate is ruined by the frequent and, I fear, deliberate use of the “Oh My God” phrase. The frequency suggests that these people must be coached to use this expression. I have renamed this show “The OMG Show” and avoid viewing it. I am startled, shocked, to hear this expression freely flowing from unexpected sources such as the tongues of “ladies”, mothers, teachers.

In bygone days this type of language was commonly heard from the worldly, those who were not making any effort to be God’s people. It is shocking to hear it in casual conversation among parents, teachers and church leaders. Recently, individual articles in religious journals as well as a couple of special issues (See Gospel Herald, March 2010 – God the Father for one) have highlighted the greatness of God and the importance of giving Him due respect. Similar emphasis has been noted in recent worship service themes. The contrast between these and what is being heard in daily conversation has prompted me to compose this article on a topic that has been on my mind for a long time.

It is clear that God’s names have always borne special significance and that He has expected such to be recognized by those who would please Him. This should not surprise us. Our own names are important to us. We are pleased and complimented when people remember our names and use them in addressing us and when they, in general, show respect for our names. The opposite is also true. We are demeaned and displeased if our names are used in careless and disrespectful ways.

An interesting item entitled “Blasphemers of Ireland Beware” appeared in the January 18^th edition of MacLean’s Magazine. It begins, “Be careful how you invoke the name of god . . . any god . . . in Ireland.” and tells us of legislation which bans the publication of material, “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.” Surely the names of God and Jesus Christ should be held sacred by all Christians.

Ireland’s 1937 constitution already outlawed blasphemy. Its 1961 Defamation Act included the possibility of both a fine and up to seven years in prison. These laws recognize, in fact, require that language usage show respect for what others hold sacred. They are primarily geared to avoid our offending each other. This reminds us of the workmen who adjust their speech when their minister drops by. They may be concerned about offending his sensitivities or, perhaps, more about hiding their true character from him. Being careful not to offend others is important but how much more careful ought we to be not to offend almighty God by our careless, casual and disrespectful use of His name? We cannot hide our true character from Him.

Number three of the Ten Commandments reads, “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” (Ex.20:7 NRSV). An online Reader’s Digest service has an item entitle, “If God Had Texted the Ten Commandments” that the reader will find interesting. For number three we find “no omg’s”. When Ezra led the people of Israel in national confession, he instructed them to stand up and “bless the Lord our God” and declared, “Blessed be your name, and may it be exalted above all blessing and praise.” (Neh.9:5)

The title of this article is the words used by Jesus in the beginning of the “model prayer”, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name . . .” (Mt.6:9). We often include this or similar phrases in our prayers. These are “empty words” if we do not show respect for God’s name in our everyday communications. We sing hymns such as, “We Trust in the Name of the Lord our God,” “Glorify the Lord” and “Exalt His Holy Name.” Do we mean what we sing and pray?

There was a time when God’s name was held so holy by the Hebrew people that they were afraid to speak it. The scribes, whose occupation was to hand copy the scriptures would stop copying and ritually purify themselves with water before transcribing God’s names. (You are encouraged to google “scribes, God’s names” and read more about the extremes to which the scribes were required to go when transcribing God’s names.) How would one of them react to the casual ways that His name is used today by many? How, indeed, does God feel about this?

To those whose response to these comments is, “God knows that I don’t mean any disrespect,” we ask, “What do you mean? Using the name of God as an exclamation (punctuation point) in a slang way has meaning or does not have meaning. If it has meaning, it is disrespectful to God and His people. If it does not have meaning, it is being used in a vain, empty way which cannot be pleasing to God.

The Psalmist, after declaring several verses expressing praise for God’s wonderful works, concluded, “Holy and awesome is his name. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding.” (Ps.111:9,10)

Let us demonstrate at least “the beginning of wisdom” and some “good understanding” in the use of the name of our Holy God. We fear that the casual way that we vocalize God’s name in our culture is evidence of a growing disrespect for God Himself and hence in the way we respond to His word and apply it in our daily living.

Let us show a very high respect for God, His name and His word.

Eugene C. Perry

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Chronology and the Cleansing of the Temple by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=660&b=John

Chronology and the Cleansing of the Temple

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

One of the most popular alleged Bible discrepancies pertaining to chronology—and one that skeptics are fond of citing in any discussion on the inerrancy of Scripture—is whether or not Jesus cleansed the temple early in His ministry, or near the end. According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus cleansed the temple during the final week leading up to His death on the cross (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46). John, however, places his record of the temple cleansing in chapter 2 of his gospel account, between Jesus’ first miracle (2:1-12) and His conversation with Nicodemus (3:1-21). How should John’s gospel account be understood in light of the other three writers placing the event near the end of Jesus’ ministry? Skeptics question, “Did Jesus enter the temple and drive out the money changers early in His ministry, or near the end?”
Most often, it seems, the explanation heard regarding this difficulty is that there was only one temple cleansing—near the end of Jesus’ life—and John’s placement of this event at an earlier time is the result of his “theological,” rather than “chronological,” approach to writing his account of the life and teachings of Jesus. The problem with this explanation is that, although overall John may have been a little less concerned with chronology than were the other writers, a straightforward reading of the text favors the position that this particular clearing of the temple was not something that occurred near the end of Jesus’ life. The record of Jesus’ first miracle, beginning in John 2:1, begins with the phrase, “On the third day….” This section ends with John writing the words, “After this…” (2:12, Greek meta touto). Following verse 12, John then begins his account of the temple cleansing saying, “Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand…” (2:13). It certainly would appear to be “out of the ordinary” for John to jump ahead nearly three years in the life of Jesus to an event that occurred in Jerusalem during the last week of His life, only then to backtrack to a time prior to “the second sign Jesus did when He had come out of Judea into Galilee” (John 4:54). Admittedly, John would not have erred in writing about the temple cleansing earlier on in his gospel account if the Holy Spirit saw fit to mention the event at that time. (Perhaps this would have been to show from the outset of Jesus’ ministry that He “repudiated what was central to the Temple cults, and further that his death and resurrection were critically important”—Morris, 1995, p. 167.) A better explanation of this alleged contradiction exists, however: There were two temple cleansings.
Why not? Who is to say that Jesus could not have cleansed the temple of money-hungry, hypocritical Jews on two separate occasions—once earlier in His ministry, and again near the end of His life as He entered Jerusalem for the last time? Are we so naïve as to think that the temple could not have been corrupted at two different times during the three years of Jesus’ ministry? Jesus likely visited the temple several times during the last few years of His life on Earth (especially when celebrating the Passover—cf. John 2:13,23; 6:4; 11:55), likely finding inappropriate things going on there more than once. Do churches in the twenty-first century sometimes have problems that recur within a three-year span? Have church leaders ever dealt with these problems in a public manner multiple times and in similar ways? Of course. (“How soon men forget the most solemn reproofs, and return to evil practices”—Barnes, 1956, p. 196.)
What evidence does a person possess, which would lead him to conclude that Jesus cleansed the temple only once? There is none. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded a temple cleansing late in Jesus’ ministry, much evidence exists to indicate that John recorded an earlier clearing of the temple. It is logical to conclude that the extra details recorded in John 2 are not simply supplemental facts (even though the writers of the gospels did supplement each others’ writings fairly frequently). Rather, the different details recorded by John likely are due to the fact that we are dealing with two different temple cleansings. Only John mentioned (1) the oxen and sheep, (2) the whip of cords, (3) the scattering of the money, (4) Jesus’ command, “Take these things away,” and (5) the disciples’ remembrance of Psalm 69:9: “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up” (2:17). Furthermore, John did not include Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 56:7, which is found in all three of the other accounts, and stands as a prominent part of their accounts of the temple cleansing.
In view of the major differences in wording, in setting, and in time, as well as the fact that, apart from the work of John the baptizer, nothing in the first five chapters of John’s gospel account is found in Matthew, Mark, or Luke, “we will require more evidence than a facile assumption that the two similar narratives must refer to the same event” (Morris, p. 167). There is no chronological contradiction here.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1956), Notes on the New Testament—Luke-John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Morris, Leon (1995), The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

California Supreme Court Upholds “Marriage” Constitutional Amendment by Kevin Cain, J.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2719

California Supreme Court Upholds “Marriage” Constitutional Amendment

by	Kevin Cain, J.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by one of A.P.’s auxiliary staff writers who holds a M.Min from Freed-Hardeman University and a J.D. from the South Texas College of Law.]

In Strauss v. Horton, a controversial and highly publicized case, the California Supreme Court recently handed down a surprising decision upholding a California constitutional amendment that states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This case involved a constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8, the subject of considerable news coverage during the election in November 2008. The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George was issued on Tuesday, May 26, 2009. However, upon closer examination of the court’s opinion, the purported victory may be a victory only in semantics.
This high-profile case is the product of legal wrangling and posturing that has been going on in California for some time now. In 2004, the California Supreme Court ruled in Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco that public officials in San Francisco acted unlawfully when they issued marriage licenses to homosexual couples. However, the court emphasized that the question of the constitutional validity of California’s current marriage statutes (which limited marriage to a man and a woman) was not before the court at that time (Lockyer v. City..., 2004). In other words, the court was politely soliciting a constitutional challenge to the California statute limiting marriage to a union between a man and woman.
Not surprisingly, the issue of the constitutionality of California’s marriage law was addressed in In re Marriage Cases in 2008. In that case, the court held that homosexual couples are entitled to the protection of the constitutional right to marry contained in the privacy and due process provisions of the Constitution of California. The California Supreme Court reasoned that by granting access to the designation or title of “marriage” to opposite-sex couples and denying such access to same-sex couples, the California marriage statutes violated the privacy and due process rights of same-sex couples and violated their right to the equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution of California (In re Marriage Cases, 2008).
In response to the Marriage Cases, Proposition 8 was passed by a majority of California voters (52.3%) on November 4, 2008 (Strauss v. Horton, 2009). This proposition, which is now a part of the Constitution of California, states in its entirety, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” (Article I, Section7.5). There is no doubt but that Proposition 8 was a legitimate attempt to constitutionally overturn the holding in the Marriage Cases. However, the reach of that effort was significantly curtailed by the court’s recent holding in Strauss v. Horton.
In the March 2000 California election, the California Family Code was revised by Proposition 22 to include the following limitation on marriage: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” (Section 308.5). This is the identical language adopted in Proposition 8. The difference between Proposition 22 in 2000 and Proposition 8 in 2008 is that Proposition 22 amended a California statute, while Proposition 8 amended the Constitution of California. The California Supreme Court held in the Marriage Cases that the California Family Code (amended by Proposition 22), which granted access to the designation “marriage” to only heterosexual couples, but not homosexual couples, was unconstitutional as it violated homosexual couples’ state constitutional rights of privacy, due process, and equal protection (In re Marriage Cases, 2008). The table was now set for Proposition 8, which upon being passed on November 4, 2008, was challenged in court the following day, November 5, 2008, in Strauss v. Horton (2009).
In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court went to great lengths to reaffirm its holding in the Marriage Cases, and described its holding in the present case as a mere narrow exception to the rule in the Marriage Cases that it is unconstitutional to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. The court went to great lengths to emphasize that the new constitutional amendment “refers only to ‘marriage’ and does not address the right to establish an officially recognized family relationship, which may bear a name or designation other than ‘marriage.’” This was based on the conclusion that “the language of [Proposition 8], on its face, does not purport to alter or affect the more general holding in the Marriage Cases that same-sex couples, enjoy the constitutional right, under the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution, to establish an officially recognized family relationship” (Strauss v. Horton). Simply put, Proposition 8 only eliminated the right of homosexual couples to the designation of “marriage” without “otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship” (Strauss v. Horton).
The issue then remained as to what to do with those homosexual “marriages” that took place in California after Proposition 8 was passed. The court estimated that 18,000 “marriages” were entered into by homosexual couples after Proposition 8 was passed until this court’s opinion was released on May 26, 2009. The court held that the amendment, without explicit language to the contrary, must be applied prospectively and not retroactively. That is, the amendment would only be applied as of May 26, 2009, and all homosexual “marriages” after November 4, 2008 and before May 26, 2009 would be recognized as “marriages” in the state of California.
To say that Proposition 8 was a controversial and high-profile matter in California is putting it lightly. The violence that stemmed from this election over Proposition 8 was a matter of public record, although it was somewhat difficult for some to discover these facts due to the limited and biased media coverage. The legal interest in this case was overwhelming. First, the opinion generated by the California Supreme Court was 185 pages. The list of attorneys, special-interest groups, and law firms representing the pro-homosexual agenda in this suit was remarkable (373 attorneys, 153 organizations, and 33 law firms representing the pro-homosexual position; compared with 40 attorneys, 20 organizations, and 5 law firms representing the pro-Proposition 8 position). In other words, this was a highly anticipated and hard-fought legal battle, although somewhat lopsided.
The problem here is not that this purported “victory” for conservative groups appears to be a matter of semantics over the use of the term “marriage.” The problem here is not that the attorneys, special interest groups, and law firms representing the homosexual agenda far outnumber their opponents. The real problem is the fundamental way this battle is being fought. There are numerous legal arguments over the constitutionality of statutes, propositions, equal rights, due process, strict scrutiny, and other terms of legalese. For the moment, the majority of the people support the biblical definition of marriage. History shows that the majority may soon dwindle and marriage laws could be reversed. So the pressing question is where is the call to morality, ethics, godliness, Christianity, and Scripture? In the midst of all this debate about a homosexual lifestyle, there appears to be little to no attention given to these spiritual matters that really count—the very matters that the Framers of the Constitution shared and defended (cf. Miller, 2003). If we continue to fight worldly battles with worldly weapons, worldly arguments, and worldly wisdom, we may occasionally win a battle, but we will ultimately lose the war. “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5, NASB). Paul did not use the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified so that the Corinthians’ faith would not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).
This lawsuit is evidence of the culture war that is escalating around us. It is taking place in our capitals, in our legislatures, in our courts, in our schools, in our neighborhoods, and in our homes and churches. A Christian has four choices: (1) fight on the wrong side; (2) remain neutral (which means you are lending unwitting support to the wrong side whether you realize it or not [Matthew 27:24]); (3) fight with the wrong weapons; or (4) fight with the right weapons. I have often heard the phrase, “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.” If you are fighting in the culture war that is raging, are you fighting with a proverbial knife when those around you wield superior fire-power?
We must fight, but not physically. Those who resort to physical violence when purportedly taking the “Christian” perspective are clearly in error and do great harm to the cause of Christ. The Bible teaches us not only to correct those in error, but to do so lovingly (Ephesians 4:15). Jesus told Peter to put up his sword because Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and because those who live by the sword will die by the sword (Matthew 26:52; John 18:36). Moreover, we are commanded to love and pray for our enemies (Matthew 5:44; Romans 12: 17-21). In light of these admonitions, are you fighting in the battle, and are you fighting with the right weapons?
It is time to rally the troops and prepare for war. So, love your enemies and pray for them. Pray for their souls; pray for their hearts to be softened; pray for doors of opportunity to be opened so that God may be glorified. Therefore...

Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak (Ephesians 6:11-20, NASB).

May we use these weapons boldly and fearlessly, use them with love, but most important, use them.

REFERENCES

California Family Code, [On-line], URL: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310.
Constitution of California, [On-line], URL: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1.
In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2008).
Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055 (Cal. 2004).
Miller, Dave (2003), “The Founders on Homosexuality,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3769.
Strauss v. Horton, (Cal. May 26, 2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF.

Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1409

Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution?

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

The humanistic sociologist Auguste Comte coined the term “altruism,” derived from the Italian altrui, which means “other” (Rhode, 2005). Under Comte’s definition, altruism signified an unselfish regard for the welfare of others (Rhode, 2005). People are not entirely self-interested. If they were, then families would be nonexistent. Yet, 90 percent of Americans marry (Coltrane, 44[4]:395). Modern instances of what we generally call altruism abound. For an example of obvious altruism on a grand scale, over $4.25 billion was raised for Hurricane Katrina-related relief and recovery (“Hurricane...,” 2006).
The animal world also is filled with animals that appear to help other creatures. Eduardo Porter noted in The New York Times, “altruism isn’t an exclusively human trait. Vampire bats are pretty altruistic, too, regurgitating blood for members of the group that haven’t eaten. Sterile worker bees, which are incapable of conscious thought, let alone moral behavior, are about as altruistic as a living creature can be: they give their lives so their queen may reproduce” (2005). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy reveals:

In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in so doing, they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked (Okasha, 2003).

As we ask of all relevant features of scientific data, we ask of the phenomenon of altruism in the animal kingdom: Does it best fit the creation model or the evolution model? Evolutionists categorize altruism as a product of genetic determinism (i.e., genetics explain all behavior), while Christians believe that God instilled altruism as an instinct in animals and a psychological, moral force in humans (see Thompson, 2004, pp. 23-24; cf. Jackson, 1992).
Of course, we are ignorant as to exactly what goes on inside the heads of animals and humans. We do not expect a dolphin to answer intelligibly when we ask, “Why did you help that other creature, even when it created the potential of danger to your own health?” Animal altruism troubled Charles Darwin, who popularized evolution in the 1800s. Darwin wrote that “[n]atural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing any injury to its possessor” (1859, p. 228). As Okasha well noted, “From a Darwinian viewpoint, the existence of altruism in nature is at first sight puzzling.... Natural selection leads us to expect animals to behave in ways that increase their own chances of survival and reproduction, not those of others” (2003).
Indeed, traditional evolutionary theory has emphasized the individual, to the neglect of any social obligation. McFadden commented, “Altruism—helping others at our own expense—puzzled Charles Darwin, whose theory predicted that individuals should act selfishly to serve their self-interest. Why should wolves share their kill; or sparrows draw attention to themselves by issuing a warning call when they spot a hawk” (2004)? Major observed, “If a bird helps a breeding pair build its nest and feed its young, without breeding itself, then it would seem to be a loser in the struggle for life. While this individual is busy helping others, it is missing out on the opportunity to produce heirs of its own” (1999). How, then, do evolutionists account for altruism in animals?

EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS

Group Selection

Evolutionists have suggested that natural selection involves “group selection,” whereby a member of a group of animals would do something for the biological benefit of its entire group. In this way, evolutionists argue, the fittest group will survive, and natural selection will have met its obligation. Of course, there are severe problems with natural selection (Thompson, n.d.; Thompson and Harrub, 2003, pp. 227-270). Problems with group selection theory further illustrate the flaws in natural selection as a mode of evolution. As evolutionist Bryan Appleyard observed, “[Group selection theory—CC] makes no sense in the context of the selfish gene because all the gene can possibly see is the survival of its own particular organism” (1998, p. 112, emp. added). The selfish gene is Dawkins’ notion, reflective of Darwin, that the individual gene will do whatever it takes to ensure that the individual in which they are stored produces additional copies of the gene (1989; cf. Thompson, 2004).
Even if we were to admit that group selection occurs, however, it would not prove that genetic determinism is responsible for altruism in animals. Major explained:

[Group selection theory—CC] does not explain how the gene for altruism can survive over the long term. If an individual carrying this mutation behaves unselfishly and, as a result, leaves fewer or no offspring, then the mutation will die out. Also, the group needs to discourage cheaters—individuals that take advantage of altruists to further their own selfish interests, and thus neutralize the benefits of altruism for the species as a whole (1999).

By attempting to account for legitimate altruism by introducing a faulty hypothesis that maintains dependence on the genetically selfish individual, evolutionists have moved right back where they started.

Kin Selection

Dawkins (1989) proposed a solution to the problems with the group selection idea: “kin selection” (i.e., since close relations share genes, a gene may prompt its organism to help others who are closely related). The theory of kin selection is responsible for much of the development of sociobiological research. McFadden objected: “Altruism isn’t always restricted to kith and kin. When a female vervet monkey is attacked, non-relatives will often come to her aid. Studies show that the likelihood that a non-relative helps depends on how recently the distressed monkey groomed the helper” (2004).
Even if we were to suppose that some animal altruism occurs due to some “kin selection” mechanism, evolutionists “still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explain altruism. If, for example, I help a blind man cross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am being prompted to do this because he is a close relation and bears my genes. And the animal world is full of all sorts of elaborate forms of cooperation which extend far beyond the boundaries of mere relatedness” (Appleyard, 1998, p. 112).
Furthermore,

cheating still is possible. A mutation could arise that mimicked the identifying features of individuals that carried the gene for altruism. This introduces the need for some sort of policing strategy.... The problem now is that the difficulties have multiplied. The evolutionists sought to explain a highly complex social behavior in biological terms, and ended up having to explain other complex behaviors, such as cheating and policing (Major, 1999).

Again, if evolutionists merely repackage selfishness and call it “altruism,” they fail to explain how real altruism fits in evolutionary theory. They may insist that altruism is only apparent. But such a notion is untenable, particularly in the wake of such a generous, altruistic outpouring of support to those devastated by Katrina. Evolutionists are forced to dichotomize aspects of beings, artificially separating the biological from the psychological/moral. The fact is, we differentiate between selfish human acts and altruistic acts, because we can identify altruism when we see it. Altruism is real, and even in the light of kin selection theory, remains biologically inexplicable.

Game Theory

A more recent evolutionary explanation involves attributing even more psychological human qualities to biological features of animals that “help”: game theory. “Game theory seeks to make sense of competition by analyzing different moves in as clear a mathematical way as possible” (Appleyard, p. 111). When applied to animal altruism, game theory suggests that various organisms play an instinctive, mathematical “game” to determine what is best for the group. When some lions share a zebra corpse, for example, they are playing a sharing game that involves “subtleties of calculation and...a remarkable distillation of all the complexities in any confrontation” (p. 111). In short, game theory is the idea that organisms cooperate because it is beneficial (p. 112).
Observe that reductionist, evolutionary game theorists again have reduced a discussion of altruism to an explanation of survival tactics. In order to prove that game theory accounts for the altruism exhibited in nature, evolutionists would be forced to prove that animals are capable of solving very complex mathematical equations about which advanced college students study regularly (see “Certificate...,” 2006). Such proof is—and will be—unavailable. Furthermore, evolutionists would need to explain why, on occasion, some members of a particular “kind” of animal help members of another “kind,” which would seem to be excluded from the “game.” For example, dogs occasionally “adopt” orphaned kittens (“Mother Dog...,” 2006).
Game theory cannot explain why animals, with no prior training, occasionally appear to help humans. For example, a group of New Zealand swimmers had to depend on a group of dolphins, which formed a protective circle that kept a great white shark at bay (McFadden, 2004). Moreover, proof that all animals coexist by playing these types of “games” would fall woefully short of proving evolution and disproving the biblical creation account. The Creator endowed animals with instinctive dictates that allow them to live together.

CONCLUSION

Having demonstrated that the major evolutionary explanations of altruism fail, we reach the conclusion that evolution logically implies that altruism, as an instinctive motivation in animals, or as a psychological/moral factor in humans, is imaginary (cf. Lipe, n.d.). However, we observe altruism in nature and in the clear teaching of the Bible (John 15:13; Philippians 2:2-4). Altruism embarrasses evolution, but makes perfect sense in light of the biblical creation account.

REFERENCES

Appleyard, Bryan (1998), Brave New Worlds: Staying Human in a Genetic Future (New York: Viking).
“Certificate Program in Mathematical Modeling in Political Science and Economics,” (2006), University of Rochester, College Center for Academic Support, [On-line], URL: http://www.rochester.edu/College/CCAS/certificates/cert_mathmodel.html.
Coltrane, Scott (2001), “Marketing the Marriage ‘Solution’: Misplaced Simplicity in the Politics of Fatherhood: 2001 Presidential Address to the Pacific Sociological Association,” Sociological Perspectives, 44[4]:387-418, Winter.
Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (New York: Avanel, 1979 reprint).
Dawkins, Richard (1989), The Selfish Gene (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press), second edition.
“Hurricane Katrina One Year Later: Where Did the Money Go?” (2006), Charity Navigator, [On-line], URL: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/katrina.article/cpid/452.htm.
Jackson, Wayne (1992), “The Blind Bookwriter,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1213.
Lipe, David L. (no date), “The Foundations of Morality,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Foundations-of-Morality.pdf.
Major, Trevor (1999), “Ethics and Darwinism [Part II],” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/73.
McFadden, Johnjoe (2004), “The Kindness of Animals,” The Hindu: On-line Edition of India’s National Newspaper, [On-line], URL: http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/14/stories/2004121401511000.htm.
“Mother Dog Adopts Litter of Kittens” (2006), WNBC, [On-line], URL: http://www.wnbc.com/news/9927844/detail.html?rss=ny&psp=news#.
Okasha, Samir (2003), “Biological Altruism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [On-line], URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/.
Porter, Eduardo (2005), “Putting Charity Through the ‘What’s in It for Me?’ Test,” The New York Times, [On-line], URL: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10814FF3B540C718C DDA90994DD404482.
Rhode, Debora L. (2005), “Altruism and Hurricane Katrina: Lesson For and From the Public’s Response to Social Needs,” Stanford Center on Ethics, [On-line], URL: http://ethics.stanford.edu/newsletter/December%2005/Altruism.htm.
Thompson, Bert (no date), “Neo-Darwinism: A Look at the Alleged Genetic Mechanism of Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/NeoDarwinism.pdf.
Thompson, Bert (2004), The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition.
Thompson, Bert, and Brad Harrub (2003), Investigating Christian Evidences (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).