Sex, Death, and Creator's Displeasure

This week I want to share a few thoughts about some contemporary social issues in light of Biblical principles. Next week, I hope to finish the series on the "New Testament Conception of Law."

Human sexuality is probably the strongest natural and instinctive drive of human nature. History, biblical and secular, offers a long of examples moral and social havoc of fallen men and women. The lives of many people have been marred by the guilt, shame, and corruption of promiscuity. Many families have been destroyed by it as well. The effects of these tragedies is almost always felt by the circles of society in which the damaged people relate. Most people may not realize how these harmful situations harm society at large. As experience has been translated into justifications or coping mechanisms followed with new ideologies to further justify and normalize the evils of these moral and relational tragedies, the slow but certain effects are absolutely realized.

Secular culture guided by humanistic values and beliefs is one such ideology. Its religion of scientism and its sexual mores fill news headlines, police reports, and various professional studies. From the plague of divorce and teen pregnancies to rape, abortion, pedophilia, and gay rights agenda, the effects legitimated by psychologically latent ideology given official sanction is a great problem of our time.

Notice, all of the above is in apposition to the biblical basis of Western political freedom and rights as well as its natural law ideology. Sticking to my original goal, I refer to some biblical principles to remind us of our past and future destiny as human beings and as society.

The beginning of all existence is not Darwinian evolution or any other science, philosophy or even religion. The beginning and ending of life is God created. In Genesis 1:1, the self-evident truth is a Supreme Being created all things. Science has not and cannot prove it false because it is absolute truth. When each of us dies, what many practitioners of the medical sciences have researched, which also supports the biblical truth, is that life and death are not the only absolutes. God is. Eternal life in heaven or hell is. Jesus is the eternal propitiation for our crimes against God and His absolute moral laws in nature.

Another self-evident truth is God made humanity, male and female (Gen. 1:27). God made it a law of nature for male and female as one unity to reproduce and multiply (Gen. 1:28). This is the beginning of marriage, of family, and of society (Gen. 2:24). Any other sexual relationships like adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, or pedophilia are not only unnatural but crimes against God, society, and humanity ( Lev.18:20; 20:10; 18:22; 20:13; 18:23; 20:15). Any government who legislates otherwise is committing crimes against the same. As the apostle Paul states in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, these things are worthy of God's wrath (vv. 18, 25-32).

God's law demands the death for those types of sins. It is the same punishment God informed Adam and Eve would suffer for any transgression. The day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will die (Gen. 2:17). Evil denies this (Gen. 3:4). However, experience proves it was and still is the truth. Man was separated from his Creator. Humans began murdering each other. They began lying to each other, and doing many other evils. The result was death. Adam did not drop dead physically because death is not just the stoppage of bodily functions. Death is separation of right relationships like between spouses and families. Tragically, death is the officially sanctioned law of American society and most of the world.

Death and destruction has already come upon the world. Liberal politicians, lawmakers, NGOs, among nations and the United Nations are plannning, promoting, legislating, and funding the death of all societies around the globe. Gay rights, abortion, no-fault divorce, so-called sexual freedom, and the like are the goals of globalists today.

They are the servants of Satan and death. They oppose God and His law in nature--otherwise known as natural law--without conscience and with impunity. The fact that they push abortion as a right of women for almost any reason whatsoever is an affront to the One who created the process of life and its development. God did not create it for humans to kill and destroy life at will or mere convenience. A just God is not going to be tolerant of such blatant evil.

In fact, the secularist dogma of tolerance is the same as prevailed in Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19). God is not tolerant of moral crimes. Many blameless animals died to satisfy the punishment of God on sin. This phenomenon is a universal human practice evidenced throughout human history and all cultures where Christianity did not have a significant influence. Jesus died in order to forever satisfy God's law and its sanction for the ultimate purpose of humanity's restoration and reconciliation to their Creator. When the prevalence of crimes perpetrated around the globe prove irreparable, the end-time wrath of God will come to end unrestrained violation of God's law and the perpetual violence of corrupt humanity's sadistic and masochistic practices. As God promised Noah and all of his descendants, God will not destroy the earth with another flood (Gen. 9:9-17). However, prophets and apostles foresaw a latter day of fire and brimstone (Gen. 19; Joel 2:30-32; 2 Pet. 3:3-7).

The more I learn about the issues and how liberal lie and deceive multitudes of people and even judges, some lawmakers, and others the clearer the evidence of the approach of the end-times. For example, Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton established abortion based on deception and lies. The belief in Separation of Church and State is a belief in a liberal lie. Legal history shows Congress rejected strict separation during the framing of the First Amendment. Gay rights is another liberal legislative effort of deceit. Sexual orientation means simply homosexual behavior. No civil right, human right, natural rights, or Constitutional law has ever existed based solely on protecting bad behavior, especially behavior opposing natural law. Gay rights is another liberal act of lawlessness. That is why their secularism--the anti-Christ, anti-God, and anti-religion-ism--boldly lies about America's Christian founding and about natural law being non-existent or irrelevant to Constitutional law.

Therefore, Paul warning to the Thessalonians must be remembered in this treacherous and treasonous times. The mystery of lawlessness is already at work (2 Thes. 2:7). The one who comes will with the "deception of wickedness for those who perish" cause many to believe lies (2:9-10). Why? "Because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved." "For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took please in wickedness" (2:11-12). This has come with evolution, with liberal secularism, humanism, and now through the seemingly strong deluding influence of leaders of the gays.

New Testament Conception of Law: Contemporary problems and ancient solutions Part III

The focus of the last post was on the law in the gospels. Jesus never claimed to have abolished or negated the Law of Moses. Jesus said he came to both fulfill the law and to enable others to do the same. By doing so, he established the moral law of God and His governmental model for all time. Because his suffering and death satisfied God’s law and justice, faith in Jesus is the means by which we all may obtain God’s pardon for our sins or moral crimes against the law of God. In this, the love of God is reveal and experienced. God is not tolerant. Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection fulfilled the law. The law of faith annulled the law of sin so that everyone who believes can fulfill the requirement of the moral law. Was this the view of Paul taught in his letters? If not, what was Paul’s view of law?

Paul’s View of Law

Paul’s conception of authority is important to understanding his view of the Law. In his letters, Paul clearly outlined the order of his authority. God was the highest authority. Paul called God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Savior.[1] The authority of Jesus is almost as high as God is. Jesus is the Lord, messiah, savior, and our hope.[2] Paul’s apostleship was “according to the commandment of God our Savior and Jesus Christ, our hope.”[3] Jesus called him to be his apostle,[4] but God had ordained it. [5] Having been appointed to his apostleship and instructed by Jesus, Paul’s instructions to the followers of Christ were the commandments of the Lord Jesus.[6] They were the laws of the Jesus, Lord and Messiah. That is why he distinguished his opinions from his speaking on behalf of the Lord. His preaching and teaching was the same as Moses, the prophets, or Jesus himself.

When Jesus ascended to heaven, he created or recreated all rule and authority.[7] The office and authority of his Paul’s apostleship was one part of the new universal rule. Just as God ordained secular authorities, so were those in the kingdom of Christ. Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God.[8]

Paul defined the Law as the covenant of promise made to Abraham.[9] It encompasses the Law of Moses[10] as well as the word of the prophets.[11] The law of God was holy and good.[12] Paul even regarded the law as spiritual.[13] As we will see later, the new covenant in Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the one promised by Jeremiah.[14] As portended by Jeremiah, the law of God fulfilled because of becoming of human nature.

Paul dealt extensively with the purpose of the Law. He taught that the law was made for the lawless, not the righteous (lawful); in modern conception, it is to regulate the moral behavior of citizens, protecting law-abiding from the destructive.[15] It seems strange that he would claim it was given so that transgression of the law would increase.[16] He preached this to explain how the power sin dominated human life because of rebellion against the can’t of the law. The knowledge of sin comes by knowing the law. The principle goes back to God’s warning to Adam’s eldest son Cain. When Cain revealed jealousy of his brother Able, God told him, “Sin lies at your door; its desire is for you, but you must master or dominate it.”[17] The problem is we all have failed to master it. As Paul wrote, “we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.”[18] Therefore, “there is none righteous not even one.”[19] There may be some who are self-righteous, but none righteous before God.

The law also serves as a tutor teaching us all about our need for forgiveness.[20] The law then lead us to Jesus Christ because his death satisfies the required punishment of God’s law.[21] His resurrection is our hope of eternal life when we believe on the Lord Jesus. When anyone “confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in his or her heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved.”[22]

This concludes the definition and purpose of the Law as explained by Paul. In the next posting, Paul view on the law will be completed. Many believe Paul taught the law of the old covenant ended with Jesus. Whether this is true will be covered in the last part of this series on the New Testament Conception of Law.
_____________________________________________________

Notes:
[1] 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Col. 1:3; 1 Tim. 1:1
[2] Act. 2:36; Rom. 1:1-7; 10:9,13; Php. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 Tim. 1:1
[3] 1 Tim. 1:1
[4] Acts 9:1-19
[5] 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal.1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1
[6] 1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Thes. 4:2; Tit.1:3
[7] Col. 1:16
[8] Rom. 13:1-3
[9] Gal. 3:15
[10] Act. 13:39, 15:5, Rom. 13:8-10, Gal. 3:15; 5:14; 6:2; Eph. 6:2
[11] Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Cor. 14:21; Isa. 28:11
[12] Rom. 7:12; 1 Tim. 1:8
[13] Rom. 7:1
[14] Jer. 31:31-34; 2 Cor. 3:1-6; Gal. 4:22-31
[15] 1 Tim. 1:8-9
[16] Rom. 5:20
[17] Gen. 4:6-7
[18] Rom. 3:23
[19] Rom. 3:10
[20] Gal. 3:22-25; 4:4-5href="http:
[21] Gal. 1:3-4; 3:24
[22] Rom. 10:9-10

New Testament Conception of Law : Contemporary problems and ancient solutions Part II

The focus of the last post was on the law of love. In the liberal or secular equation, the law of love equals tolerance of moral relativity, even immorality. In both the gospels and Paul’s letters, the law of love means fulfilling the moral law of God because of the abiding love for God and for others. This kind of love is result of experiencing the redeeming and restorative love of God. According to Paul, the law of love sums up the whole Law of Moses, but how exactly did Jesus and Paul regard God’s law.

Many believe the Mosaic Law ended forever with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Following this view to its conclusion, the view of life lived by faith and love is the only law of God. Moral law somehow ended with Christ. Is this liberal conception of law represented in the gospels, teaching of Paul or John?

Jesus’ View of Law According to the Gospels

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law not abolish it. When Jesus spoke about the law, he meant Torah law. The law of Israel was the Law of Moses. This is the law God gave Israel. Jews were subject to the laws of foreign empires like those of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. As it today, liberalization of local law gave some excuse to live immoral lives. Nonetheless, the law of God was Israel’s local law. It was under Roman influence that Jesus lived and died.

Under the laws of Moses, the Jewish people were promised a life of good health and healing. It seemed that Jesus had no problem with breaking God’s laws. He healed on the Sabbath. He and disciples picked grain to eat while traveling during the Sabbath. To many Jewish leaders, these actions were crimes against the law. To Jesus, the law was being fulfilled. No human heals another. Medicine does not heal. It enables the body’s immune system to fulfill its job of healing. Otherwise, medicine kills diseased cells or effected organs surgically removed. Because only God heals, Jesus was simply following God. Eating on the Sabbath was not a sin. Because Jesus followers had no food, they picked grain to eat. So how could picking grain to satisfy hunger be a crime to God? At least that is the implication. What offended the Pharisees more than doing some work on the Sabbath was the authority Jesus claimed for allowing his followers to do so. Jesus justified it by saying his was Lord of the Sabbath.[1]

Beyond these issues, Jesus explicitly said he did come to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfill both. His position about law was made in the Sermon on the Mount, in which he said,

“Do not think I came to abolish the law or the prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever annuls one the least of these commandments, and teaches other to do the same, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”[2]

When lepers were healed, Jesus instructed them to go fulfill the requirement of the law.[3] When a disabled man was healed, Jesus told him to sin no more.[4] When Jesus forgave an adulterous woman caught in the act, he told her to sin no more.[5] It seems Jesus was being tolerant towards the adulterer, but actually, he was simply being just. The unjust Jews did not fulfill the law by bringing the man also caught in the act. The law required judgment of both adulterers. Therefore, it was only just for the women to have a second chance as well. When we consider the various acts of healing, exorcisms, and forgiveness, we witness Jesus instructing those who received mercy instead of judgment for their moral crimes to sin no more unless worse consequences occur. Jesus did not give anyone an excuse not to keep God’s moral laws. Jesus upholds the validity of God’s law. Jesus in no way suggests that he has eliminated the requirements of the law of God. His purpose was not to create antinomianism or anarchy, but his purpose was lead all to fulfill God’s law.

Jesus made another interesting statement in the Sermon on the Mount. He said,

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father…. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’”[6]

The key to understanding this statement is the word lawlessness. This means two things: (1) God does not accept people who live contrary to the moral law of God. How could people live in the kingdom of God if they will not live according to God’s laws? In Acts 2:36, Peter confirms that Jesus was made Lord of God’s kingdom. Jesus’ perfect fulfillment of God’s law does not excuse anyone from breaking it. On the contrary, followers of Jesus receive the Spirit of God in order to fulfill that law. Those who enter the kingdom do so through Jesus. When they do, they are still accountable for obeying the law of the kingdom. (2) Lawlessness also means doing work of the kingdom without fulfilling God’s will. Notice Jesus said those who do the kind of works he did was not a ticket to heaven. If self-aggrandizement was the purpose of those who healed the sick and cast of demons, the aggrandizement is their only reward. Most people can think of a charlatan who pretended to do miracles only to get rich. This is implied in Jesus’ statement. His statement also means those who do not do what the Lord wanted them to do. Beyond living out the moral law, when people disregard Jesus revealed will about doing or not doing something, for example, praying for someone in need or some other service would be to disobey the Lord, which is lawlessness. Of course, one cannot disobey what has not been clearly revealed or commanded.

Obeying a command from the Lord Jesus and keeping the moral law seems more like duty. It could seem as something motivated by fear of punishment or losing salvation. It cannot be denied that disobedience will result in God’s judgment not his blessing. The purpose of salvation is the restoration of individuals to a right relationship with their Creator and kinsman redeemer. This is an act of God’s love solely initiated by God, which is life changing. It is natural, therefore, for recipients to respond to God with thanksgiving and love. The writer of the First Epistle of John stated it best when he wrote:

“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He first loved us and sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins. If God so loved us, we ought to love one another.”[7]

The motivation to love God is the result of God’s unmerited love experienced by us. We experience this unmerited love because of the terrible sacrifice and suffering of Jesus. He bore the punish we deserve for the moral crimes we commit against the law of God. Once we have realize the full meaning of Jesus’ suffering on our behalf, our experience love God’s love become the motivation of our love toward Jesus and God the Father. This what Jesus meant when he said,

“He who has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me; and he ho loves me will be loved by my Father… and we will come to him and make our abode with him.”[8]

Nowhere in the gospels will the reader find Jesus contradicting, replacing, annulling, or negating the law of God. In addition to the law of redemption, the law of Moses is God’s model of government, of constitutional law, and of a common law. Jesus did not negate that law. The death and resurrection of Jesus satisfied the justice required by God’s law concerning our moral crimes. Consequently, the sacrificial laws are no longer valid for redemption. "By the works of the law no one will be saved."[9] Salvation is by faith alone in Jesus. Without submitting to his Lordship, salvation is not complete. The love of husbands and wives and their mutual submission to each other makes a marriage relationship. In every marriage, one of the spouses leads and the other follows in most things. This is true in most covenant agreements as well. In the kingdom of God, the love between the Lord and us is a mutual one. However, the authority of the covenant belongs to Jesus. We follow and he leads, and God is pleased.

In the next post, Paul’s view of law will be explored.

Notes:
[1] Matthew 12:1-14
[2] Matthew 5:17-19 NASB
[3] Luke 5: 12-15; 17:11-14
[4] John 5:1-17
[5] John 8:1-11
[6] Matthew 7:21-23
[7] 1 John 4:10-11 NASB
[8] John 14:21,23d NASB
[9] Galatians. 2:16

New Testament Conception of Law : Contemporary problems and ancient solutions, Part I

The underlying problem in American culture is the law. The underlying issue of the cultural war is not liberal party politics versus conservative party politics; the most fundamental issue is the rule of law. The legal and cultural battles concerning separation of church and state, abortion, and gay rights are battles over the rule of law. Liberals violate Constitutional law while conservatives defend it. At least that is what recent legal scholarship demonstrates.¹

Just as the rule of law established though constitutions protects American social and political rights, the rule of law and Constitutional law is rooted in biblical conception of law. During the colonial era, some Christians, however, held a belief called antinomianism. It is “the belief that Christians are not bound by established moral laws, but should rely on faith and divine grace for salvation.”² Antinomianism was rooted in a peculiar interpretation of the gospels and especially the letters of Paul. The ramifications of such a doctrine lend itself to social and political anarchy, or its modern conceptualization by the “hippie” generation as doing your own thing. In academic circles, it is called post-modernism, which is actually difficult to define simply. Concerning morality, post-modernism rejects Western moral tradition. It was replaced by moral relativism—no moral absolutes, only what is right to each person or collective.³ The post-modern conception of morality is a return to antinomianism, except its version encompasses current politics, the ideal of the rule of law by written constitutions, and more importantly the Christian view of law.

The rebirth of the post-modern form of antinomianism is evidenced by statements of contemporary religious and political leaders who use the New Testament as justification for social policy and law. The often-heard message of social justice based on a theology of love is usually synonymous with the liberal view of tolerance. A morally tolerant law of love replaces all other conceptions of law upheld by both Jesus and the apostles.

It is readily admitted that the law of love is central to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Jesus claimed the greatest commandment of God was to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength as well as to love your neighbor as your self.⁴ Notice that Jesus upholds the revealed law of God. Jesus also commanded his followers to love each other as He had loved them.⁵ As the author of the first letter of John writes, this new commandment is actually the old law applied.⁶ The law referred to is found in both Deuteronomy chapter 6 and the 19th chapter of Leviticus.⁷ The apostle Paul takes the law of love further in many of his letters. For Paul, love is the summation of all of the law of God.⁸ He elaborates on the law of love in 1 Corinthians 13, in which he writes,

“Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things. Love never fails….”⁹

Did Paul expect social laws, which are supposed to protect individuals from murderers, rapists, thieves, and the like, would conform to his definition of love? To make such a claim is more than incredible; it makes very bad exegesis and theology subservient to crime. Paul is not dictating legal codes for society, but a definition of brotherly love for followers of Jesus. His definition may be an extended application God’s agape love, but it in no way contradicts God judgment of sinners who reject His love through Jesus. More succinctly, God will offer no tolerance, grace, love, or mercy to those who live in rebellion to his moral laws. In the final analysis, the message of the last book of the New Testament, Revelation, is a restatement of the same old message of God. God will serve up capital punishment forever to those who live against His moral law.¹⁰ God does not tolerate moral crimes. Jesus had to suffer and die in order for God’s justice to be satisfied. God’s tolerance only exists towards moral criminals to the extent of atoning Jesus death, individual acceptance of the terms of forgiveness, and subsequent loyalty to Jesus, God, and the moral law. That is why Paul wrote,

“If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe with your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”¹¹

If your life ends without Jesus being the ruling Lord of your life, you will have no acceptance by God, no place in the kingdom of His son, no salvation from God’s eternal judgment, and no escape of the torments of hell’s justice.

It is true that the law of love is the central tenet of the kingdom of God, but not as defined according post-modern or liberal ideologies.

So then, what is the biblical conception of law according to the gospels and the writings of Paul? This will be answered in next week’s posting.

Notes:

1. Philip Hamburger, The Separation of Church and State(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002).
2. Encarta Dictionary.
3. http://www.angelfire.com/indie/mayasuraya/writing/postmodernism.htm.
4. Mark 12:28-34.
5. John 13:34-35.
6. 1 John 2:7-11.
7. Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18.
8. Romans 13:8-10.
9. vv. 4-8.
10. Revelation 1:1-3; 9:20-21; 11:17-18; 16:1-12; 19:20-21; 20:12-15; 21:5-8, 14-15.
11. Romans 10:9-10.

The Virgin Birth of Jesus: Is it a Reasonable Belief? ( Part I )

Christians believe Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. The two gospels explicitly proclaiming the virgin birth of Jesus is Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-45. The most succinct statement of the Christian confession is the Apostle’s Creed, which is the oldest version of Christian confession. The Apostle's Creed is as follows:

I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; the life everlasting. (see article by James Orr, “The Apostle’s Creed,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol. 1, at www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html )

The Apostle’s Creed originates in apostolic times and was a baptismal formula. As such, new followers of Christ confessed this creed to confirm their faith in the essential message of the gospels and of the church. The Apostle’s Creed is the foundation of all other confessions including the Nicene, Chalcedon, Westminster, and other creeds. It is venerated by the Roman Catholic Church and by most Protestant Churches.

The clause of importance here is “Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.” Liberal scholars and their followers deny the possibility of the virgin birth. Because other ancient religions claimed their saviors were virgin born or otherwise supernaturally born, liberals believe the early church adopted the myth probably to make the gospel more attractive to superstitious ancient people. This skeptical view might be true. However, what is often behind liberal skepticism is their outright rejection of the supernatural. Liberals tend to deny all of the miracles mentioned in the Bible, not just the virgin birth. The Christian confession would be meaningless if the supernatural was not an experienced reality. As the Apostle Paul said, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14) The faith was not an exercise in philosophy or superstition to allay fear of death. Faith is (was) based on seeing, hearing, feeling the resurrection of Jesus and of others. Therefore, healing and resurrection from the dead was an experienced reality during the apostolic era that continued well beyond the apostles’ witness of Jesus’ resurrection and heavenly ascent. In fact, miraculous healings and resurrections continue in our own time.

The virgin birth of Jesus cannot be proved, nor can it be disproved either. An appropriate question requiring a logical answer is whether it is reasonable to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Merely dismissing the possibility because one does not believe in miracles or the supernatural is as meaningless as blindly confessing the virgin birth is true. To answer the question, one must consider whether any historical evidence exists that would support or refute the possibility of virgin birth. Is there any scientific evidence for virgin birth? If so, does the evidence prove the virgin birth? In addition, a search for evidence to support the reasonableness of Jesus’ virgin birth must consider any rational argument that might exist.

Skeptics readily supply a logical argument. However, from the outset, the argument by David Hume against testimonials for miracles must be discarded because medical testing confirms healing miracles based on religious faith do occur. We can also eliminate arguments against resurrection because many have occurred. More importantly, they are being medically and empirical verified. Consequently, by eliminating those two arguments that confirm the reality of God and the supernatural, much time will be saved in order to focus on the primary argument: is belief in the virgin birth of Jesus a reasonable belief?

In a future posting, I will begin to present an answer. Until then, a few observations from my past studies may be instructive. A number of years ago, I began searching for proof of the virgin birth of Jesus. I reviewed medical and scientific research on oocytology, regenerative medicine, genetics, reproductive behavior of animals and insects, neurology, paranormal science, and the like. Based on my less than fallible memory, I discovered research claiming virgin births do occur in nature. Men can have female type (XX) chromosomes of the 23rd pair just as women can have male type (xy) 23rd chromosomes. Women have a biological residue of male hormones that could be used in imprinting the genetic material of an egg. Imprinting is a hormonal process by which certain genes are turned on and off during various stages of cell development. These were some of my findings.

When considering people with terminal cancer and 6 month to live, my theory about people who have been miraculously healed because of religious faith is this: God answered their faith and prayers for deliverance. They were healed because the master geneticist forced aberrant cells to conform to His plan. The genetic information of cancer cells was changed to conform to normal cells. God spoke His word so that from quantum particles to individual genes all material aligned with God’s word. As it were, the blueprint of cancer cells was replaced by the blueprint of normal cells.

That is one reasonable possibility. It also gives an idea how I will approach my answer to the question: is the virgin birth of Jesus a reasonable belief?

The Unconstitutionality of No-Fault Marriage—Why Family Day is Needed

President Bush declared the 24th of September as Family Day. In his September 20, 2007 proclamation, President Bush said the following:

“Families are the cornerstone of our Nation. On Family Day, we underscore our dedication to strengthening America's families and recognize the importance that the bonds between parents and children hold for the future of our country.

“Parents and family members are the first and most important influence in a child's life. Families offer a stable and nurturing environment by providing love, guidance, support, and comfort. They help young people gain the skills they need to succeed in life and the courage and drive to realize their dreams. By caring for and spending time with their children, parents instill lifelong values and help build a better America.

“My Administration is committed to supporting American families. We are working with faith-based and community organizations to promote healthy marriages, responsible fatherhood, and positive youth development. When children are connected to family, community, school, and places of worship, they are more likely to make good choices and reach their full potential.

“Families help prepare children for the opportunities and challenges of the 21st century by encouraging them and insisting on high standards. Strong, loving families help young Americans grow into successful adults and build a Nation shining with optimism.

“NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 24, 2007, as Family Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day by engaging in activities that strengthen the bonds between parents and children.”

While President Bush calls on the nation to honor traditional families, Marie MacFarlane, founder of Mary's Advocates fights for her children. MacFarlane's children were removed from her custody when she refused to send her children to public schools. Her children had been home-schooled until the no-fault divorce. Being a faithful Catholic, both her wedding vows and her children's education conformed to the Church’s cannon law. Ohio's no-fault laws enabled her husband to walk away from the responsibilities to their marriage and obligations to their children without legal consequence. As a result, she is deprived of economic resources and her children, according to Catholic journalist Jay McNally.

In this complicated case, three issues are being decided that will affect many Americans like Marie MacFarlane. One of those issues is whether no-fault marriage is constitutional. A second issue is whether the state has the right to disregard religious vows made as part of a marriage contract. A third issue is whether separation of church and state applies to religious marriage contracts.

Bill Bailey, associate professor of Family Sciences at the University of Arkansas, had the audacity to claim that the religious vows agreed upon in MacFarlane's marriage contract should be null and void because of Separation of Church and State. The problem with this view is that Separation is an unconstitutional belief with no legitimate legal status. This is what the historical development of Church-State Separation clearly demonstrates, according to legal scholar Philip Hamburger. The fact that 19th century liberals attempted several times to pass a constitutional amendment that would have redefined religious freedom in terms of an absolute wall of separation in both federal and state constitutions proves separation is not, not ever has been, the stipulated meaning of the First Amendment. Besides this fact, Stephen J. Safranek, pro bono attorney for Marie and founder of TrueMarriage.net, explains how prior to no-fault marriage law government acknowledged and upheld church authority over marriage contracts. This union of church and state dates back to colonial era.

No fault marriage may be law, but when it negates free exercise of religious beliefs, negates nuptial contract agreements whether based on church rules or not, and negates relational responsibilities such as paying alimony, then no-fault marriage law must be regarded as unconstitutional and illegal.
____________________

1. Philip Hamburger. The Separation of Church and State. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press, 2002. When he wrote this book, Hamburger was the John P. Wilson Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, where he was the Director of the Bigelow Program and the Legal History Program. He now is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia University.

Life Issues and Creator Rights

Modern debate about abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia (remember, Terri Schiavo?) are issues concerning life. They encompass the life of a mother, the life of a child, the beginning of life at its most rudimentary biological stages, and the life of the disabled . Many believe medical practitioners are doing a good service to people troubled, threatened, or suffering. They view the issues as helping preserve a life that already is. When suffering becomes unbearable, they see the right to die as a merciful act. As long as the person has expressed their will, the right to die with dignity should be considered a good thing.

Opponents approach the same issues from the right to life and from the perspective of future consequences. The potential consequences are not merely about life after death or heaven and hell. Right-to-life advocates also consider the consequences for society in general. They see the immense value of life being diminished because of abortions that are often not real life threatening situations. The demand for perpetual creation and use of embryonic stem cells for potential cures while discounting, if not ignoring, the tremendous potential of other pluripotent stem cell sources further degrades regard for human life. Then, right-to-life advocates rightly regard these issues in light of the constitutionally guaranteed right to life.
No such right is guaranteed for death. The obvious reason is that death is a human certainty, but abuses of individual lives have been many throughout human history.

The biblical commandment "thou shall not kill" may used by advocates of life, but one party whose valid concern has not yet been heard. This party has more right to be heard than all other parties involved in the debate. That party is the Creator.

For Americans, the Creator's perspective is legally valid. As the Declaration states, it was the Creator who imbued nature with the right to life. Because life is not the work of science, government, or individuals, a long pause is necessary to consider what right does any one have to determine who lives or who does not. Abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia are all arbitrary determinations of who lives and who does not. Whether at the point of conception, at the blastocyte, embryonic, fetus, childhood, youth, adult, or elderly stage is all one continuum of human development. The Creator made it human life that way. Because human have learned how life develops does not give anyone a right to end life without just cause; otherwise, it must be considered murder in the sight of the Creator.

"Thou shall not kill" is a universal law evident in almost all cultures and societies. It means not to kill without a just cause. . Self-defense is a legitimate reason. The same is true of government executing a murder; it is a defense of a citizenry. Therefore, killing a human life at any stage without a just cause is murder.

It is also robbery. Death robs others of beneficial relations. Families, friends, associates, society, and even God are parties rob of companionship, productive activity, economic benefits, and other useful purposes when a life ends.

More important are the consequences resulting from killing and dying. If a person murders another and both are not morally right with God, they will both suffer eternal spiritual consequences. Heaven and hell are places where life and death continues. Because life and death are both relational states of being, all wrongful separations are forms of death including divorce. Ultimately, the punishment of hell is the eternal separation or alienation from God and loved ones. Heaven is the opposite. It is the continuation of beneficial relationships with God, loved ones, and others.

In the final analysis, abortion may be a necessary evil when actual life-and-death circumstances exist. Stem cell research should be encouraged and funded, but embryonic stem cells should be the very last source. It is hard to justify using live embryos when other types of stem cells are available and have resulted in actual cures not potential ones. In light of eternal justice in the Creator's world, the argument of sacrificing an unformed life for the potential end to suffering of others is not justifiable. It is not justifiable because a life sacrificed for others has already occurred. Jesus died so that human can have eternal life. His sacrifice encompasses realized promises of abundance and healing. Jesus is the means to divine healing. This is another reason why euthanasia is not justifiable in most cases. Because God is more than able to end a life suffering the pain and misery of disease, only euthanasia--if it can be called that--of non-responsive patients on life support could possibly be justified.

The issue comes down to whether society will continue on the path of rejecting God and defying the natural order. The ultimate decision is whether it is worth the risk of facing the judgment of God and an eternity of alienation and suffering.

What deniers cannot prove is that no God exists nor that an afterlife does not await all people. Science cannot provide any evidence to the contrary. Medical science has provided corroborating evidence of God's existence evidenced by healing of terminal illnesses and a great many testimonies to medical examiners of experiences of life while people were clinically dead.