- (2 Cor 4:3,4) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.

- (Eph 4:17,18) 17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you from now on walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

The Bible also shows how the wisdom of this world is foolish and how Paul warned against false information passing by the name of knowledge. It is precisely atheistic theories of world and life birth that I consider to be such misinformation.

- (1 Cor 1:19,20) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

- (1 Tim 6:20,21) 20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

I can also justify my views on the spiritual blindness that Paul wrote about. I will cite a few examples of how atheistic views are contrary to common sense and also contrary to real science. I will start with the Big Bang, which is usually mentioned as the standard explanation for the beginning of the universe.

       •

Big Bang-theory is the notion that it all started in a small dot whose volume was the size of a pinhead. In his book Big Bang, Joseph Silk explained this (bold added):

All material that we know to be in billions of galaxies, was compressed to a pinhead-sized point. Our own visible Milky Way was smaller than an atom in it.

This thing and its rationality can be thought of. For example, if we look at the above drawing, it can be used as an example of an assumed initial state. For atheistic scientists seriously believe that it all started with such a small point or even a smaller space.

    However, can such a small space become the present universe? If this pinhead-sized space becomes just one meter high stone, it can be considered a great miracle. However, the same small dot is also said to have become millions of galaxies, hundreds of millions of stars, the earth and its moon, flying and chirping birds, big cliffs, talking and thinking people, tall trees with leaves, jumping kangaroos, elephants, fish and the sea around them and good tasty blueberries and bananas.

   A good reader, take the pin on your hand and think about this idea seriously! I argue that such an idea makes no sense. It is impossible that all the present complex and big things would have in themselves appeared from an empty space or a space smaller than a pinhead. This theory is against common sense and against real science.

    Many scientists have also taken a stand on the Big Bang. They see that it is completely contrary to the evidence and common sense, as it is:

There has been remarkably little discussion of whether or not the big bang hypothesis is correct... many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelist H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)

As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)

New data differs enough from the theory’s prediction to destroy the Big Bang-cosmology (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, 92 New Scientist 521, 522-23 / 1981)

Physicist Eric Lerner: ”Big Bang is merely an interesting tale, which is maintained for a certain reason” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991).

David Berlinski: ”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)

Did hydrogen and helium gas become human? One assumption is that in the beginning there was only hydrogen and helium gas in the wake of the Big Bang. In fact, it has formed all the things we perceive today. This is assumed in this atheistic explanation.

   Next, a simple question. If the universe consisted of hydrogen, how did the hydrogen change to the fish and sea around them, rocks, birds, people, flowers, trees, butterflies, lions, strawberries, and all the specialties of nature? Have scientists ever proven that hydrogen or helium can spontaneously turn into complex life forms? Does hydrogen behave in the same way today, ie has hydrogen given birth to man and all other life forms? Hydrogen and helium balls floating in the air have also been made, but have they become a life that could multiply on its own, move, eat, and feel emotions? Or is it not a fact that such is not observed? Instead, it is known that substances can at most be converted to solids, liquids or gases with changes in temperature. No forms of life are born through it. This is real science and practical observation.  

   I will not discuss more these scientific missteps that are repeatedly brought up in the media here. I have written about them in other articles. The previous examples only showed how one can go astray in the field of science. First, atheist scientists make mistakes, and the media repeats their false views. This is a pattern that has repeated itself decade after decade.

 2. Missteps in the area of morality

Spiritual blindness - media defendes killing and abuse of children. It was stated above how there are no grounds for believing in the birth of the universe and life by itself, nor in the inheritance of species from the same primordial cell, nor in the presence of life on Earth for millions of years. These things are easy to disprove because they are against real science and evidence. People believe these things because of their spiritual blindness, because they have been deceived by the devil. They believe they are scientific, but are actually deceived by the devil's lies.

     How does spiritual blindness affect morality? One indication of this is that society accepts things that are clearly harmful and against God's will. Many then immediately think of something like Nazi Germany, but they don't see the obvious evil in modern times. Here are some examples:

Tolerant people support child murders

- (Mark 10:19) You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother. 

Narrative: Once upon a time there were two groups. Both groups spoke for human rights and love. Both of these groups also agreed that 10-year-olds were real children who should not be killed. The groups were very unanimous on this issue.

    Instead, the difference between the two groups appeared in their attitude towards 5-year-olds. Group 1 considered them as equal people to 10-year-old children. The members of Group 2, on the other hand, thought that the 5-year-olds were not real children but some kind of lumps of tissue. Therefore, their lives could be ended if the parents so desired.

  How does this relate to the topic being addressed? In short, it is precisely the same kind of issue that is at stake in abortion. All journalists and other people generally consider a child outside the womb to be a real person, and say that children’s rights should be defended. However, when it comes to smaller and younger children inside the womb, they claim else. They say it is no longer a human being, but a lump of tissue or part of the mother's body. However, it must be taken into account that a child in the womb is a different matter from his/her mother and has the same body members as e.g. 10 year old or 5 year old children have; i.e. head, eyes, nose, mouth, hands, feet etc. A person who has done many abortions says:

You can't have an abortion with your eyes closed. You have to make sure that everything comes out of the womb and calculate that there will be enough arms and legs, chest and brain. Then when the patient wakes up from anesthesia and asks if it was a girl or a boy, the limit of my endurance has been reached and that's when I usually walk away. - If I do a procedure where I clearly kill a living being, I think it's nonsense to talk about destroying a budding life. It is killing, and I experience it as killing.”(10)

From here it is good to move to tolerance. That is, many journalists often present themselves as tolerant, progressive and moderate. However, it fails in this one issue, i.e. they support killing children. They are comfortable with the fact that unwanted children can be killed. They consider it a parents' human right that a child can be killed in the mother's womb.

    However, one may ask if this is any different compared to how Hitler killed people in the gas chambers or how the Canaanites burned their children in the fire that raised the wrath of God (Ps. 106: 37,38: Yes, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to Devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the Idols of Canaan…)? The only way to deny this is to deny that the child in the womb is a real person, as the following quote shows.

If it is so that a developing fetus is morally equivalent to a child, then abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. Only a few think that the government should let parents decide on their own, whether they want to be responsible for killing their child… Those, who are willing to defend women’s right to abortion, should make a statement on the argument that a developing fetus is equivalent to a human being, and then try to demonstrate, why the argument is wrong. It is not enough to say that the law should be neutral when it comes to moral and religious questions. Defending the right to abortion is equally as unneutral as demanding to ban it. Both parties await for an answer for this moral and religious dispute, which lies in the background. (11)

Tolerant people and children

- (Mark 10:19) You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother. 

- (1 Cor 7:2) 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Above we discussed abortion, which can be considered murder, because it clearly ends the life of a developing child. The fact that it is a child is a scientific and biological fact that cannot be denied. This was admitted in a recent study that asked 5,577 biologists around the world when life began. 96 percent of them said it starts at conception (Erelt, S., Survey asked, 5,577 biologists when human life begins. 96% said conception; lifenews.com, 11 july 2019). Similarly, in the declaration of the World Medical Association in Geneva in 1948, when the unethical actions of Nazi doctors had been revealed, it was stated that human life begins at conception: "I hold human life in the highest esteem since conception, and I do not use my medical skills against the laws of humanity, even under threat."

    What about other developments in society? In modern times, many journalists and "modern" people arrogantly reject the Christian faith. They say that we are now living in the 21st century and have progressed morally from what previous generations were. They think that the current generation is morally wiser than, for example, our grandparents were. It manifests itself especially in relation to sexuality, where the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in these areas are ignored in modern times. So now divorce, cohabitation, premarital sex and homosexuality are viewed more and more positively. Before these things were considered wrong, now right.

    But has society progressed morally, as many who reject the Christian faith think? So if progress has been made, it should have been made in all areas. However, the following news shows that people's behavior towards each other has worsened, and the sickness of children and young people has increased. The direction of development is clearly negative, which also results in a huge increase in society's expenses:

Almost a billion euros will soon be used in institutional care for children and youth

Children's problems have escalated dramatically since the early 1990s

   ...The institutional care of one child can cost up to EUR 100,000 per year while proactive supporting measures in outpatient care could be offered with a couple of thousand euros. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 31 October 2010)

“Violence among children is becoming more common …Aggressiveness of small children has increased in Finland (ESS 20.11.2013)

Youth referrals almost doubled

Psychiatry: The mental health problems of young people have increased in recent years across the country. In Päijät-Häme, the number of referrals of young psychiatry increased by 40 per cent per year. (ESS, 30.5.2017)

Young people's minds faltering. Mental health: Referrals to specialised medical care in youth psychiatry have increased dramatically... (ESS, 25.9.2018)

… As a professional of healt care, I bring to your attention the behavior of patients. When I was on call in the central hospital in the emergency room in 1974, it didn’t even come to mind that a patient would be violent or make threats. Today it occurs continuosly in the emergency room. They must have learned it from somewhere. So what happens, when no one (from Finnish people) doesn’t want to serve – or teach?

   With the loss of discipline, we have also lost civilized behavior. Restoration of discipline is simple, if you will. The will seems to be directed towards adapting to the consequences of indiscipline.

   More resources, more resources, more debt. Well, that is what the undisciplined policymakers will do.

Jyrki Joensuu, a specialist doctor in general medicine and psychiatry, Lahti (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 17.10.2016 / Lukijalta [Etelä-Suomen sanomat 17.10.2016 / from the reader])

Violence experienced by municipal employees has increased

The job barometer of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy (TEM) shows that violence experienced by municipal employees and the threat of it have increased drastically in less than ten years. (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 15.2.2017)

Increased hate speeches disturb people’s ordinary life

Hate seminar: Muslim women must avoid going out. “Any one of the well-dressed Finnish people can spit in your face.”

…   "The atmosphere has changed, and hate speech has increased a lot over the past five years," said Habiba Ali, projector coordinator from the Foreign Aid of the Church. She came to Finland from Somalia at the age of six.

   She used to know, who are the people to be wary of in public areas: skinheads and drunks. Now any one of the well-dressed Finns might spit on her… (Etelä Suomen Sanomat 30.11.2016)

A father hits his child and a son hits his mother more and more often. Violence of parents towards children has more than doubled in ten years. (ESS 3.10.2019)

The heading of the front page:

School: ESS poll reveals, teachers have subjected to violence, vandalism, threats and parents’ rage

The poll that the teachers took part in:

How do you think the behavior of students has changed over the last few years?

2,6% it has gotten better

23,1% it has stayed the same

74,4% it has gotten worse

The poll of OAJ: Students are the worst bullies to teachers in the whole country

according to the poll 50% of elementary school teachers have experienced bullying over the last year. (ESS, 23.10.2016)

Intoxicants take younger and younger to institutions. The number of notifications and the cost of institutional care have increased enormously. (ESS 7.11.2019)

Divorce is costly for many

Economist Pasi Sorjonen of Nordea Bank wonders why the financial impact of divorces is not discussed much even though divorces are very common and the financial impact caused by a divorce can be great for the people involved.

   A study by Nordea Bank suggests that a divorce can lower the living standard of a family even more than unemployment. It is a very extensive social phenomenon: almost half of marriages now end in divorce.

   "Divorces are very costly to the society," says Executive Director Heljä Sairisalo of the Finnish single-parent family association. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 25 January 2011)

The rate of giving allowances is accelerating in Finland… Housing allowance is being paid at a more and more rapid rate. In November Kela paid public housing allowances for over 93 million euros, when the same amount last year in November was a little under 87 million euros and in the year before that it was 65 million euros. The total sum of the money that goes into public housing allowances has doubled in the 21^th century.. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat 8.1.2017)

Nausea in children, as well as people's bad behavior, has therefore increased all the time. In addition, society's social costs have grown enormously, as the previous news showed.

   But what is the reason for the increase in child nausea and misbehavior?

    I am convinced that the cause is abandoning of God and Christian values, which began in the 1960s. The following couple of facts show the direction of development:

• Still in the 1950s, those couples who lived together without marriage and commitment were considered wolf couples. In addition, only 5% of children (in Finland) were born out of wedlock as late as the late 1960s. This shows how the Christian teaching on marriage and its permanence was respected during the time of our grandparents and parents. It also benefited children who were allowed to grow up in intact families.

   Then the sexual revolution began in the late 1960s. It emphasized, not the amount of sex, but that one can have sexual intercourse without commitment and marriage. This was the first aggravation for the children, as the children could be born in a situation where both parents were not present at home.

   The second deterioration occurred in 1987, when divorce in Finland was made easier. It no longer required the consent of both spouses, but either spouse alone could apply for the divorce and enforce it. Thus, the result was a drastic increase in the number of divorces, and most of the divorces concerned marriages where there were no serious problems.

   The following quote is related to the topic. It describes how development started more than 50 years ago. In his book (Avoliitto, avioliitto, perhe, p. 12-14), Matti Joensuu, who worked in family counseling, described how people who suggested that it is right to have sex without commitment and marriage came to the fore. At the same time, free abortion was called for and there was talk of homosexuality, so the seeds for current development were sown then. Now we get to reap the harvest of what these people accomplished. They were considered by the media as some kind of hero, so the media has had a big impact on the break-up of families, the increase in child nausea, and the increase in the cost to society (bold added):

I was away from my homeland for three years, the years 1965 to 1968. When I returned in the autumn of 1968, I was very surprised at the change that had taken place in the atmosphere of public conversation. This concerned both the tone of conversation and also the framing of questions.

   (...) In the student world, those who demanded justification of sexual relationships were the ones blowing their trombones loudly. They insisted, for instance, that boys and girls should be allowed to live together in university dormitories even though they were not married. It seemed that the Teen League had been taken over by new leaders who proclaimed not only socialism and school democracy, but also the idea of free sexual relations. All in all, what was new was that reference groups had formed that spoke much more openly about gender issues than had previously been customary in public, accusing society and the Church of applying double standards.

    The tone of the conversation was to a large extent ethical. Morality was considered evil. It was reproached. At the same time, however, new morality was proclaimed, often in a very moralistic and intolerant manner. Whereas in the past there was talk of understanding the sexual behaviour of young people, some groups declared now that it is right to have casual sexual relations. The institution of marriage and real genuine love were even contrasted.  Couples living unlegalized cohabitation were interviewed in public as some kind of heroes of a new morality who dared to stand up against the morality of a degenerate bourgeois society. Similarly, homosexuals were interviewed and free abortion was called for.

The following quotes show how important it is to have both parents in the family. The situation was still like this at the end of the 1960s, when only 5% of children were born out of wedlock (in 1990, the number was around 25%), but now the number is over 50%, meaning that the parents are not properly committed to each other. More and more children are growing up in single-parent families, which in some regions is the most common form of family. Especially the father is absent from the family. Fertilization treatments for single women or female couples are also a new trend. This separates the child from his own father from the beginning of life, which can be considered very harmful for children, especially boys.

    So the following quotes show how important it is to have both parents in the family. The first quote tells about children who have difficulties in school. However, the reason is most often that the father is absent from the family:

When I was speaking at a certain men's camp in Hume Lake in California, I mentioned that the average father spends only three minutes of quality time with his child a day. After the meeting, one man questioned my information.

    He scolded, "You preachers only say things. According to the latest research, the average father doesn't spend even three minutes daily with his children, but 35 seconds."

   I believe him because he worked as a school inspector in central California. Actually, he gave me another startling statistic.

   In a certain school district in California there were 483 students in special education. None of those students had a father at home.

   In a certain area on the outskirts of Seattle, 61% of children live without a father.

   The absence of a father is a curse nowadays. (12) 

If we were asked to design a system to ensure all children’s basic needs are being taken care of, we would probably end up somewhere, what is similar to the ideal of having two parents. In theory, this kind of plan does not only ensure that the children get two adult’s time and resources, it also provides a controlling and balancing system, which promotes high-class parenthood. Both parent’s biological relationship with the child increases the probability that the parents are able to identify themselves with the child and are ready to make sacrifices for the child. It also decreases the probability of the parents exploiting the child. (13)

“Modern” people defend the abuse of children and young people. It was noted above how journalists and "progressive" people accept the murder of children and have favored the kind of sexual behavior that has actually been adult selfishness towards a child. One of the consequences is the increased costs to society and the increase in child nausea. The trend has been getting worse in this area.

   One of the trends of today is also favoring homosexuality. It appears repeatedly in the media.

   But what is the reason for this current trend? When trying to understand why many in today’s society advocate homosexual behavior, the main reason is certainly that many see the homosexual tendency as an innate trait, just like skin color. It is thought that if it is a congenital trait such as skin color or left-handedness, is it not right then to defend a homosexual lifestyle and people who have such a trait? Isn’t it right to support people in their sexual choices?

   Many representatives of the Christian gay movement have also invoked to the notion that homosexuality is inborn. Liisa Tuovinen, the director of the Yhteys-movement, presented this general perception in a TV discussion as early as 2002:

After all, Paul has no concept of homosexuality, which is such an innate human characteristic that it cannot be changed. (14)

But what is the truth of the matter? Many homosexuals themselves deny the idea of inborn feature. Some may argue that it's innate, but many admit that same-sex sexual seduction and circumstances played a role in the birth of their tendencies. These were common concepts also in psychology a few decades ago. Here are quotes from interviews with homosexuals (emphasis added later):

Ole does not believe, however, that there is some kind of a "homosexual gene". He believes that the causes of homosexual feelings are more complex, and he mentions, for instance, that he knows many pairs of identical twins of which only one of the pair is homosexual.

   Ole believes that many factors contributed to his behaviour, such as his complex and poor relationship with his father when he was a child.

   Ole does not hold back when telling about his relationship with his father as a child.  He felt that his father was never there and he feared his father. The father sometimes had a raging fit, and Ole felt a few times that his father intentionally humiliated him in public. Ole says bluntly that he hated his father. (15)

Harri is interested in the discussion about homosexuality in the media and studies about homosexuality. He is convinced that homosexuality has very little to do with congenital factors. He bases this view on, for instance, the fact that it is often easy to find out why people have homosexual inclinations. They have usually been subjected to sexual violence or have a difficult relationship with their parents or peers.

   "This has convinced me that it is not first and foremost about genes. However, I don't think that it is impossible for some people to have some genes that make them more susceptible to homosexual inclinations," Harri says. (16)

In her case, Tepi believes that homosexuality is due to the fact that she has some kind of emotional deficit that she is trying to fill. Tepi says she was afraid of her father as a child and still has "such a fear of men". Tepi says she is looking for a mother among women. Although Tepi thinks about the reasons for her lesbianism, she also says about her crush on women: "As it has gone kind of shockingly naturally, I've sometimes really wondered how it can go that way." On the other hand, she believes that there is a reason for this, too.

   Tepi does not believe that homosexuality is due to genes or that a person can be gay or lesbian from birth. In her opinion, a person grows up gay or lesbian, even without any special disorders. (17)

Of course, I, like many gay people, wonder where homosexuality comes from. I believe that a child's personality is formed during the first three years of life, including sexually. This is influenced by both the environment and human biology. I do not believe at all that homosexuality is hereditary. For some of my relatives, my homosexuality is hard precisely because they fear its heritability. (18)

Bill Hybels: I read an interesting study by an expert: it was a survey to find out how many actively homosexual people believed they were born that way. Eighty-five percent of the interviewees were of the opinion that their homosexuality was a learned way of behaving caused by destructive influence early on in their home and enticement by another person.

   Nowadays, my first question when meeting with a homosexual is usually, “Who gave you the inspiration for it?” All of them can answer me. I will ask then, “What would have happened to you and your sexuality if you hadn’t met your uncle, or if your cousin had not come into your life? Or without your stepfather? What do you think would have happened?” This is when the bells start to toll. They say, “Maybe, maybe, maybe.” (19)

Dear reader of the message! If homosexuality is not an innate trait, then what is it? That was evident from the last quote. It referred to how most homosexuals felt that the devastating impact of the home and the seduction of another person were the biggest reasons. Thus, there is often in backround mental violence, sexual exploitation and the absence of a father or mother (The absence of father and mother is indicated by an extensive study. It found that 27% of lesbians and 2% of heterosexual women had experienced the loss of a mother before the age of 10. The ratio is thus more than ten times higher). All of these point to the effect of conditions and the human response to them.

   So what does the previous one mean? When many defend homosexual behavior and are on Pride-marches, they are actually supporting the fact that children and young people have been treated bad or even sexually exploited. Isn't that the case? That is, if it is not a congenital trait but a traumatic experience, these people indirectly give their support to human abuse. Surely no one directly supports the abuse of children and young people, but indirectly they do support it when flagging for a homosexual lifestyle.

   Thus, a person’s past can affect his or her current attitudes and lives, as it manifests in the lives of homosexuals. It has also been found that criminals, prostitutes or, for example, alcoholics often have a broken background and growing conditions. They may come from difficult circumstances, but it is not the circumstances themselves that cause their behavior, but their own choices and how they react to the past. Thus, no one should justify their misconduct by past circumstances. Jesus' teaching to all of us is, "...except you repent, you shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13: 3). This applies to  practitioners of homosexuality, prostitutes, criminals but also other sinful people like we all are by nature.

   What about trans people? Many of them have the kind of background that being small they have been wanted to be the opposite sex, and this has affected them. It is difficult for them to accept their own gender. The fault is not in the body or that someone was born into the wrong sex (as is often falsely portrayed in the media), but in an inner attitude.

   Dissatisfaction is common in other areas as well. Someone may be dissatisfied with their appearance, their muscles, or experience feelings of inferiority and strive to win the acceptance of others and themselves through accomplishments, drugs, or alcohol. Similarly, the eating disorder anorexia nervosa originates from dissatisfaction, i.e., a person’s dissatisfaction with their current weight, even if they are quite lean. The fault is not in his/her body, but that he/she does not accept himself/herself as such and believes he/she is happier when being leaner. In this way, past experiences and a person’s dissatisfaction with themselves can affect everyone’s life. The fault does not have to be in anyone’s body or appearance but in internal thinking, i.e. dissatisfaction with the current body.

   The concluding remark from the previous is that it is good for us to understand different people and not to judge them. However, everyone must admit that his/her thinking may go astray and be wrong. Jesus also taught about false inner attitudes and lusts and how they come from within man:

- (Mark 7:20-23) And he said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man.

21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Dear reader! I went through the most common lies I see in society. The first of the lies was to deny the existence of God and that He is the Creator. It is impossible and irrational that all the celestial bodies, the earth, and the complex life of the earth were born without God. The evidence clearly points to his existence and work of creation, as Paul wrote. Only spiritual blindness can prevent us from seeing this clear fact:

- (Rom 1:19-21) 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

The second area dealt with morality, which I see diverging further and further from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. This has been evidenced by the acceptance of sexual relations outside the marriage of a husband and wife: premarital sex, common-law marriages, and homosexual sex. These things are increasingly accepted, and there is no desire to respect the teaching of traditional husband-wife marriage, which has been found to be the most functional model for children as well as the most socially economical way of caring for children. Other options are more expensive and inferior.

   Second, the change in morality is reflected in the deterioration of behavior toward others, as the news mentioned earlier showed. Jesus taught to love even enemies (Matt. 5: 43-48); likewise Peter taught, “Honor all men” (1 Peter 2:17), but from these teachings have also been drifted away further and further. The direction seems to be getting worse all the time.

   Then the most important thing. Spiritual blindness is also manifested in the most important thing: man does not see how Jesus, the Son of God, is the truth and the only way to God. While man himself may consider himself tolerant, in reality he may be intolerant to Jesus Christ, who is man’s only chance to experience the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

    However, as Jesus himself taught, there are no other ways to God, and if a person rejects Jesus, he himself will have to pay for his sins in hell. For though Jesus has borne the sins of us all on the cross, this does not benefit the man who rejects Jesus. Such a person rejects his only chance of salvation. It’s a similar thing like giving a drowning person a chance to get into a lifeboat, but he doesn’t care about it. As a result, he drowns. So, dear reader of the message, do not reject Jesus, that you will not have to pay for your sins in hell! Consider the following words from Jesus:

- (John 14:6) 6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

- (John 5:39,40) 39 Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

- (Rev 3:20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 

Final comment! I urge you to take a step in the direction of God and Jesus. If Jesus is the way to God, then why not welcome Him into your life? You should definitely do it, that is, to give your whole life to God and put your trust in Jesus in the matter of salvation. So you can say a prayer like this, where it happens: “Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.”

References:

1. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley

2. Heribert Nilsson: Synthetische artbildung, 1953, p. 1212 – Quote from "Evoluutio - tieteen harha-askel?", Mikko Tuuliranta.

3. Quote from "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19.

4. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

5. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution

6. Solly Zuckerman: Beyond the ivory tower, 1970, p. 90 – Quote from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. wit. p. 94.

7. Gabriel Ward Lasker: Physical Anthropology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), 284

8. Donald C. Johanson ja Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 144

9. Milford H. Wolpoff, Wu Xin Zhi ja Alan G. Thorne, ”Modern Homo sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving the Fossil Evidence From East Asia”, teoksessa The Origins of Moodern Humans, toim. Fred H. Smith ja Frank Spencer (New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1984), 465-66.

10. Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970

11. Michael J. Sandel: Oikeudenmukaisuus (Justice. What’s the Right Thing to Do?), p. 283,284

12. Edwin Louis Cole: Miehuuden haaste, p. 104

13. Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur: Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, p. 38

14. Liisa Tuovinen, ”Synti vai siunaus?” Inhimillinen tekijä. TV2, 2.11.2004, klo 22.05.

15. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 104

16. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 131

17. Lesboidentiteetti ja kristillisyys, p. 87, Seta julkaisut

18. Sinikka Pellinen: Homoseksuaalinen identiteetti ja kristillinen usko, p. 77, Teron kertomus

19. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132

More on this topic:

The media often denies God’s position as a creator and attacks Christian morality. Are the arguments put forward sense or not? Read on

Responsible or irresponsible journalism?

The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory

Read how  people defend injustice, one's own selfish lifestyle and increase children's suffering in the name of equality and human rights

Read how the Bible and the Christian faith have affected literacy, health care, and other positive ways. Many are blind to this fact

Read how the Christian faith has improved human rights and conditions of people