Media and God against each other
The media often denies God’s position as a creator and attacks Christian morality. Are the arguments put forward sense or not? Read on
What comes to the time of the apostles, it was common that the gospel proclaimed by the apostles was opposed. It was committed by their own citizens and many others. The reception was not always favorable and the apostles faced strong opposition. A good example is chapter 13 of the Acts of the Apostles, which tells of the opposition of Paul’s own citizens. They rejected eternal life:
- (Acts 13:45,46) But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spoke against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, see, we turn to the Gentiles.
The situation has not changed of the previous examples. There is a similar opposition and prejudice towards the Christian faith today. We live in a society where there is quite a bit of interest in christian faith or people have negative attitudes towards this issue.
This writing deals with one of the biggest channels of influence on people’s minds, i.e. the influence of the media. The intention is to deal with how the Christian faith appears in the media. We bring up a few specific issues that come up with prejudice and opposition to the Christian faith. We start with science.
One very typical notion in the media is that belief in creation represents an outdated and unscientific view, while the notion of evolution represents science. Thus, the media view faith in creation as a religious and unscientific position, but the theory of evolution as an scientific, objective view. The general rule is that like this is reported in the media because most journalists have adopted a naturalistic worldview and because they believe the theory of evolution is true.
A good example of a naturalistic preconception can be found in the following quote. The author describes how a person whose worldview is based on atheistic religiosity is considered a representative of science in the media. It is thought that if a person believes in the theory of evolution and the random birth of everything, then such a person represents science. It is not understood that the opposite may be the case:
Thus, in December, a couple of weeks after the statement was issued, the representative of the Skepsis government promised to justify his statement at the large religious debate in Savonlinna and the related seminar on 13-14 March 2009. However, a week and a half before the event, he canceled his participation. When reporting on the withdrawal of atheists, the local Itä-Savo newspaper wrote on 3 March 2009 that “representatives of science” had withdrawn from the debate. This tells us that the images of our time equate science with atheistic religiosity. The board member of Skepsis, who withdrew from the debate, was a student by education, a freelance journalist, and a non-fiction writer who has not published any scientific articles in any international peer-reviewed journal. On the other side, Professor Matti Leisola, who has 120 international peer-reviewed scientific articles, defended the theory of creation. However, according to the image created by Itä-Savo, the student in question is a representative of science and the internationally renowned naturalist in question is not. (1)
A question of the past. Starting with this subject and scientificity, it must be understood that the controversy is about the past - precisely the theories about the beginning of the universe, the birth and evolution of life. Only these perceptions of the beginning of the universe and life — all has been born by itself or by God — share opinions. There is no contradiction in such science that is realized in modern technological development, observations in nature, and physics and chemistry experiments in the laboratory. Atheistic scientists often confuse these things, perhaps on purpose, and the media has neither gone into this matter in detail. Only the past and its interpretation cause contradictions, not other areas. For example, the United States, where a large majority (about 70-90%) has always believed in creation, has been a leading country in many fields of science over the past couple of hundred years. It shows that faith in creation and science are not mutually exclusive. They can run in parallel.
Two beliefs facing each other. As noted, there is a general perception in the media that an atheistic theory of the early stages of the universe and life represents science. The connection between the two is kept clear.
However, this is a false notion. It can be a question of science when trying to study and figure out these things, but it is a mistake to claim that atheistic theory has been scientifically proven to be true. That has never happened, and there is a simple reason for it: we cannot prove the events of the past. Questions about the origin of the universe and life all fall within the realm of faith. There are various theories as to how they originated, but scientifically it is impossible to prove their origin because we cannot go back to the past. So when animations are shown on TV about the early stages of the universe, the birth of the earth, and the birth of life, they are notions based on imagination rather than scientific knowledge. They cannot be proven to be true, and no one has, for example, knowledge of how life can be born of itself.
What about creation? It is also a belief being connected with the past. That, too, cannot be proved later. However, everyone may wonder which is the more logical option: can everything arise by itself or does it require a supernatural God? Which is more likely? At the very least, it should be taken into account that naturalistic theory cannot explain the following matters:
• The naturalistic conception of everything from the beginning is based on the notion that the universe arose from an empty or pin-sized space (the idea of a pin-sized appears in several scientific publications). That is believed to have happened in the Big Bang.
The question is that if the whole universe has come from nowhere or from a “pin”, why don’t other things appear in the same way from a “pin”? Why don’t smaller things like rocks, planes, or cars appear in the same way from an empty? Why would only the universe be an exception? Here is a logical contradiction. This theory is contrary to the findings of science and practice, and contrary to all common sense.
• What about life? It has been found that all current life on Earth is dependent on past life forms. No exceptions to this rule have been found. Plants and animals are not existing by themselves, but their existence depends on the existence of life before them.
On the other hand, when it is clearly known that life on Earth must have a beginning (It cannot be eternal because the sun has a limited period of existence. It has not always been able to shine on Earth.), it suggests that life must have an extraterrestrial source. The only sensible explanation for this is the supernatural God, who is outside the world and who is the source of life. Or how else can it be explained that all current known life forms are dependent on past life? There are not many options when trying to find an answer to this question. If the birth of life by itself were possible, it would be time for scientists to present decent evidence for it. Otherwise, they only tell fairy-tale stories that ordinary people and the media might believe.
• The scarcity or complete lack of evidence is often characteristic of those who support a naturalistic theory of the early stages of the universe. The same is true of human development material, which is not covered in great depth here.
However, one example of this area is the Nebraska man. It was used as evidence in a great “monkey trial” in 1925. In the media, this matter turned into a great victory for the theory of evolution, when in fact there was only one tooth as evidence of this man. It was later found to belong to an extinct pig! The Nebraska man shows well how the media affects our minds and how we believe scientists ’claims, even if they lack a completely reliable basis.
Evolutionists used the Nebraska Man as evidence in the famous Scopes evolution-trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. William Jennings Bryan was confronted with “great scientific experts” who amazed him with the “facts” of the Nebraska man. Mr Bryan had no answer but his opinion that the evidence was too scarce and he asked for more time. The “experts,” of course, scolded and mocked him. Who was he to question the authority of the world’s greatest men?
But what exactly was the scientific evidence of the Nebraska man? The answer is a tooth. That's right: Harold Cook had found a single tooth! The world’s top scientists studied this tooth and judged it to be conclusive evidence that America was inhabited by a prehistoric human race. What a classic example of an overbearing imagination!
Years after the Scopes trial, the entire skeleton of the animal from which the original tooth came was found. It turned out that the tooth from which the Nebraska man had been constructed belonged to an extinct pig. “Experts”… created an entire human race from a pig’s tooth! (2)
• There is one essential difference between naturalistic worldview and theism: naturalism assumes that there is only cosmos, or matter. Theism, on the other hand, assumes that in addition to the cosmos, there is God. This is the difference between naturalism and theism.
The same set-up emerges in the approach to Intelligent design. When naturalists and several representatives of the media do not acknowledge the influence of the supernatural God at any point, they are also critical of the idea of Intelligent design. They reject it what can be considered a logical consequence of their materialistic worldview. However, when in naturalism it is assumed that arguments in favor of an Intelligent design are not science, but arguments against it are science, it is in itself an absurd idea. What makes granting intelligent design a religious view and denying it a wise and scientific view? Certainly nothing. It is only a preconceived notion that many want to hold on to. It has nothing to do with science.
On the other hand, in everyday life and practical work, many scientists act contrary to the naturalistic notion. They acknowledge the existence of intelligence or look for signs of it:
- SETI –project is based on searching similar intelligent life that is found on earth from space. The supposition is that there is intelligent life elsewhere as well.
- An archeologist searches for signs of life, when he digs the ground. He is not interested in ordinary rocks, but rocks that have writings on them or alternatively he looks for artifacts that display signs of design.
- With the help of technology intelligent ideas can be searcher from the nature. E.g., the wings of birds have generated ideas for designing wings for airplanes. Another example is the front parts of the Japanese high speed trains, which design has been inspired by the beak of the Common Kingfisher. This has led the trains to be quieter, faster, and they consume less electricity.
The new Finnish science magazine (Tiede 3/2014) gives more examples on how nature has inspired technological designs. One article describes, how Canadian scientists were able to make sheet glass 200 times more shockproof than it normally is by copying the nacre of seashells. Another article describes how mimicking the structure of a pomegranate can make batteries more durable. These kinds of examples suggest intelligent design in the nature and how it can be used to benefit.
So when it comes to the existence of intelligence and intelligent design, it is obvious. It is absurd to deny its existence because it can be seen everywhere in nature. Plants and animals could not even be alive if they did not have structures based on intelligent design. Otherwise, they would die immediately.
Nonetheless, some scientists even think they would have been able to design better structural solutions themselves, as the following quote shows. However, it is much more logical to believe that mind, emotions, personality, and senses have been ready through creation. It is an arrogant idea to reject the idea of intelligence from the beginning. No one can or has been able to show how inanimate matter like a stone chip can become living beings with emotions, reason, and complexity. It is not wise to believe that such things arose of themselves.
In section 18 of the Britannica encyclopedia of 1988 there is i.a. the following specialist’s statement in the chapter containing the evolutionary theory: “From a practical viewpoint it is inexplicable that a tortoise can swim, a horse run, a human write and a bird or a bat fly with structures that are based on similar bone structures. An engineer could design better fitting limbs for each of their purpose. However, if we accept that all these bones are inherited from a shared ancestor and transformed only through different developmental stages, we can find a rational premise for similar structures.” This utterance made Paul Nelson criticize this evolutionary view as follows: “Ha! Introduce me to an engineer that can design a better structure than is the wing of a bat or a bird! Show me an engineer that can design a better leg for a cockroach! The thought of this is absurd. Where do the people come from, who present these ideas? We are far away from the knowledge that was required to construct animals – we are on the other side of the universe, millions of light years away, millions. We don’t even understand the compelling nature of the question.
Think about it: the leg of a cockroach will fix itself, sense its environment better than any robot, it is equipped with tactile hair and other sensors throughout, from which we cannot evaluate more than a fraction. A cockroach doesn’t need fuel, electric current or compressed air. Only a little bit of waste, where the general structure of the leg will be formed by growing, which can make the strength of titanium feel like playdough. If a cockroach was the size of a human, it would easily move forward ca. 300 km per hour. This comparison could go on forever… The writer of the encyclopedia clearly doesn’t know, what they are talking about – to say something like this in a reference book is really silly… As an engineer I have noticed the highest possible intellectual arrogance in the writer”. (email@example.com,) (3)
• The media does not always attack so much creation, but against recent creation. It is not believed that life on Earth could only be thousands of years old.
In one matter, however, atheistic scientists agree with the Bible: they admit that man's historical time extends to about 5,000 years. It is remarkable because the first cities, buildings, information on mathematical formulas, and numerous other things related to human culture also appeared during the same period. Can this connection be considered a mere coincidence?
Nor do the same scientists take into account the following factors that call millions of years into question:
- Remnants of human skeletons and human belongings have been found in carbon deposits defined as hundreds of millions of years old. Similarly, human footprints have been found in deposits that have been considered almost as old. Such findings show that the geological table with its millions of years is badly wrong.
- There have been finds that trilobites and man have lived at the same time. Trilobites have been found e.g. from human footprints. The general perception has been that trilobites became extinct about 250 million years ago:
William Meister made a surprising finding on 1 June 1968 in Utah. He found several trilobite fossils inside a fossilized sandal print! However, based on the geological stratigraphic sequence, arranged according to the evolutionary periods, the trilobites became extinct approximately 230 million years before the appearance of man!
(…) Geologist, Doctor Clifford Burdick found evidence to support the idea about humans and the trilobites living at the same time. He found barefooted footprints of a child, one of which contained a flattened trilobite. (4)
- Nowadays, it is not believed that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans. However, almost all peoples have accounts of dragons resembling dinosaurs (the name dinosaur was not invented until the 1840s). A couple of quotes show it.
The varying forms of lizard-like animals seem so funny to us because many of them resemble – in a distant and often caricature-like way – modern mammals living under similar conditions. However, most dinosaurs were so very different from the modern life forms that the nearest analogues can be found in the depictions of dragons in legends. Strangely enough, the authors of the legends had naturally not studied petrifactions or even knew of them. (Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 366)
The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology. (The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265)
Also special is that one of the world’s leading paleontologists, Stephen Jay Gould, noted that the book of Job (Job 40: 41) depicts dinosaurs, but thought the contemporaries of the book of Job had got their idea of dinosaur fossils (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). He did not take into account that in the book of Job these beings are spoken of as living, not dead. They are even encouraged to look. Other Bible verses also talk about dragons:
- (Job 40:15-18) Behold now behemoth, which I made with you; he eats grass as an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
- (Ps 44:19) Though you have sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death.
- (Ps 74:13) You did divide the sea by your strength: you brake the heads of the dragons in the waters.
- (Neh 2:13) And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.
- (Isaiah 51:9) Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Are you not it that has cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?
- (Jer 51:34) Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon has devoured me, he has crushed me, he has made me an empty vessel, he has swallowed me up like a dragon, he has filled his belly with my delicates, he has cast me out.
Moral issuesare often featured in the media. Just as many attack against the questioning of the theory of evolution, they also attack Christian morality. It becomes clear in matters such as abortion and homosexuality. They think the Christian conception that emerges from the Bible represents an old-fashioned and narrow-minded worldview. They do not believe that the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are current.
Are all the deeds correct? When starting to clarify this issue, it is first necessary to address the correctness of the deeds. Acts committed by humans can be classified into two categories. These moral options are:
• Everything people do is right
• There are acts that are clearly wrong
Which of the above options is true? Those who do not believe the teachings of the Bible, such as the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, may initially lean toward the first option. However, when asked if they accept torture, sexual exploitation of children, or theft from themselves, they usually answer in the negative. It shows that they practically believe in the existence of universal and objective values. They may not have thought deeper about it, but consider some actions clearly wrong. William Lane Craig has made his own observation on the subject in his conversations with people. He, too, reveals how people have faith in objective moral values:
This leads us to another premise, according to which there are objective values and responsibilities. Initially, I thought that this would be the most controversial argument of the premise. In my debates with atheistic philosophers, however, I have noticed that nobody really denies it. Studies conducted in universities indicate, perhaps against all odds, that professors are more likely to believe in objective moral values than students, and that professors of philosophy are more likely to believe in objective moral values than professors on average!
…I have notice that, although people claim to be supporters of relativism, 95 per cent of them can be really quickly convinced that objective moral values do exist. For that, one must merely show a few examples and let them choose their stance on their own. Ask, what do they think of the Hindu sati practice, where a widow is burned alive in her husband’s funeral pyre, or the ancient Chinese custom, where women were crippled for the rest of their lives by tying their feet tightly in their childhood, so that their feet would look like the Lotus flower. The matter is especially clearly understood, when the examples are moral cruelties that were made in the name of religion. Ask them, what they think of the Crusades and Inquisitions. Ask them if they think it is right that catholic priests use young boys sexually and that the church tries to cover their tracks. If you are with a sincere wanderer, I can assure you that he almost always agrees with you in the existence of objective moral values and responsibilities. (5)
How does the previous matter relate to the subject under discussion? In short, the question is to which category abortion, extramarital affairs, homosexual behavior, and other similar matters are classified. Do they belong to the category of right or wrong as the Christian faith teaches? Because of this there are different opinions at the modern time. The question is not whether people have moral values or not, but how they classify these things. Some consider the previous things to be right, others to be wrong, and it causes contradictions. James W. Sire has explained:
However, even in our relativity we cannot escape the feeling that some things are just ”right” or ”natural” and some are not. For centuries the majority of society considered homosexuality as obscene. Nowadays many people deny this. But they do not deny it on the basis that there are no moral categories, so much so that this area of homosexuality should have belonged to the other side of that boundary, which separates descent from obscene. Homosexuals do not usually accept incest! Accordingly, people having different moral values do not change the fact that we constantly make moral judgments and live by them or against them. Everyone lives in a moral universe and in the end everyone thinking about this in the slightest knows this and would not want to change it. (6)
Is the morality from God? Secondly, it is worth asking from which source morality, i.e. the perception of right and wrong, comes from. There are two options for this:
• The origin of morality is entirely of man. It has evolved as a result of an evolutionary process, and man has gradually become aware of what is right and rational behaviour.
• Another option is that morality is an innate quality God has placed in man. Or, as Paul wrote, that the works of the law — the notion of right and wrong — are written in the hearts of men. He associates this case with the date of judgment, so it is worth taking the matter seriously. Our understanding of right and wrong shows how logical it is to believe in the Day of Judgment after death:
- (Rom 2:14-16) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law to themselves:
15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
It is important to note that the notion of right and wrong is common to all peoples. It shows that man by nature knows the difference between them, even though he can harden his heart. Loren Cunningham, who has visited every country in the world, shares his findings on this topic. His observation proves Paul's previous words to be true:
I have met people from every country in the world and noticed that the idea of love, responsibility, right and wrong, conscience and moral exists in every culture. Every language has a concept for right and wrong. This has been even before any contact with other civilizations or with the Bible. (7)
Which of the above options is then correct? Those who have adopted a naturalistic worldview are leaning towards the first option, but it is much more reasonable to believe that morality is an innate quality God has placed in man. For example, animals have no morals, no perception of right and wrong. Nor do they have language, prayer, religiosity, or a high level of intelligence, but man has these qualities. What is the reason? Evolutionists teach that everything is due to evolution and chance, but isn’t it more sensible to believe that man was created in the image of God and therefore has these qualities?
- (Gen 1:26,27) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
There is also another side in this matter. If all people have an idea of right and wrong, it is a reference to the existence and judgment of God. Of course, this cannot be directly proven, but it is very likely. We can assume that God wants to communicate to us: "I will judge one day every human being. That is why I have put the idea of right and wrong in their mind." Moreover, He himself will certainly definitively determine the grounds for the judgment. This means that if, for example, abortion is murder (You shall not kill!) Or sex outside of a man-wife relationship (both heterosexual and homosexual) is wrong, as the Bible shows, then we are judged according to these acts. No one deserves eternal life by giving up these acts, but he can lose it by practicing them intentionally.
The media never takes this aspect into account. One does not think that morality is of God, that man is an eternal being, and that we are judged according to our deeds. However, this is essential when discussing abortion, homosexuality, other sexuality, and other moral issues.
- (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.
- (Luke 13:2,3) And Jesus answering said to them, Suppose you that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, No: but, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish.
- (Rev 22:15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie.
Other perspectives. When we look at how the media deals with extramarital affairs, homosexual relationships, or abortion, they often talk about love, equality, and human rights. It is not taken into account at all that these acts fall into the category of wrongdoings and have eternal consequences. The following factors are also not taken into account:
Is abortion a woman’s right to decide her own body or a murder? As stated, abortion is defended on human rights and that a woman has the right to decide on her own body.
What is the truth about abortion? It seems that the proponents of this matter are lying to themselves. For “in abortion is not just about the body of the mother, but also the body and spirit of another person, the child. From the beginning of his life, the fetus is a new individual who has received genetic issues from both father and mother. He is not at any stage of his development a part of his mother's body. She has her own body, her own closed blood circulation, her own heartbeat, her own blood group properties that can cause immune reactions in her mother, her own brain wave structure. ” (8)
In addition, it is known that an unborn child is very similar to the child that relatives and friends see for the first time. Only the size is smaller, but the aborted fetus has the same body members as the born babies: hands, feet, mouth, nose, eyes (See You tube video: Äänetön huuto). A gynecologist who knows what happens in an abortion says:
One cannot perform abortion eyes closed. One must be sure that everything has come out of the womb and one must count that there are enough of legs and arms, rib cage and brain that is coming out. Then when the patient is waking up from their narcosis, and asks, whether it would have been a girl or a boy, my resilience has reached its limits and that is when I usually walk away. – If I perform a surgery, where I clearly kill a living being, I think it is folly to talk about destroying nascent life. It is killing, and I see it as killing.” (9)
The following quote gives a good picture of the current situation. It tells how abortion advocacy organizations send provocateurs to mess with the day-to-day work of crisis pregnancy centers. They try to look for flaws in the action that are sure to be found because people are imperfect.
Similar infiltration activities have been carried out by some homosexuality organizations. Their members are offended if someone who has lived in homosexuality wants to break away from their former way of life. Such examples show to where development goes when is not believed in God as creator and judge. The media, which is sympathetic to provocateurs, contributes to a shift in our attitudes towards things that were previously considered clearly wrong.
The countermeasure to the seduction of the small conscience is to lure it back. Have people fallen into the power of false compassion? Show them genuine compassion. The best description is the daily work of crisis pregnancy centers, where severely distressed women can talk to other women, volunteers, who have no financial motive to take advantage of their distress and who are just trying to show them love. The centers provide free services such as pregnancy tests, medical referrals, abortion and adoption information, lifestyle counseling, long-term guidance, clothing and supplies for both mother and child, information on church and community services, childbirth coaching, parenting instruction, family reunification assistance, and post-abortion discussions. For all these good deeds, they receive false news reports “they only care about the fetus, not the mother,” “as soon as the child is born, they forget her,” “they forbid women to take abortions, but give them no support”. Advocacy organizations regularly send to these centers provocateurs, who pretend to seek help but whose purpose is to get counselors to speak or behave inappropriately. This is how desperately injustice seeks to justify itself! However, the silent gentleness of crisis pregnancy centers has likely had more of an impact on what ordinary people think of abortion than anything that has been written on the subject, and their example of personal and sacrificial love shames the mass-produced “compassion” of state social systems. (10)
Is homosexuality innate? Perhaps the biggest reason why homosexuality is accepted in the media is that this issue is considered innate. It is thought that it is an innate trait like skin color, so isn’t it right to defend people on that basis? Isn’t it right to support people in their sexual choices?
What is the truth about the subject? Many homosexuals themselves don't believe that their tendency is innate. Some may argue the matter is innate, but many admit that the sexual seduction from the same sex and conditions have played a role in birth of their tendency. These were also common notions in psychology a few decades ago.
Here it is thus a question of similar matter to bitterness or why criminals usually come from certain types of circumstances. No one can choose their growing conditions and what has been done to them, but to some extent each person can choose for himself whether he wants to forgive, whether he becomes a criminal or a homosexual practitioner. He may be tempted to do these things, but he can choose how he wants to live:
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. (11)
Ole does not believe, however, that there is some kind of a "homosexual gene". He believes that homosexual feelings stem from a more complex pool, 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. (12)
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. (13)
Tepi believes that her homosexuality has been caused by some sort of an emotional vacuum she is trying to fill. Tepi says that she feared her father as a child and is still "kind of freaked out by men". Tepi says that she is looking for a mother in women. Even though Tepi wonders why she is a lesbian, she also says about being attracted to women: "It has been somehow so natural that I've sometimes wondered how this could be." On the other hand, she believes that there is some reason for this, too.
Tepi does not believe that homosexuality is caused by genes or that a person could be a gay or a lesbian since birth. She believes that a person grows into a gay or a lesbian, and this can happen also without any special incident. (14)
I have – and many other homosexuals – wondered what causes homosexuality. I think that the personality of a child is formed during his or her three first years, also in terms of sexuality. This is influenced both by the environment and human biology. I don't believe that homosexuality is hereditary. Many of my male relatives have trouble dealing with my being homosexual just because they are afraid that it runs in the family. (15)
The media often criticizes the mixing of the Christian faith with politics. It is thought that it is inappropriate to talk about faith in political decisions. It may be seen as American fundamentalism or otherwise as unsuitable.
However, have these people thought about this matter deeply? Have they taken into account the following points?
Everyone has a worldview. First, every human being has a worldview. There is no such a person who does not have some kind of worldview according to which he judges things. If one does not have a Christian worldview, some another view fills his mind. He has some vision, belief, and worldview, and he acts accordingly. All political decisions are also made on this basis. It can mean in the field of politics e.g. that some people are advocating nature conservation because they find it valuable. Or someone has in mind the idea of the worker and the rights of the workers that he considers important. Everyone has goals that they pursue because they have a worldview and because they find the things they pursue valuable. There is no human being without a worldview. Marxism-Leninism, which at one time ruled almost half of the world, was also born in this way. Thus, if the Christian worldview does not guide the lives of man and politician, it will be replaced by another worldview.
Not all worldviews are true. Most politicians certainly have good goals. There are also politicians in all parties who are talented in economic, social or other areas. It is good if their talent and expertise are used to bring good things into action. The most talented and knowledgeable individuals should be found for every task.
However, it is not quite indifferent, what worldview governs man. When the Christian worldview is rejected, it is replaced by a different worldview. It can occur in the following ways:
1. The view of God is distorted or belief in God is completely rejected. It is not believed in God as creator and judge. Thus, disbelief in God’s judgment and the assumption that man is not responsible to anyone for what he does after this life may affect his behavior. He may think he will never is accountable for his actions and injustices to others.
2. The view about man is distorted. It is not seen that all people are equal and dignified before God because they are made in the images of God. It can lead to people being classified as valuable and less valuable based on race, ability to function, or other trait. It can also lead to situation, where people representing other political positions are not respected.
The last century has provided good evidence of what a worldview means. Hitler and Stalin also engaged in politics, but God was not at the center of their lives. For example, Hitler shared with his friends the books of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. This philosopher spoke in his books e.g. about God’s death and superhuman.
Both of these individuals, Hitler and Stalin, also believed in evolution, although the basic assumption of this theory, “from simple to complex”, has not been proven. The birth of life has not been proven either.
Thus, Stalin’s biography, written by Stalin’s good friend E. Yaroslavsky, tells how Stalin, who was religiously educated and studied theology, becomes an atheist after reading Darwin’s work The Origin of Species. It happened at the age of 13. After that, he also began to convert his friends to a “new faith” by lending them Darwin’s books. This shows that it is not quite the same which worldview dominates man. Afterwards, one can guess what would have happened if Darwin's book hadn't existed or Stalin hadn't gotten it. Maybe history would have turned out to be completely different.
What about Hitler? He, too, was a proponent of the theory of evolution. Just before World War II, Hitler declared in a speech, "[Anyone] who has considered the order of the world understands that it is based on a natural selection like war." (16)
In his book Hitler’s Personal Security, P. Hoffman wrote more on this topic:
“Hitler believed in a struggle according to Darwinian principles in human life, which caused that all people to try to control each other. Without the fight, they would decay and be destroyed… Even in the face of his own defeat in April, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the strongest and declared that the Slavic people had proved to be stronger. ” (17)
Media and God against each other. As stated at the beginning, repsesentives of the media generally do not believe in the Bible. For them, it represents an outdated worldview that is not true. They think that modern and progressive man of today rejects the teachings that Jesus and the apostles brought forth. Because of this, many of them have a negative attitude towards all Christian teaching and perceptions. They have no faith in these things. Some may also look for mistakes in people who represent Christianity. It’s easy because no one is perfect.
What if the teaching of the Bible, and especially the New Testament, is true? What if modern people are wrong but Jesus and the apostles are right? In that case, several people have gone astray. In addition, media representatives and media figures face a serious place. They have led people away from God and favored false lifestyles and teachings. It may have occurred e.g. in the following areas:
Unnecessary speeches are common on TV channels. When, according to Jesus, we have to make an account of even every useless word, this often happens on TV channels. They have cursing, blasphemy, or other useless talk. However, the same thing is repeated in our own lives. We don’t always remember or believe we are responsible for our speeches. This matter is shown at least in the following verses:
- (Matt 12:34-37) O generation of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.
36 But I say to you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.
- (Eph 5:6) Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things comes the wrath of God on the children of disobedience.
- (James 4:11,12) Speak not evil one of another, brothers. He that speaks evil of his brother, and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law, and judges the law: but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who are you that judge another?
A small quote shows how media representatives sometimes act. They are guilty of gossiping or slandering, which can destroy people’s lives or perhaps spiritual ministry. Their speech seems like cancer as Paul wrote about some people of his time (2 Tim 2: 16-18: But Shun Profane and only babblings: for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their word will eat as does a canker:… and overthrow the faith of some.). It can poison the spiritual and other atmosphere of society. When journalists are looking for front page story of imperfect people and try to get others' attention, they can forget people behind these stories:
The man talked about reporters who had written scandal stories about each other and what kind of end many of them had gotten. At the same time, he asked me not to pass on the names. It is a promise I have kept. However, I have never been able to forget the truths that came to light during our debate. The man put it this way: “We in the media think we are above all criticism. We often see ourselves as a lofty race that, under the guise of the uncompromising demand for press freedom, has to say exactly what it wants. ”
“However, we forget the people behind the words,” he added. “For us, the means are sanctified. It doesn’t matter how much the family, wife, children and relatives of the people about which we write, suffer. ” This was despite the fact that he thought things were better in Norway at the time than in many other countries.
This man’s “journalism lecture” made me think about sowing and cutting. Sometimes life stops us. Both in the Bible and in the ancient world, there is a rare consensus on the concept of Nemesis, the revenge of the gods, that is, what we do to others happens to ourselves. (18)
Violence is typical of TV programs. Every night, dozens of acts of violence or murder can be seen that give people false patterns. While the violence takes place in virtual reality like in a computer game, it is a violation of the sixth commandment (You shall not kill!). Such material certainly has an impact on everyone’s innermost being. Violence and sex entertainment numb everyone. Many cases of assaults that have taken place in modern times have become more brutal, partly due to the influence of television.
Fornication and living in lusts are typical topics in TV shows. However, they lead man away from God and to perdition. So when these channels favor the wrong lifestyles and patterns, it is detrimental to the people who follow them. They are enchanted by false habits and lose their souls. This happens if, for example, the following New Testament verses are true. They talk about fornication and lust but also adultery and betrayal. When the media present in their programs the lifestyles and patterns that God hates, they are then at odds with God. Or what else could be deduced from the following verses? If we ourselves deprecate these teachings in the following verses, we are in exactly the same situation:
- (Matt 16:4) A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
- (Hebr 13:4) Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
- (James 1:14,15) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.
- (Hos 5:4) They will not frame their doings to turn to their God: for the spirit of prostitutions is in the middle of them, and they have not known the LORD.
- (Rev 2:21) And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Media as a deceiver. As stated, if the Bible and especially the New Testament are true, most members of the media are in front of a serious place. It is because they have led people away from God and favored false lifestyles and teachings. If the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are true, they will practically lead others to hell. Also an ordinary person can make many mistakes, but in addition to their own lives, the creators and distributors of programs affect millions of people. Therefore, their responsibility before God is manifold. About this is told in the following verses:
- (Luke 12:47,48) And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For to whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
- (James 3:1) My brothers, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
- (Matt 18:6,7) But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe to the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
1. Tapio Puolimatka: Tiedekeskustelun avoimuuskoe, p. 97,98
2. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 101,102
3. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 41,42
4. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25
5. William Lane Craig: Valveilla (On Guard), p. 148,149
6. James W. Sire: Missä maailmassa? Maailmankatsomusten perusteet puntarissa (The Universe Next Door. A Basic World View Catalog), p. 36,37
7. Loren Cunningham / Janice Rogers: Kirja joka muuttaa kansat (The Book that Transforms Nations), p. 133
8. Michael Harry, Ulla Järvilehto, Markus J. Viljanen: Anna lapsen elää, p. 23
9. Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970
10. J. Budziszewski: Tätä emme voi olla tietämättä (What We Can’t Not Know. A Guide), p. 279
11. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132
12. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 104
13. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 131
14. Lesboidentiteetti ja kristillisyys, p. 87, Seta julkaisut
15. Sinikka Pellinen: Homoseksuaalinen identiteetti ja kristillinen usko, p. 77, Teron kertomus
16. Malise Ruthven: Fundamentalismi (Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction), p. 32
17. Peter Hoffman: Hitler’s Personal Security, p. 264
18. Emmanuel Minos: Ovet suljetaan (Det Har Ringt For Tredje Gang), p. 69, 70
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!