Media and God against each other

1. Antiscience or scientificity?

One very typical notion in the media is that belief in creation represents an outdated and unscientific view, while the notion of evolution represents science.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:

The Skepsis government representative therefore promised in December, a couple of weeks after issuing the statement, to justify his statement at the great religious debate in Savonlinna and the related seminar on March 13-14, 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the withdrawal of atheists, the local Itä-Savo newspaper wrote on March 3, 2009 that "representatives of science" had withdrawn from the debate. This tells us that the images of our time identify science with atheistic religiosity. The Skepsis board member who withdrew from the debate was a high school student by education, freelance journalist and non-fiction writer who has not published a single scientific article in any international peer-reviewed journal. On the other side, defending the creation theory was professor Matti Leisola, who has 120 international peer-reviewed natural science articles. However, according to the image created by Itä-Savo magazine, the student in question is a representative of science and the internationally known natural scientist in question is not. (1)

A question about the past. When we start to deal with this topic and science, we have to understand that the dispute is about the past - specifically the theories concerning the beginning of the universe, the origin and development of life. Only these matters related to the beginning of the universe and life - whether everything was born by itself or by God - divide opinions. There is no contradiction in the science that is realized in modern technological development, observations of nature, and physics and chemistry experiments in the laboratory. Atheist scientists often confuse these issues, perhaps on purpose, and media representatives may not have thought about it more deeply. Only the past and its interpretation cause conflicts, not other areas. For example, the United States, where a large majority (approx. 70-90%) have always believed in creation, has been a leading country in several areas of science during the last couple of hundred years. It shows that belief in creation and science are not mutually exclusive. They can run in parallel.

Opposite two beliefs. 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 considered clear.

    However, this is a false notion. It can be science when you try to study and find out these things, but it is wrong to claim that an atheistic theory has been scientifically proven to be true. That has never happened, and there is a simple reason: we cannot prove what happened in the past. Questions about the origin of the universe and life all belong to the area of faith. There are different theories about how they started, but it is scientifically impossible to prove their origin because we cannot go back in time. Thus, 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 concepts based more on imagination than on scientific knowledge. They cannot be proved to be correct, and no one has, for example, information about how it is possible for life to arise by itself.

    What about creation? It is also a belief related to the past. Even that cannot be proven true afterwards. However, everyone can think about which is the more logical option: can everything be born by itself or does it require a supernatural God? Which is more likely? At the very least, it should be taken into account that the naturalistic theory cannot explain the following matters:

• The naturalistic conception of the beginning of everything is based on the fact that the universe arose by itself from nothing or a space the size of a pinhead (the idea of a pinhead appears in several scientific publications). This is believed to have happened in the Big Bang.

    The question is, if the entire universe has come out of nothing or a "pinhead", why don't other things appear in the same way from a "pinhead"? Why don't smaller things like rocks, airplanes or cars appear from nothing in the same way? Why would only the universe form an exception? Here is a logical contradiction. This theory is contrary to scientific and practical observations and contrary to all common sense.

• What about life? It has been established that all current life on Earth is dependent on previous forms of life. Not a single exception to this rule has been found. Plants and animals do not exist 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 finite time to exist. It has not always been able to shine on Earth.), it suggests that life must have an extraterrestrial source. The only reasonable explanation for that is a supernatural God who is outside the world and who is the source of life. Or how else can one explain the fact that all current known forms of life are dependent on previous life? There are few options when trying to find an answer to this question. If the origin of life by itself were possible, it would be time for scientists to present proper evidence for it. Otherwise, they just tell fairy tale-like stories that ordinary people and the media might believe.

• A paucity or complete lack of evidence is often characteristic of those who support the naturalistic theory of the early stages of the universe. The same also applies to material on human development, which is not dealt with in depth here.

    However, one example from this region is the Nebraska man. It was used as evidence in the great "monkey trial" in 1925. In the media, this case turned into a great victory for the theory of evolution, although in fact there was only one tooth as evidence of this man. It was later found to belong to an extinct pig! The man from Nebraska shows well how the media affects our minds and how we believe the claims of scientists, even if they lack a reliable basis.

Evolutionists used Nebraska man as evidence in the famous Scopes evolution trial in Daytona, 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 other than his opinion that the evidence was too scanty and asked for more time. The "experts" of course sneered and mocked him. Who was he to question the authority of the greatest men in the world?

    But what exactly was the scientific evidence of 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 definite proof that America was inhabited by a prehistoric human race. What a classic example of an overactive 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 on which the Nebraska man was constructed belonged to an extinct pig. The “experts”… created an entire human race from a pig's tooth! (2)

• There is one essential difference between the naturalistic worldview and theism: in naturalism, it is assumed that only the cosmos, or matter, exists. In theism, on the other hand, it is assumed that there is a God in addition to the cosmos. That summarizes the difference between naturalism and theism.

    The same situation emerges in the approach to intelligent design. When naturalists and several media representatives do not admit the influence of a supernatural God at any point, they are also critical of the idea of intelligent design. They outright reject what can be considered a logical consequence of their materialistic worldview. However, when naturalism assumes that the arguments for an intelligent design are not science, but the arguments against it are, that in itself is an absurd idea. What makes granting intelligence a religious view and denying it a wise and scientific view? Certainly nothing. It is only a preconceived view that one wants 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 concept. They admit the existence of intelligence or look for signs of it:

- The SETI project is based on searching for intelligence in space just like it is on earth. The assumption is that intelligent life exists elsewhere as well.

- An archaeologist looks for signs of intelligence when digging in the ground. He is not interested in ordinary stones, but those with inscriptions or he is looking for objects that show signs of design.

- In the area of ​​technology, you can look for smart ideas from nature. For example, ideas for the design of airplane wings have been obtained from the wings of birds. Another example is the bows of Japanese high-speed trains, which are designed using the beak of a kingfisher as a model. This is how the trains have been made quieter, faster and they consume less electricity.

   In a recent Finnish science journal (Tiede 3/2014), more examples of how from nature has been sought as a model in technological design are reported. One article tells how Canadian researchers made a glass plate 200 times more impact-resistant than usual by taking a model from the mother-of-pearl of a seashell. The second article tells how batteries can be made even more durable by imitating the structure of a pomegranate. Such examples all point to intelligent design in nature, and how it can be put to good use.

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 ready-made structures based on intelligent design. Otherwise, they would die immediately.

    Despite everything, some scientists even think that they themselves could have designed better structural solutions, as shown in the following quote. However, it is much more logical to believe that reason, emotions, personality and senses have been ready through creation. It is an arrogant idea to dismiss the idea of intelligence from the very beginning. No one can or has been able to show how inanimate matter like a chip of rock can become living beings with feelings, reason, and complex structures. It is not wise to believe that such things have arisen on their own.

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.

• 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.

2. Moral issues

Moral issues are often presented in the media. As many attack the questioning of the theory of evolution, they also attack Christian morality. It appears, e.g. on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. They think that the Christian understanding that emerges from the Bible represents an old and narrow-minded world view. They do not believe that the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are current.

Are all actions right? When we start to find out about this topic, it is necessary to first deal with the correctness of the actions. Human actions can be classified into two categories. These options related to morality are:

• Everything that people do is right

• There are actions that are clearly wrong

Which of the previous options is true? Those who do not believe in the teachings of the Bible such as the Ten Commandments and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount may initially lean towards the first option. However, when asked if they accept torture, child sexual abuse, or being stolen from themselves, they usually say no. It shows that they practically believe in the existence of universal and objective values. They may not have thought about it more deeply, but they consider some actions to be clearly wrong. William Lane Craig has made his own observation on the subject while talking to people. He also reveals how people have faith in objective moral values:

This leads us to the second premise, according to which objective values and obligations exist. I originally thought this would be the most controversial premise of the argument. However, in my debates with atheist philosophers, I have stated that almost no one disputes it. Research in universities shows, perhaps contrary to expectations, that professors are more inclined to believe in objective moral values than students, and that philosophy professors are more inclined to believe in objective moral values than professors on average!

    …I have found that even though people claim to be relativists, 95 percent of them can be convinced very quickly that objective moral values do exist. For that, you only need to present 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 of permanently cripling women by binding their feet tightly in childhood to resemble lotus flowers. The matter is especially clearly understood when moral atrocities committed in the name of religion are used as an example. Ask them what they think about the Crusades and the Inquisition. Ask them if they think it's okay that Catholic priests sexually abuse young boys and that the church tries to cover up their actions. If you are dealing with a sincere seeker, I can guarantee that they will almost always end up agreeing with you that there are objective moral values and obligations. (5)

How is the previous matter related to the topic under discussion? In short, the question is what category to place abortion, extramarital affairs, homosexual behavior and other such things. Do they belong to the category of right or wrong things as the Christian faith teaches. That's why there are different opinions in modern times. The question is not that people do not have moral values, but how they classify these things. Some people consider the previous things right, others wrong, and it causes contradictions. James W. Sire has explained the matter:

However, even in our relativity we cannot escape the feeling that some things are just ”right” or ”natural” and some are not. For years, the majority of society considered homosexuality immoral. Today, many people dispute this. But they do not deny it on the grounds that there are no moral categories, but because this area of homosexuality should have belonged on the other side of the line that separates the chaste from the immoral. 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 morality from God? Secondly, it is worth asking from which source morality, i.e. the concept of right and wrong, comes from. There are two options for that:

• The origin of morality is entirely human. It has developed as a result of the evolutionary process, and man has gradually become aware of what is correct and reasonable behavior.

• Another option is that morality is an innate quality placed in man by God. Or, as Paul wrote, that the works of the law – the concept of right and wrong – are written on people's hearts. He connects this matter with the judgment day, so it should be taken seriously. Our understanding of right and wrong shows how it is logical to believe in a judgment day 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 concept of right and wrong is common among all nations. It shows that man naturally knows the difference between them, even though he can harden his heart. Loren Cunningham, who has visited every country in the world, shares his observations on this topic. His observation proves the previous words of Paul 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 previous options is correct? Those who have adopted a naturalistic worldview lean towards the first option, but it is much more reasonable to believe that morality is an innate quality placed in man by God. For example, animals have no morals, no sense of right and wrong. They also do not have language, prayer, religiosity or high level 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 reasonable to believe that man was created in the image of God and therefore has these characteristics?

- (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 study how the media deals with extramarital relationships, homosexual relationships or abortion, we often talk about love, equality and human rights in connection with them. There is no consideration at all that these actions belong to the category of wrongdoing and that they have eternal consequences. The following factors are also not taken into account:

Is abortion a woman's right to decide about her own body or murder? As stated, abortion has been defended with 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 defenders of this cause are lying to themselves. Because "in abortion, it is not only the mother's body, but also the body and soul of another person, the child. From the beginning of its life, the fetus is a new individual who has received genetic motifs from both the father and the mother. At no point in his development is he a part of his mother's body. She has her own body, her own closed blood circulation, her own heart beat rhythm, her own blood group characteristics that can cause immune reactions in the mother, her own brain wave structure." (8)

    In addition, it is known that the unborn child looks 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 parts as the born babies: hands, feet, mouth, nose, eyes (See You tube video: Silent Scream). A gynecologist who knows what happens in an abortion 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.” (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 find faults in the operation, which are bound to be found because humans 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 that sympathizes with provocateurs has the effect that our attitudes change to sympathize with things that were previously considered clearly wrong.

The antidote to the seduction of the little conscience is to lure it back. Have people fallen under the sway of false compassion? Show them genuine compassion. The best description is the day-to-day 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 plight, and who only seek to show them love. The centers offer free services such as pregnancy tests, medical referrals, information about abortion and adoption, lifestyle counseling, long-term guidance, clothes and accessories for both mother and child, information about church and society services, childbirth coaching, parenting education, help to bring the family together and post-abortion discussion groups. For all these good works, they receive endless news reports "they only care about the fetus, not the mother", "as soon as the child is born, they forget about it", "they forbid women to have an abortion, but do not give them any support". Pro-abortion organizations regularly send provocateurs to these centers who pretend to be seeking help but whose purpose is to get the counselors to talk or behave inappropriately. How desperately iniquity seeks to justify itself! However, the quiet gentleness of crisis pregnancy centers has probably had more influence on what ordinary people think about abortion than anything written on the subject, and their example of personal and sacrificial love puts the mass-produced "compassion" of state welfare systems to shame. (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  practitioner of homosexuality. 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 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. (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)

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. (14)

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. (15)

3. Christianity and politics

Mixing Christian faith with politics is often criticized in the media. It is thought that it is inappropriate to talk about faith in the context of political decisions. It may be regarded as American fundamentalism, or it may be viewed with disdain.

   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 according to it. 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. Therefore, if the Christian worldview does not guide the life of a person and a politician, another worldview will replace it.

Not all worldviews are true. Most politicians certainly have good intentions. All parties also have politicians who are talented in economic matters, social affairs or other areas. It is good if their talent and expertise are put to good use in putting good things into effect. The most talented and knowledgeable people 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 faith in God is completely abandoned. There is no belief in God as creator and judge. Thus, disbelief in God's judgment and the assumption that a person is not responsible to anyone for his actions after this life may affect his behavior. He may think that he will never be held accountable for his actions and wrongs towards others.

2. The view about man is distorted. It is not seen that all people are equal and valuable before God because they are made in God's image. It can lead to classifying people as valuable and less valuable based on race, ability, or other characteristic. It can also lead to people representing other political positions not being respected.

The last century has given good evidence of what worldview means. Hitler and Stalin also practiced politics, but in their lives God was not at the center. For example, Hitler distributed books by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche to his friends. 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 still not been proven true. The birth of life by itself has not been proven either.

    Thus, Stalin's biography, written by Stalin's good friend E. Yaroslavsky, tells how Stalin, who had a religious upbringing and studied theology, becomes an atheist after reading Darwin's work. It happened when I was 13 years old. After that, he started converting his friends to the "new faith" by lending them Darwin's books. This shows that it does really matter which worldview dominates a person. Afterwards, you can guess what would have happened if Darwin's book had not existed or Stalin had not gotten hold of it. Perhaps history would have turned out quite differently.

    What about Hitler? He was also a supporter of the theory of evolution. Just before World War II, Hitler declared in a speech: "[Anyone] who has thought about the world order realizes that it is based on natural selection like war." (16)

    P. Hoffman wrote more about this topic in his book Hitler's Personal Security:

“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, media representatives generally do not believe in the Bible. For them, it represents an outdated world view 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 that, many of them have a negative attitude towards all Christian teaching and concepts. 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, many people have gone astray. In addition, representatives of the media and media persons are facing a serious situation. They have led people away from God and favored wrong ways of life and teachings. It may have appeared e.g. in the following areas:

Pointless speeches are common on TV channels. When, according to Jesus' words, we have to account for even every useless word, this happens on TV channels often. They contain profanity, blasphemy of God, or other useless speeches. However, the same thing is repeated in our own lives. We do not always remember or believe that we are responsible for what we say. At least that's what the following verses show:

- (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 is 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 told about journalists who had written scandalous stories about each other and how many of them had met their end. At the same time, he asked me not to share names. I have kept that promise. However, I have never been able to forget the truths that came out during our conversation. The man expressed it this way: "We media people think that we are above all criticism. We often think of ourselves as a noble race who can say whatever they want under the protection of the uncompromising demand for freedom of the press."

    "However, we forget the people behind the words," he added. "For us, the purpose is to sanctify the means. It doesn't matter how much the family, wife, children and relatives of the people we write about have to suffer." This happened despite the fact that, in his opinion, things were better in Norway then 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 fall into the wrong ways 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 teaching.

- (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 multiple. This is what we can see in the following verses, among others:

- (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!