|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 9:45 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 14, 2017 8:31 pm
 |
|
|
 |
edited to correct a typo: hten = then*; edited again to add a note about God's judgment
I understand (and agree with) the general principle that Peter Hitchens is trying to describe (that Christ's/YHWH's nature of, “loving others as you love yourself” is not the nature we're born with, much less is it something we're consistent in 100% of the time in the way that Jesus/YHWH is, and thus we need His divine intervention, divine revelation, and divine prodding to walk His way. Consequently, a populace comprised of individuals who are not open to walking humbly under Him will result in more transgression, in body and in mind, against creation and one another, than a populace that does humbly submit under YHWH).
But there were a few instabilities in Hitchen's way of going about explaining this that could be a stumbling block to the unbeliever (or even a new believer) who is trying to follow along logically, and/or who knows certain Biblical terminology (i.e. "unnatural") or other Biblical passages about how much unbelievers are capable of knowing without Christian religion, but since Peter Hitchens is speaking in ways contrary to those Biblical passages, it nullifies how the Bible expresses itself, and can weaken the faith of the new believer.
Two areas:
One
[1] Peter Hitchens used "unnatural" in this article to mean, "something that goes against the nature we are born with”:
Peter Hitchens WROTE:
[...] human creatures are required to do things which they would not do "naturally" as mammals. Marriage is unnatural. Building for the future is unnatural. The practice of medicine is unnatural. The deferment of immediate gratification for a greater reward is unnatural. Charity is unnatural. Education is unnatural. Literacy is unnatural, as is the passing on of lore and history from one generation to another. Christian societies as a whole are "unnatural," requiring a host of actions which cannot be based on self-interest, however enlightened, or even on mutual obligation.
The Holy Spirit in the Bible, on the other hand, uses the term "unnatural" to refer to whatever deviates from the good design that YHWH created in the beginning. So, "natural" would actually encompass marriage, marriage is natural in YHWH's eyes, and said marriage—"a lawful, in God's eyes, sexual relationship, where two become one, and committed to for life"—as being between a man and a woman; whereas, “unnatural” would be, "male with male" or "female with female"):
Matthew 19:4-6 (NIV)
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 19:4 Gen. 1:27
b. Matthew 19:5 Gen. 2:24
Romans 1:26-27 (NIV)
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
YHWH created a male and a female in the beginning; ergo, "natural", in God's eyes, as it concerns sexual relations, is between a male and a female [what He designed since the beginning], and "unnatural" in God's eyes, is viewed as seeking sexual gratification in "same sex" ways (male with male, female with female, a way that does not require opposite sex organs interacting; so, that is unnatural to His design).
“Natural” or “unnatural” is not dependent on how creation (rebellious or otherwise) views things, nor on how creation feels or wants to reason, but on how YHWH created in the beginning—no matter how sinful (and thus deviant/decayed from God's Law and nature) we are born as today or view things as today. That (the beginning) is what defines natural or unnatural, not the era we're born in nor the way we're born:
Psalm 51:5 (NIV)
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Romans 8:21-24 (NIV)
21 that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?
Footnotes:
a. Romans 8:21 Or subjected it in hope. 21 For
We are all born deviant, corrupt/decaying, today, to varying degrees, so we cannot 100% solely rely on creation's biology and physiology to define “natural” or “unnatural” for us.
So, to clarify:
A) What God designed in the beginning is good (and is natural to His design) and whatever deviates from that good design is unnatural.
B) To fallen man, who is born into a corrupted earth and corrupt flesh today, who does not keep in mind YHWH's revelation about what was there in the very good beginning, they would view the sinful nature that they're born in as good and natural, and would view the Biblical worldview as unnatural to them.
However, the Bible does not utilize the terms "natural" and "unnatural" in the way a carnal, unregenerate person born today would perceive it as (in the way the article was utilizing the terms). The Bible utilizes those terms as addressed above in "A".
If Peter Hitchens had gone this route, then it would have been easier to illustrate how we cannot arrive at YHWH's absolute morals/moral system without YHWH's divine revelation (how do you know what was there in the beginning to compare it with and contrast it to what we see today? Only firsthand eyewitness testimony since you/we weren't there). But YHWH wouldn't call it “unnatural” religion / “unnatural” morals / “unnatural” ways, but beyond-the-natural religion, thus divine [beyond-the-natural] revelation and divine [beyond-the-natural] intervention (e.g. something from outside of creation communicating with creation, or coming into creation, and leaving information behind for us to follow), for us, in an ever-decaying world (thanks to Adam and Eve's sin), to be aware of what His natural design has been since the beginning.
But unless a person accepts that a God exists, is willing to submit to His instruction and acknowledge their own behavior as wrong, said person won't be able to accept (or even see) any of this.
Hebrews 11:6 (NIV)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Proverbs 1:23 (NIV)
23 Repent at my rebuke!
Then I will pour out my thoughts to you,
I will make known to you my teachings.
That addressed, and the second area, and here both brothers are being inconsistent (at the same time, both of them are agreeing with the Bible, and then saying something that disagrees with the Bible, again both of them):
Two
[2] Peter Hitchens started with the premise that man can't arrive at the Christian moral code without religion. But then—when trying to refute the stance of his atheist brother Christopher Hitchens (that to care for others as much as yourself is not within man's constitution)—invalidates his premise when he appeals to examples not dependent upon the religion of Christ/YHWH, but found in creation, that can be found even in unbelievers too, thus not dependent on the religion of Christianity (e.g. a mother's sacrificial love for her child, a husband's love for his sick, incontinent and demented wife, etc). Thus invalidating his premise...
Peter Hitchens WROTE:
But the fact that men can arrive at the Golden Rule without religion does not mean that man can arrive at the Christian moral code without religion.
Christianity requires much more, and above all does not expect to see charity returned. To love thy neighbour as thyself is a far greater and more complicated obligation, requiring a positive effort to seek the good of others, often in secret, sometimes at great cost and always without reward. Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Both brothers are acknowledging (one unaware, the other aware) what the Bible says, but then speaking directly against it (Christopher Hitchens in that, on the one hand, he says, we [humans] don't need a God or don't need to believe in a God to be capable of doing and arriving at things like, “love your neighbour as you love yourself”, and yet on the other hand, says these very same humans are not capable of expressing, “love towards others as they love themselves”—Peter Hitchens pointed this out. So if it's not human nature, then whose nature is it? Is it not beyond them [God's]? And yet, Peter Hitchens on the one hand is saying, “man can't arrive at this kind of Christian love, of loving others in the way we love ourselves, without Christian religion” and yet points to examples that can be demonstrated by those outside of Christianity, lol.
More accurately, and in summation, what they're both stumbling around in an attempt to say:
Romans 2:14-15 (NIV)
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
Gentiles, those uncircumcised in heart to obey YHWH, who don't worship YHWH, can arrive at the same moral convictions of YHWH's Law.
And what's in the Law?
Leviticus 19:18 (NIV)
18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.
YHWH's / YHWH-incarnate's previous special revelation, documented as words on the scrolls/tablets/Scripture, are still needed however to arrive at certain aspects of that Law of our Creator:
Romans 7:7 (NIV)
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[a]
Footnotes:
a. Romans 7:7 Exodus 20:17; Deut. 5:21
His morality is higher and not always apparent without His divine intervention.
The unbeliever who doesn't read the Law/the Torah will not be able to fully grasp all of reality, consistently, even if they grasp some of it on their own or if God directly reveals it to their conscience as they're interacting with YHWH in life, known or unbeknownst to them, just like He revealed dreams to Pharaoh, Abimelek, and Nebuchadnezzar.
And like Elihu described:
Job 33:14-18 (NIV)
14 For God does speak—now one way, now another—
though no one perceives it.
15 In a dream, in a vision of the night,
when deep sleep falls on people
as they slumber in their beds,
16 he may speak in their ears
and terrify them with warnings,
17 to turn them from wrongdoing
and keep them from pride,
18 to preserve them from the pit,
their lives from perishing by the sword.[a]
a. Job 33:18 Or from crossing the river
Thus special revelation, even if the person doesn't perceive it to be so, and even if the person isn't Christian.
Special revelation—that's in agreement with what YHWH revealed previously in dreams, visions, or bodily/audible manifestations, as documented in the Scriptures (through Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, that YHWH/YHWH-incarnate gave mankind)—and that we, in turn, walk out in Spirit and in Truth, functions as the salt of the earth that keeps the consciences of mankind seasoned throughout the generations, reminding their consciences of the nature we're supposed to have and were designed to have in the beginning, because without it people degenerate into this:
Isaiah 5:20 (NIV)
20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
Total confusion and chaos. And thus the latter part of the article's title, "Morality's Foundations Crumble in the Absence of Christianity". However, and more specifically and accurately, I would say, "morality's foundations crumble in the absence of Christ / YHWH, His Spirit convicting men about sin, and His visible/bodily manifestation on earth revealing things to men—either as His pre-'unique bodily manifestation as Jesus', or as Jesus, or Jesus/YHWH working through His human disciples/apostles/prophets by His Spirit, or just His Spirit working on the minds of men through dreams and such directly [though they may not understand unless someone more mature in the faith with a developed relationship with YHWH, who prays to YHWH, interprets for them]", thus keeping people connected to His Word/Message/Mind/Example.
In a nutshell: both of the Hitchens brothers were right on something and wrong or inconsistent in another area, but the Bible is 100% right. Unbelievers can know aspects of YHWH's morality outside of Christian religion—in the sense of not being aware of Christian religion—because of the conscience that YHWH created in mankind, and the way that He speaks through parable, dream, natural circumstances in life. But they won't grasp the full nature of YHWH's love/moral standards or the full scope of reality, that YHWH has allowed us to know already, without the Word of God/"YHWH's special revelation in written form". And thus they can't get the full scope of what He revealed already (about morality, love, and who He is as God, and how He punishes on earth and other realms) without trusting that there is a God, He is alive, present, that He incarnated and intervened into creation, gave instructions, gave words, and revealed things about Himself. Otherwise, they'll only be in the realm of unprotected speculation, even if they blindly guess at (and receive convictions about) some true things without His Word.
Trying to argue that we can have morals without a God existing is futile: even if we don't believe in Him or don't acknowledge Him, our conscience was given to us by Him, so His morals will, to some degree or another, be manifested in us, even as an unbeliever. But if we suppress the truth in unrighteousness, we can sear our conscience shut. Regardless, even if it hasn't been seared shut, and is still somewhat sensible and feeling, all of our consciences are marred; thus, we all need to be born-again from the inner-being/mind and washed by the water of the Word that He revealed in order to be 100% consistent with our Creator in all things.
John 3:3 (NIV)
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”
Footnotes:
a. John 3:3 The Greek for again also means from above; also in verse 7.
Hebrews 9:14 (NIV)
14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[a] so that we may serve the living God!
Footnotes:
Hebrews 9:14 Or from useless rituals
Ephesians 5:25-27 (NIV)
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
Footnotes:
a. Ephesians 5:26 Or having cleansed
1 Peter 1:23 (NIV)
23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
Ephesians 4:22-24 (NIV)
22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
But as long as their minds are blinded / darkened by Satan, and driven by their own flesh, they won't be 100% accurate in their reasoning or views, unless YHWH opens their conscience in response to someone faithfully preaching and explaining His truth:
2 Corinthians 4:4 (NIV)
4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Acts 26:17-18 (NIV)
17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
2 Corinthians 3:14 (NIV)
14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
Luke 24:45 (NIV)
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
2 Timothy 2:25-26 (NIV)
25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Romans 8:7-9 (NIV)
7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
Luke 11:13 (NIV)
13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
Romans 10:14 (NIV)
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
But we need to stick to Biblical definitions of words to do this successfully, without confusion. And we can't do this by speaking against a concept that is actually found in Scripture, but we're arguing against just because the truth came from the lips and mind of an atheist / unbeliever and he was essentially correct in what he said. Unbelievers can get things right even if they're not a Christian; YHWH is alive. We can't put Him in a box. Though there is greater revelation and cohesion in His written word, they're going to stumble around and realize certain aspects about Him correctly even without Christian/Jesus'/YHWH's religion being in their awareness. The problem is, with no discernment / Commands of YHWH to keep them safe, they'll believe the unclean spirits too, not just the Holy Spirit.
(edit: and following false ideas invites God's earthly judgments/divine rebuke i.e. [The Divine Judgments of God]). |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 12:49 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
