Do interest rates perpetuate global poverty?

“God opposes usury and greed, yet no one realizes this because it is not simple murder and robbery. Rather, usury is a more diverse, insatiable murder and robbery" – Martin Luther

Haven’t you ever wondered how modern economies have gotten into this position? I think we would only be wasting time debating which “ism”: socialism, capitalism, collectivism et cetera, is best. Capitalism – like it or lump it – is here to stay. But having said that, was it wise to have ignored the advice given to us by the ancient philosophers and spiritual leaders? What do Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Aquinas, and Moses have in common? They all forbade the lending of money at interest, usury , as they called it. Of course, this lending of money at interest rates, is the foundation of our modern economic system. We call it a good investment. John Calvin defended interest charges, helping to set up the development of capitalism in northern Europe. But after looking at the Quarterly External Debt Database, developed jointly by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), I can’t help but wonder. For those interested in definitions, external debt is defined by the IMF as, “the outstanding amount of those actual current, and not contingent, liabilities that require payment(s) of principal and/or interest by the debtor at some point(s) in the future and that are owed to nonresidents by residents of an economy” (whatever that means).

Visit the database and check the Gross External Debt Position of the G8: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States of America and Russia. Now if seven of the world’s leading industrialized nations and Russia owe so much money. What hope is there for a place like Indonesia, where the total external debt represents 80% of their national income? Does having a juggernaut for an economy, automatically mean incurring an exorbitant level of debt? What developing country can repay such debt and still fund educational, health or other important social programmes? Maybe Anup Shah, the author at global issues does have a point. Or, maybe we should have listened to Aristotle, Moses and the Christian leaders of the Middle Ages. But, as I alluded to earlier, I write as a layman in economic matters, just asking questions. What do the trained economists make of all this?

Talk is cheap

Someone commented that we have become a “nation of talkers” and I quite agree. This though should come as no surprise because of the following. One, the cost of living in Barbados is extremely high. Two, word on the street is: talk is cheap. Therefore, it stands to reason that we are bound to become a, “nation of talkers”. Is there anything else we can afford to become?

Reason is not a god

German philosopher Immanuel Kant challenged us in his 1784 essay, “What is Enlightenment?”, with, Sapere Aude! [Dare to know!]. He wrote, “have the courage to use your own intelligence! Is therefore the motto of the enlightenment”. He goes on, “The public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men.” Unfortunately, this erroneous view of reason has trickled down from the enlightenment period. A period where men were convinced that they were emerging from centuries of darkness and ignorance into a new age enlightened by reason, science, and a respect for humanity. People whose minds are still trapped in this era, consciously or unconsciously, mislead the public into thinking that reason and logic alone are the primary sources of knowledge and truth. Reason and logic are glorified as mini-gods to whom we must look to in order to solve the problems of mankind. If your mind is still trapped in the 18th century: please wake up. In the context of discovering Truth, reason is not something that can enlighten; it is something we do: big difference. This is the more reasonable view: It is only because God lends us the tiniest drop of his reasoning powers that we are able to think at all. Similarly, it is only because He loves us infinitely, that we are able to love others. God is the ultimate principle, not reason, therefore we should look to Him for enlightenment. We should look to the one who said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is true enlightenment. You would only, I think, be deceiving yourself, if you believe otherwise.

Athiesm is too simple

“The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn” – Martin Luther

God’s non-existence cannot be proven outright. To state that God does not exist, would require one to possess infinite knowledge, which is impossible. If someone does in fact possess infinite knowledge, let them come forth and show it. It stands to reason therefore, that what we call atheism is, strictly speaking, a retreat to agnosticism, whose basic tenet of faith is this: no one can really know whether or not God exists. A more reasonable position for humans with finite minds. Since atheism cannot support its own presuppositions, it hides this deficiency by shifting the burden of proof, choosing instead to attack religious doctrines. Perhaps though, this is so the scripture could be fulfilled, “…but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:21). The problem with atheism and agnosticism is not lack of evidence. The problem is the willful suppression of that evidence. For the apostle writes in Romans 1:20, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”. C.S. Lewis succinctly summarized atheism when he said, “Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.” I would encourage atheistic thinkers to visit http://www.apologetics.com, download and read carefully, a free copy of the book titled, Faith with reason: Why Christianity is true, by Joseph R. Farinaccio.

Towards a theocracy?

Contrary to what some would have us believe, Christendom is not interested in setting up a theocracy. Jesus made it abundantly clear in John 18:36, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here.” Christianity, not to be confused with Christianity-and-water (the watered down Gospel) is most interested in the souls of men and women, not world domination. The liberal left seems to think, “Run for the hills, the religious right is making a power grab”, when Christian ideas are expressed in the public square. Rest assured, we do not want a theocracy. A fair and just society will do.

All "Bible contradictions" are lies

I side with Charles Spurgeon who said, “I would far father have a person be an earnest, intense opposer of the Gospel than to have him be careless and indifferent.” The “challenge” put forward by a recent writer is common amongst those who set out to destroy Christianity. They put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack. To the writer who issued the “challenge”, the Lord Jesus sends you this message, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36). The writer asked persons to read Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20. Then conveniently adds, also Acts 1:3-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. If we are speaking chronologically we cannot skip mindlessly from the Gospels and Acts to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Unless of course, we are lying by omission. If we read the events as they occurred from Matthew 28 to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, omitting nothing, the correct sequence is this: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20-21. Then Acts 1-14, James, Acts 15-16, Galatians 1-6, Acts 17-18:18, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Acts 18:19-19:41, then 1 Corinthians 1-16. By omitting John 21, then citing Acts 1:3-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, out of their chronological context, it seems as though Paul is contradicting the Gospels with respect to the appearances after the resurrection. Interested persons should read the correct sequence, then draw their own conclusions. The Scriptures cannot be broken, which also means, no fault can be found with them. This is according to Jesus in John 10:35. Therefore, unless we are implying that Jesus is a liar, the Bible is infallible. I would invite persons to read, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A harmony of the resurrection accounts”. A bit of advice to the writer, keep your money. Next time, research and try to think, before putting “pen to paper”.

The contemplation of Christ

Most people are familiar with the famous statement, Cogito, ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am”, made by René Descartes. A short, but profound statement. For even when we are doubting everything, we are still thinking. Therefore the surest thing we can know is the existence of the thinking subject. And since thought is a spiritual activity, he had proved the existence of the human spirit. It was from this postulate that Descartes, a devout Catholic, set about arguing for the existence of God. Can there be anything more worthwhile than such contemplation? It seems, that there is not. Man can master the natural sciences, the arts and other disciplines. We go away after a period of study with a sense of self content, often thinking, “Behold, I am wise”. Not so with the contemplation of Christ. No subject of contemplation can so humble the human mind, than thoughts of Christ. Yet, even though it humbles the mind, it also expands it. As Charles Spurgeon said, “He who often thinks of God, will have a larger mind than the man who simply plods around this narrow globe.” One who thinks they are educated, cultured and sophisticated, yet has never given so much as a passing thought to Christ, and Him crucified; is a fool. They could say of themselves, “I am but of yesterday, and know nothing.” It is most profitable for the human mind to often contemplate on the one who said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” It was Augustine who said, “The greatest happiness is for the mind to attain God.” The Philosopher, namely Aristotle, also agrees with this idea in the final book of the Ethics, where he says, that man’s ultimate happiness is speculative, that is, speculation bearing on the most noble of knowable objects, namely God. Most importantly, it is confirmed in Scripture. For it is written in John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Think on these things.

Bono book excerpt: Grace over karma

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled… . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched …

Protecting yourself online

As more economies continue to be driven by information, success will not be defined by who has the highest net worth. Rather, success will largely depend on how well individuals and companies use, manage and protect their information, both offline and online. Consumers should be aware of the dangers present in the online world: viruses, privacy threats, hackers and so on. There are tools, in addition to antivirus software, that users should install to minimize potential online threats and the information trail that often accompanies online transactions. You can visit the Home PC Firewall Guide at, http://www.firewallguide.com, for a list of software in categories such as anti-spyware, anti-phishing and personal firewalls. You should have a tool or combination of tools, which you regularly update, that protects you from various threats.

When consumers provide information to an organization they expect that the information collected will be used solely for the purpose of providing the service requested. Unfortunately, current practices, in both the offline and online world, has long shattered this expectation of privacy. Information generated during transactions are often used without the consumer’s knowledge or consent for a variety of other purposes. Some companies even go as far as to insist that the information consumers provide them with is now “company property”. There are several examples where companies use and disclose personal information for purposes well beyond what the individual intended. If we do not take active measures to protect our personal information, we could have just as well left a bag of cash on the ground. That is how information should be thought of in the 21st century, as currency.

The Internet presents this generation with unique opportunities as well as challenges. As the Director of Information at Coca Cola said, “We have got to get people to recognize, from an awareness perspective, what the dangers of the online world are.” If people fail to recognize these dangers, they will never become responsible users of information with any degree of competence. That in itself would be devastating to any economy where information is increasingly becoming one of the greatest assets. Second only to its people of course.

Jesus is the only way

A writer recently commented, “You cannot be 100% right about what you believe, because you are not God, you are not divine. You are simply a fallible human…”. Now assuming the writer believes their own statement, that statement itself, made by a fallible human, might not be 100% right. So, why should anyone believe it? Whilst it is true that, to err is human, it does not logically follow that humans always err. Humans can be 100% right about faith related matters. Faith is not the complete absence of reason. So, is “religious tolerance” (whatever that means) a noble virtue? In John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He used the word ‘the’, definite article. He did not say, “one of the truths” or “one of the ways”. If religious pluralism were true, for Jesus to make such a claim, He would have to be either a liar or a narrow-minded Jew. But this is certainly not the case, is it? Christianity, not to be confused with Christianity-and-water (watered down Gospel), makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is the only way. Some may find it strange, or offensive, the claim that there is only one correct religious worldview. This is because of the conventional view that religious relativism is correct and is the way all educated, tolerant and cultured people think. Unfortunately, the conventional view often serves to protect people from the painful job of thinking. People are relativists in one way by being absolutist and dogmatic in another – generally towards things they dislike. People need to be loved more than they need to be tolerated. If you love someone, you tell them the truth. The truth is in Acts 4:12, where it says, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” What’s that name? Jesus, of course. Saved from what? Well, that is another story.

The empty self and loss of thinking

What psychologists call ‘the empty self’ continues to emerge in epidemic proportions in western societies. The empty self is constituted by a set of values and behavioural patterns that eliminates the life of the mind and makes maturation almost impossible. I think most people would agree that adolescent personality traits are staying with people longer today than in earlier generations. In some cases, well into the thirties and forties. The empty self is controlled by infantile cravings and constantly seeks to be filled up and made whole by food, entertainment and consumer goods. Such a person is often materialistic, preoccupied with sex, physical appearance and body image. Hard work, delayed gratification, endurance and sacrifice are all enemies. For the empty self, pleasure is all that matters and it had better be available at the press of a button! Television has a lot to do with this (and I do not think this is one of those cases where someone mindlessly uses the media or the American government as a scapegoat). Studies indicate that widespread television viewing induces mental passivity, retards motivation, negatively affects reading skills, weakens the ability to stay focused and encourages an overall passive withdrawal from life. This has lead to a loss of thinking in the wider society. People do not persuade others of their views (religious or otherwise) on the basis of argument and reason, but rather, by expressing emotional rhetoric and politically correct words. Reason has given way to rhetoric, evidence to emotion and substance to slogan. Now granted, we don’t all have to read to the point of Paul of whom it was said, “As he continued to make his defense, Festus shouted, “You’re out of your mind, Paul! Too much education is driving you crazy!” (Acts 26:24). But remember this, you will be the same person you are five years from now, save two things – the books you read and the people you meet. Let’s grab a book more often instead of that remote…shall we?

Jesus’ teaching and Islam

In his essay Jesus in Islam, Principal of the Muslim College in London, Zaki Badwi begins, “Muslims do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God.” He goes on, “The Qur’an argues, however, that having no father is not proof of divinity – in the case of Jesus – any more than having no parents at all is evidence of Adam’s divinity. The rigorous monotheism enshrined within Islam has no place whatever for any Trinitarian doctrine.” But listen to Jesus teaching Nicodemus in (John 3:16-18), “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” It says, “only begotten Son” for a very important reason. When you beget, you make something of the same kind as yourself. Humans beget humans. Birds beget birds. What God begets is God. When you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. God created Adam, so of course Adam has no divine nature. Jesus was not created but begotten of God and therefore is divine in nature. Muslims say they regard Jesus as ‘a great teacher and one of the prophets’. But Jesus taught, “You must be born again”. How can you regard someone as a great teacher and not accept the most important thing in their teaching? Just a question.

After the recent bombings in London, most people will understandably have questions about Islam on their minds. The best thing I can do is to point interested persons to the online Christian/Muslim dialogue, Answering Islam. This article is particularly interesting. Persons can decide for themselves.

Same-sex marriage and liberalism

Western states seem to be under assault from the supporters of same-sex “marriage”. This assault though has to do with much more than “a piece of paper”. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby writes, “They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don’t want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else.” Same-sex “marriage” is a radical attempt to bully Western states into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature and socially destructive.

Ironically, many Western liberal states now seem to be pinned in by their own logic. The champions of “tolerance” and “human rights”, are not so sure about this issue. Edward Skidelsky in the January 2002 issue of the British left-liberal magazine Prospect, painted a pretty grim picture concerning modern liberalism. He wrote, “Classical liberalism, as exemplified by Tocqueville, Mill and Isaiah Berlin, was discursive and philosophical. It tried to engage its opponents, to appeal to their reason and humanity. It could afford the luxury of argument, because it rested securely on an idea of human nature as benevolent and reasonable. Modern liberalism does not rest on any such conception. What is left is a set of legal claims, advanced in peremptory fashion, with no appeal to common reason. In the absence of any positive ideal to support it, the liberal proclamation of individual freedom looks increasingly like a mere license to selfishness.”

Modern liberalism, having severed itself from its Christian roots, is now up the proverbial creek, without a paddle. With non-Christian minorities living within their borders, Western states will now find it increasingly difficult to return to the Christian confession. At least without remaining true to their “liberal” and “tolerant” doctrine. Skidelsky follows this logic, “It [liberalism] must sever itself from its historic roots in Christianity, yet in doing so it severs itself from the source of its own life. Liberalism must follow a course that leads directly to its own atrophy. It must extirpate itself.”

Upon reflection, the same-sex “marriage” debate might actually be a blessing in disguise. It was said once that you should never argue with a fool, for they will first drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Let the liberal “marriage radicals” follow their logic to its bitter end. If we ask, “What will they think of next?” The answer is probably, “If it is ok to marry individuals of the same sex, why not animals…who is to say sex and maybe even a union between the species is wrong?”. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. With the underlying naturalistic assumption being, we Homo Sapiens are just animals; people are already arguing for the acceptance of sex between species. If you disagree with them, you are accused of speciesism; which they consider to be in the same category as racism and sexism. Maybe only when we reach that stage, will we at last realize that the teaching of Genesis about humanity is as realistic and sensible as it always has been. Only time will tell I suppose.

The inherent flaw in dualism

Dualism is a belief in two supreme gods or powers, both existing independently and ad infinitum, which are in opposition to each other. Depending on the specific dualistic philosophy these two powers are called different things, for example, “Anabolic/Catabolic”, as one writer put it. I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis when he said, “Next to Christianity, Dualism is probably the most sensible and manliest creed on the market”. Christianity goes closer to Dualism than most people think. The New Testament often talks about a dark power in the universe who is behind death, disease and sin. The difference is, that Christianity thinks this dark power was created by God. It was originally created good, but rebelled and turned evil. Christianity agrees with Dualism that the universe is at war. But we do not think it is a war between two independent powers. It is more of a civil war, a rebellion. Dualism is sensible to a point, but there is a catch. To be effective, this dark power or force, must still have attributes which are good. Therefore, the question arises, “From whence did this dark power get these good attributes?” The powers which enable evil to carry on, are powers borrowed or stolen from his opponent. This is why Christians believe the devil is a fallen angel. This is not merely a childish fable. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. Everything which enables a bad man to be really good at being bad, are in themselves good things – intelligence, free will, good looks, charm and so on. Therefore, this dark power could not have existed ad infinitum independent of God. That is why no dualistic philosophy makes sense. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasoning faculties and leads us to a knowledge of God; confirming our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful. While pleasing men’s fancies, it hinders their faith. The Lord reminds you, we are all “sheep” in a sense. The wise ones, choose the care of the chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4).

The Problem Of Pain

Any attempt to justify pain will invariably evoke a bitter response towards the writer. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear from the outset. I am not arguing that human pain and suffering are not painful. I am however arguing, that those hurts are both necessary and inevitable in this fallen world. No matter which system of thought you believe, it must answer this question, “How do you explain the source of evil and suffering in the world?” If you believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God, the question becomes even more troubling, “How do you reconcile this pain and suffering in the world with this concept of God?”

The problem of reconciling an all-loving, all-powerful God with human pain is insoluble, if we do not accept the truth about the fall of man. Not only are we imperfect creatures because of the fall, we are inherently rebellious towards God. The rebellious human spirit will not even begin to try to surrender itself, provided all is well. Both error and sin have this characteristic. The deeper they are, the less their victim suspects their existence. Pain however, is unmasked and everyone knows that something is wrong when they are being hurt (unless they are a sadist). As C.S. Lewis put it, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world”. Most people know how hard it can be to turn their thoughts toward God when all is well. Why ask for your daily bread, when you own the bakery, right? To say we “have all we want” is a terrible statement when that “all” does not include God.

The problem becomes even more insoluble, if we do not understand fully what it means to have free will. Free will is the ability to make a choice without outside coercion or pressure. When God created human beings He gave them free will. This of course means that we can choose either good or evil. There is no such thing as creating a free creature that has no possibility of choosing evil. You may attribute miracles to Him, not nonsense. If a thing is free to be good, it also has to be free to be evil. Someone will probably ask, “Well was it better to create or not to create given this possibility of evil? Why create in the first place if He knew people like, say, Hitler would exist?” I do not know what the best theologians or philosophers would say to that, but this is what I think. We are here, so obviously He thought it was worth the risk. Free will, even though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes life worth living. Try to exclude the possibility of evil (which the existence of free wills involve), and you very quickly find that you have excluded life itself. When children do bad, are their parents responsible? Parents are not morally responsible because human beings are free moral agents not robots. If we do not haul parents before the law courts to answer the charge of “bringing someone into the world who chose to break the law”; then we should not point an accusing finger at God because He created people who chose to do evil.

Another important point to understand about free will is that a thing can be in accordance with your will one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a parent to tell their child, “I’m not going to make you do your homework, you have to do it on your own”. Then they realize that the child is not doing the homework. This is against the will of the parent. They would prefer if the child did its homework. But on the other hand, it is their will which has left the child free to be delinquent. It is the same in the universe. God has not willed evil, but His will (that we have free will), has made evil possible. It is men, not God, who are responsible for slavery, genocide and every unspeakable evil that one can imagine. The gift of free will then is like a two-edged sword. Not by nature of the giver, but by the nature of the recipient.

The problem remains insoluble so long as we define “love” from a purely human standpoint. We attach an extremely trivial meaning to the word “love”, compared to Divine love, which is how God loves. As Traherene in Centuries of Meditation put it, “Love can forbear, and Love can forgive…but Love can never be reconciled to an unlovely object…He can never therefore be reconciled to your sin, because sin itself is incapable of being altered; but He may be reconciled to your person, because that may be restored.” The restoration process, albeit painful, is for our own good and ultimately His glory.

In this fallen world that is still under the dominion of sin, everyone will be rejected and hurt in some way. The beauty about God’s goodness is that, even when we are wounded He can still use it for our good and the advancement of His redemptive purposes. So that we can all say to those who choose to serve like Judas, rather than John, what Joseph told his brothers, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good…” (Genesis 50:20).

Consequences Of Darwinian Morality

It seems that Darwinian fundamentalism is on the verge of spilling over from biology into almost every sphere of life. If your are into politics there is “Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom”. Is economics your thing? Then you might want to consult, “Economics as an Evolutionary Science”. Lawyers, you are also covered with titles such as, “Evolutionary Jurisprudence” or “Law, Biology and Culture: The Evolution of Law”. Today, Darwin’s disciples are touting evolution as all-encompassing. Culture can no longer be separated from biology they tell us, for culture itself is merely the product of evolutionary forces. If that is true of culture, it is also true of morality. If any society embraces this all-encompassing evolutionary system of thought, the results will be devastating. Especially in the area of morality. Hear what some of the most “learned” Darwinists think about certain moral issues.

First up is Steven Pinker of MIT, considered by many to be one of the leading thinkers in the field of cognitive science. He wrote an article in the New York Times applying his brand of evolutionary psychology to the issue of infanticide. This was around the time the story broke in New York about a teenage girl, who delivered her baby at a school dance and then dumped it in the trash. He began talking about how, “we must understand teenagers who kill their newborns”, because infanticide “has been practiced and accepted in most cultures throughout history”. His reasoning was that since it was so ubiquitous, it must have been preserved by natural selection, which therefore means it must have an adaptive function. He went on, “if a newborn is sickly, or if its survival is not promising, they may cut their losses and favour the healthiest in the litter or try again later on”. Lest the reader be misled, Mr. Pinker is still speaking about human babies, not cats. Because of natural selection he goes on, “a capacity for neonanticide is built into the biological design of our parental emotions”. These remarks should not come as a total surprise though. At a symposium studying infanticide among animals, many of the participants agreed that “infanticide can no longer be called ‘abnormal’. Instead it is as ‘normal’ as parenting instincts, sex-drives and self-defense,” and may even be a beneficial evolutionary adaptation.

On the matter of rape, it gets even worse. In a book titled, “The Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion”, the authors (two university professors), made the claim that rape is not a pathology, biologically speaking. Instead they “reassured” us it is an evolutionary adaptation for maximizing reproductive success. The book even goes so far as to call rape, “a natural biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage”. At this point, the dangers of higher “education” become glaringly obvious. It is quite possible to be highly educated, but yet still be a fool. One of the biggest problems in the world today is that the educated fools are so sure of themselves whilst the wiser people are so full of doubt (but that is another story).

A local writer commenting on the issue of homosexuality asked what would be next. Would people be soon arguing to remove the taboo on sex with animals? Well, if Princeton University professor Peter Singer gets his way, the answer to that question is yes. In his article titled “Heavy Petting”, he makes it clear from the get go that he is attacking biblical morality (at least give him points for barking up the right tree). He writes, “in the West, we have a Judeo-Christian tradition” which teaches “humans alone are made in the image of God”. “In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals”. He however maintains that, “we are animals” therefore “sex across the species ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings”. This sick mentality is not restricted to academia. In 2002 a play opened on Broadway called “The Goat, or, Who Is Sylvia?”. It featured a successful architect who confesses with his wife that he has fallen in love with someone else. The someone else is, you guessed it, a goat named Sylvia. With a culture already desensitized to adultery, the playwrights apparently decided to probe the waters of beastiality.

Picture for a moment a culture driven by this kind of Darwinian logic. Even though this way of thinking is fatuous, it is still very popular, why? Because it promises some kind of morality based on science instead of religion. The logical flaw in such a system of morality however, is that it cuts its own throat, philosophically speaking. Philosophically speaking, it is a self-defeatist or self-referentially absurd (or quite simply, it is dumb). For if all of our ideas are products of evolution, then so is the idea of evolution itself. At the pinnacle of this fatuity, is the presumption that only other people’s views have evolved, and are not objectively true or right, whilst the evolutionary view, somehow magically immune from this same process, alone remains true and objective. God help us all, if Darwinian fundamentalism spills over from the biology lab into other areas of public life.

Keeping Religion In Her Place

Since most secularists are too “intelligent” to directly attack religion, they put it in the values realm. Case in point. A recent writer started began by stating, “Mathematics and certain sciences can provide definite answers. Politics, religion and everything under the heading of “ideas” are ephemeral and there is no end to arguments on topics which are simply ‘opinion’.” Many of the problems in western society is the direct result of such thinking. Thinking that is locked in the past of the Enlightenment period. As a result religion is trapped in the private values realm, where relativism reigns supreme. This is where people say, “What might be true for you, is not true for me. That’s just your opinion.” Secularists tout their ideas as rational and unbiased whilst implying that religious views are subjective “ideas”. Quite apart from anything else, this is a lie. We all come to the table with prior experiences, personal beliefs and other interests. A popular slogan in the philosophy of science is, “All facts are theory-laden”. Secular humanism, materialism, modernism and post-modernism now masquerade in the public square under the guise of “facts”. It is impossible to think, period, without some prior philosophical commitment. Our minds are influenced by the spiritual stance we take, whether it be for God or against Him. We are inherently religious beings, created to be in a relationship with God. If we reject Him we do not stop being religious, we simply find some other ultimate principles upon which to base our lives – Science/Reason for some, boys’ philosophies for others. The question is not which view is religious and which is purely rational. The real question is, which view is true and which is false? It is when we honestly answer this question, we will realize what Francis Schaffer said is so true, “Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural, but rather truth spelled with a capital “T”. Truth about total reality, not just about religious things.” Once these false ideas are rooted out, people will be able to run the country better.

Old Testament Miracle A Historical Fact

There is a writer who of late seems to take great pride in mocking the account given in the book of Jonah (1:17). Unbelievers, and false teachers in the church have for years rejected this miracle, calling it fiction. However, Jesus Himself regarded it as a historical fact. He used the incident of Jonah and the great fish (a whale according to our Lord), to illustrate His own death, burial and resurrection (Matthew 12:39-41). Skeptics who deny this miracle should keep in mind that they have to reckon with the very words of Jesus. Perhaps though, these most learned skeptics are wiser than Jesus. The same writer also hinted sometime earlier that the Bible was written during the time when men thought the earth was flat. Most people would have probably read that the men of the Middle Ages thought that the earth was flat and the stars near. Actually, this is a lie. Ptolemy had told them that the earth was a mathematical point without size in relation to the distance of the fixed stars. A distance which one ancient text estimates at 117 million miles. As to how what Ptolemy said then became, “the earth was flat”, I do not know. Those who read their “little” Bibles do not leave their brains at the door and come in and praise the Lord, as some would like to mislead. Chesterton indeed got it right when he said, “The Christian faith has not been tried and found wanting. It has rather been found difficult and left untried”. Maybe Christendom is better off that way.

When Government Help Hurts

SOCIAL COUNCIL SOON was the headline of The Barbados Advocate on Saturday June 11, 2005. Later in the article it stated, “…that governments must begin to see their social protection policies and programmes as developmental, rather than concentrated in the welfarism aspect of the programmes”. This is good news. In the early 1990s, America had a radical shift in their approach to welfare. A shift we should take note of. Although welfare had done some good, it had also created a permanent underclass – the chronically poor. With this permanent underclass also came related social pathologies such as alcohol addiction, drug abuse and crime. America’s welfare system was in dire need of reform. Marvin Olasky discovered the answer. He discovered it by analyzing the traditional Christian approach to charity. In researching the numerous Christian charities in the nineteenth-century, often dubbed the Benevolent Empire, he found that churches specialized in personal assistance that literally fulfilled the meaning of compassion – “suffering with” others. These charities didn’t just hand out money, they helped people to change their lives, focusing on job training and education. They required that those receiving aid do useful work. This gave them a chance to rebuild their human dignity whilst simultaneously making a worthwhile contribution to society. They built social networks, reconnecting the needy with family and the church for continuous support and accountability. Most importantly, they addressed the moral and spiritual needs that lie at the root of all dysfunctional behaviour. If there is one area where government help can hurt, it is in the area of welfare. The American government realized that by handing out welfare cheques to all who qualify, without addressing the underlying behavioural problems, they were in essence “rewarding” antisocial and dysfunctional behavioural patterns. And we all know, that any behaviour the government rewards will tend to increase. The churches’ successful approach was outlined in Olasky’s book, The Tragedy of American Compassion. This book impacted former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich so much, he distributed it to all incoming freshmen in Congress. Olasky then became an advisor to President Bush, who promised to create a special office to support faith-based initiatives. A lesson we would do well to take note of.

Genetic Determinism and Free Will

In a book titled Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, the authors attacked the biblical teaching of “original sin”. They insist that the September 11 attacks had nothing to do with moral “evil”. They maintain that a predisposition to violence “is written in the molecular chemistry of DNA”. The genes made them do it. This raises the obvious question, are we solely the by-product of our genes? To my mind, genetic determinism makes no sense in humans. Even if a genetic link is established, it can only mean we have a tendency to act in a certain way. There are too many factors, both biological and social, between a gene and a type of behaviour to justify any claim that one completely determines the other. The discovery of genes for physical traits, tends to reinforce the idea that we are merely by-products of our genes. In reality, it is not that simple. Genes act within a particular context and depend largely on what else is going on. Molecular biologists – who study the chemical activities of genes – quickly point out that it is not the genes alone. Genetic determinism cannot eliminate human freedom. A proper grasp of what we are and how we function is foundational to any well-ordered society. Human beings are the unity of two distinct realities – body and soul. “Scientific” talk (which is really naturalistic philosophy masquerading as true science) about genetic determinism can be misleading. Unless the limitations of genetic research are made clear, we will set a dangerous precedent in the long run. If we believe the gene myth that, “it is all in the genes”, we could as well absolve ourselves of all moral and social responsibility. The more we accept responsibility for who we are – body and soul with the freedom of choice – the more honest we become. To attribute everything to genetics only diminishes what it means to be human. It diminishes what it means to be created in the “likeness” and “image” of God (Genesis 1:27).