Pro Rege Papers

I was watching a PBS science special recently (some of the most profound evolutionary propaganda out there, but still interesting to explore the wonder of God’s creation) and I heard this quote from a scientist:

One of the key things that every scientist keeps in mind is you should never fall in love with your theory. So it’s an idea, it’s a hypothesis, it fits all the known facts. But it has not yet been proven, and we must be willing to give it up and modify it if it is not proven. But we will learn something in doing so.

He was talking about an astronomical theory that he had, but he made a very good point that should be applied to all theories—including evolution.

Most of the secular scientific community has fallen in love with evolution as a theory. They don’t like to question it, they don’t like to look for answers anywhere else, they don’t like to test it. All these things should be done with a normal theory, but they aren’t with evolution.

Once, a scientist wrote a preface to an edition of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, by Charles Darwin, saying that the book gave Western Civilization the excuse to pursue their sexual lusts. The secular scientific community has fallen in love with evolution because it has given man an excuse to reject God and live as he pleases. As the racist eugenics advocate, Friedrich Nietzsche, once said,

The Greatest modern event—that God is dead…—has now begun to cast its first shadows over Europe…. In fact, we philosophers and “free spirits” feel ourselves irradiated as by a new rosy dawn by the report that “the old God is dead”; our hearts overflow with gratitude, astonishment, presentiment, and expectation. At last the horizon seems once more unobstructed.

The secular world does not want to give evolution up, even if it no longer fits all the known facts. Evolution has not, and cannot be proven. The secular community must be willing to give it up. Modifying has run its course; the theory still isn’t working. It’s time to move on to another view, one that the Western scientific community embraced for a thousand years. It’s time to move on to the view that all the facts seem to imply. It’s time to move on to the view that God has revealed to us in His Word. Maybe they will learn something in doing so.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…

Here is the Quote of the Month for February, by the Christian political theorist and former prime minister of the Netherlands:

There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: “Mine!”

Abraham Kuyper

Hat tip: Sovereign Grace Ministries.

This is a response to Ironwolf’s reply to my previous article. Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. I’ve been pretty busy lately. Anyway, I’d like to thank you for actually responding to me, as well as having civility in doing it.

The thesis of your argument is that the Golden Rule is the moral standard that you follow, and the best one for me and other people at that. However, I do have a few questions for you. Where did the principle of the Golden Rule come from? Who laid down the Golden Rule? You just said in your post that it predates Christianity, and possibly humanity itself. However, I propose that you need to have some type of source for your moral standard; otherwise it’s just something that some little insignificant creature made up. If someone just made it up, it is not binding on anyone else; it is just one man’s opinion on how others are behaving. You can’t impose your standard on anyone because neither you nor it has supremacy over humanity. However, if it came from God than it is binding on everyone, since then it is a rule that was laid down by our Maker. Therefore, it would predate time itself. But you won’t admit that it was God, so I’m anxious to know your answer.

But back to what I am saying, you might be able to be governed by the Golden Rule, but you can’t impose it on anyone. Why is the Golden Rule the only rule that man should be ruled by? Why is the Golden Rule right? Is it just because it’s evolutionarily beneficial? Or is it just because it’s good for a society? Killing everyone who is a weakling is evolutionarily beneficial. Going on a world conquest is good for your society. Those are not moral standards; they are just ideal actions that might progress something further.

The Golden Rule is based on how you would like someone to treat you. However, many different people have many different likes on how they like to be treated. Therefore, as Slingpaw said, you can’t apply it to other people based on what you do and do not like. The Golden Rule is not capable of making absolute judgments of other people. It can only supply a general principle of behavior that we should follow as creatures of God, who laid down the Golden Rule.

Unfortunately, the Judeo-Christian tradition (and many other religions besides) corrupt the Golden Rule by adding layer upon layer of superstition, dogma, sexism, racism, classism, xenophobia, and other forms of bigotry to an otherwise simple and beautiful idea: treat others with the level of respect that you would like to receive.

Who are you to say that all those things are wrong (I’m not disagreeing that they are; it’s just a rhetorical question)? Who are you to define those things? It’s just your opinion that keeping a woman from being a pastor is sexism. Many other people don’t see it that way. It’s just your opinion that you don’t want to be stoned for “mere” disrespect. It’s just your opinion that it is only “mere” disrespect. Other people, knowing what an offense it was to the covenant of God, would have admitted that they deserved stoning. You can’t judge the judgment of God, and say that it isn’t fair.

The wisdom of the Golden Rule only requires a little thought to understand

Where did that “wisdom” come from?

If I do not live by the Golden Rule then the suffering of others increases, and inevitably the increasing suffering of others increases my own suffering. In extreme cases society itself breaks down and suffering increases exponentially.

So what? If you get gratified with what you want, who cares about what happens later? Aren’t we supposed to live life in the here and now? Who cares if others suffer, it usually doesn’t affect me. (Yes, this is rhetorical, I am not advocating end-justifies-the-means ethics)

Based on your answers to my questions, I judge you, Althusius, to be morally corrupt, i.e., depraved.

This is my favorite sentence in your reply. Yes, Ironwolf, I am depraved, I am morally corrupt. But I have hope. I have a Savior who has taken my moral depravity upon himself and died because of it for me. He has taken my corruption upon Himself, and put His righteousness on me, so that I am no longer depraved before God. Yes, I still sin in this life (not by your standards, but by God’s), but the Holy Spirit is working in me to make me more like Christ. I still sin, but I have been forgiven. I have hope.

How about you? I’m sure you don’t keep the Golden Rule perfectly, and I can guarantee you that you haven’t kept God’s Rule perfectly. You need forgiveness from God.

I judge you, Althusius…your morality [is] just as questionable, when judged by the standard of the Golden Rule.

You can’t judge me; you can’t judge God, or anyone else by the Golden Rule. You can voice your opinion, but it doesn’t really matter in the long run. People can still steal, cheat, murder, rape, show disrespect, lie, cuss, profane God’s name, worship demons, and work themselves into the ground, regardless of your thinking it’s wrong.

It is by the Golden Rule that I know what is good.

Good according to your standards that you can’t judge anyone else by. If anyone can make up his or her own moral standard, than Hitler’s actions were good, because they were good according to his standard, whatever it was. You are trying to make a moral standard for everyone based on what you think is right and wrong. You don’t have that authority, only God does.