Christian faith and prejudice

People have a variety of objections to the Christian faith and to God. Read if these objections and prejudices make sense

This article explores some of the most common prejudices and preconceived notions people have about the Christian faith. They come up again and again in the thoughts and attitudes of people who are skeptical of Christ and living faith. These questions also come up in interviews with journalists. They usually always ask the same questions about the Christian faith. That's why we study this topic in more detail. We begin with the existence of God.

Q: Isn't it foolish to believe in God? I myself am an atheist and I am sure that there is no God.

A: Both the idea that there is a God or that there is no God are both faith-based assumptions. How do you know that God does not belong to the sector that you have no knowledge of? He may be beyond our senses.

It's a bit like if someone loses their keys on the street. He looks for them under the street lamp, "because there is better light and because you can't see in the dark". However, it is possible that the lost keys are exactly in that area in the dark, which the person is unable to see. So God can be in the area where we cannot see him.

Q: Aren't Christianity and science opposites?

A: When there are contradictions in this area, it is not a question of modern scientific studies, but of the interpretation of history - mainly about whether life arose by itself or from the hand of God, and whether or not real species changes have occurred. Both views, the one based on Bible’s announcement and the materialistic one, are based on belief. We cannot prove them afterwards, because we cannot go back in time. However, there are clear indications that the materialistic view is on weak ground on issues related to the early stages of life. That's because...

The origin of life has not been proven. When it comes to scientific research, there is a clear view in that area that life has a beginning. This is not disputed, because it is known that life depends on the sun (without the sun, the temperature on Earth would be almost -273 degrees, and that would make life impossible), and this source of heat cannot be eternal. At some point there must have been a moment when life emerged.

And how did life begin? There are only two possibilities in that area: life has arisen by itself or God has created it. Both of these views are based on faith because we cannot go back in time and revise things.

However, it is known that the birth of life by itself has not been proven. No proof has been found for that, even though some people want to believe so. The more information has accumulated, the more difficult it has been to defend this view. So, if we assume that God created everything, it is not at all a worse option than the birth of life by itself. On the contrary, it is more rational to assume that life emerged, because an almighty God created it, rather than believing it came about by itself. If the spontaneous birth of life is possible, why has it not been proven so far? It shouldn't be difficult if it has actually happened.

Let's look at a quote related to Stanley Miller. He is a man who has become famous for his experiments related to the origin of life. He was interviewed towards the end of his life. J. Morgan tells the following about the interview:

He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (1)

No species changes have been observed in fossils or modern species. What about the validity of the theory of evolution? Many believe in it, but it is interesting that evolutionists themselves in their writings have brought out facts that refute the theory. They are enough to prove it false. Such material can also be found in the writings of Darwin. He himself admitted or had to admit three things that call his theory into question. If Darwin's statements are taken as such, he had no evidence in favor of evolution. The observations he made, which in themselves were fine and accurate descriptions of nature, refer only to variation in the framework of basic species.

1) Darwin did not possess any direct evidence proving that a species had changed into another:

I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it. (2)

2) Species are different from each other:

According to this theory, there must have been innumerable intermediate forms between species. Why is it then that we can-not find them buried inside the crust of the Earth? Why is it that the entire wildlife is not at a state of confusion instead of be-ing composed, as we can see, of clearly determined species? Geological research has not exposed the countless slight differ-ences between past and modern species that this theory requires. And this is the most apparent of the many arguments presented against it. However, the answer lies in the great inadequacy of geological findings. (3)

3) The fossil data put his theory to a major test:

But I could never have even imagined how weak is the evidence given by even the best preserved geological layers. The lack of innumerable intermediate forms between species that should have been living during the early and later stages of each formation has put my theory to a major test. (4)

Those who believe that the geological narrative is more or less perfect will certainly reject my theory. (5)

Darwin's contemporary, Richard Owen (1804-1892), a professor of comparative anatomy, criticized Darwin at the time for not taking the evidence as such. Darwin cited the inadequacy of the findings, but Owen stated that the only justification is to make use of the material that has hitherto been found and excavated. Based on it, one can predict the future. If it does not support the existence of intermediate forms, then the theory should be rejected. Owen's statement also shows that it is a question of what one wants to believe, not of true knowledge. Darwin's theory, which many consider important, has no reliable basis. It is a faith-based conception like the faith in creation, but the evidence in favor of it is weak. Those who follow Darwin do not want to admit this.

So far, durable and useful conclusions have really only been built on sure information. Now we are asked to accept the assumption by appealing to a lack of information. Geological records are said to be so imperfect! But what human record would not be imperfect? (...) But when Mr Darwin, when referring to the lack of the fossil intermediate forms that are a requirement for his hypothesis – the lack of the countless intermediate forms that should have existed at some point during the history of the world according to the "theory of natural selection" – loudly proclaims what can or cannot be left to be found in the layers that have not been touched yet, we would reply that we can only predict the future based on what we have already found. (...) Are there any cases in which a fossil has been proven to be such an intermediate form based on the facts observed? We have been searching in vain for such examples. (6)

Q: Are the things mentioned in the Bible real? I myself don’t believe in them.

A: We need to approach this subject through evidence. As far as we know, it is true that God’s existence cannot directly be proven, but that is not the case with events mentioned in the Bible. If they are in concordance with historic research and archeology, then we are dealing with science.

In this respect, the Bible is in a good place. Historic research and archeology have confirmed the accuracy of biblical events. Those researchers, who have doubted the Bible, have constantly been forced to let go of their assumptions. The following quotations relate to the historicalness of the Acts and other biblical Books. They show how events and details mentioned in the Bible become reinforced by other sources. If these are historical events, then they are scientific as well.

The historical accuracy of the Acts has proven to be amazing. (…) Any attempt to reject the fundamental quality of the history of the Acts, even in the small details, seems absurd. Researchers of the history of Rome have for a long time regarded it as self-evident. (7)

In a sense, this is exactly what archaeology does. If ancient historical details have been proven to be correct time and time again, we should also trust the stories of the historian in question that cannot be confirmed in the same way.

I asked for a professional opinion from McRay. – What do you think: does archaeology prove or disprove the reliability of the New Testament when archaeologists study the details included in the stories?

McRay immediately replied. – The reliability of the New Testament increases with research, there is no doubt about that. Just as the reliability of any ancient document is enhanced by the fact that, as the excavations progress, it is established that the author has provided correct information about some place or event (...)

– The consensus among both liberal and conservative scientists is that Luke was very precise as a historian,, McRay replied. – He was a learned man, he was eloquent, his command of Greek was almost classical, he wrote like a well-educated man and archaeological findings have proven time and time again that Luke was very precise in his writings.

McRay added that in many cases related to the harbour stories, scientists at first thought that some of Luke's references were false, but later findings have confirmed that he wrote the information correctly. (...) One prominent archaeologist carefully studied Luke's references of 32 countries, 54 cities and nine islands without finding a single error. (8)

How about the miracles the Bible talks about? Many so-called scientific people think that the miracles reflect a worldview from the past, but that is a bad explanation. If the writers of the Bible accurately described secular events and details, why would they have not done the same in terms of the miracles? It is only the researchers’ religious prejudice that prevents them from accept-ing the fact that biblical descriptions could be true. These people and researchers are also affected by our time and it shows in their beliefs.

Besides, there are mentions about the biblical miracles in other sources as well. For example, Jewish sources, the historian Josephus and Talmud have also referred to them. Other sources talk about miracles as well, such as the Apostolic Fathers’ writ-ings. Some of the people, who knew Jesus or the disciples, were still alive when these texts were written.

Q: Hasn't science proven the Earth and life on it to be at least hundreds of millions of years old?

A: It is a common belief, but it is possible to show clear incoherencies in the geological time chart and in radiocarbon measurements. They are the most important tools for age determination. We start with man because Jesus said that man already appeared in the early stages of creation:

- (Matt 19:4) And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

- (Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

The Carboniferous period and humans. According to the general viewpoint, the Carboniferous period took place ca. 300 million years ago, and the general opinion has also been that modern humans have lived on Earth for only a few tens of thousands of years. However, these assumptions contradict observations, as human fossils and items that belonged to humans have been found from the Carboniferous stratum (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, p. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). These discoveries indicate that people have lived on the planet for 300 million years, or we should measure coal layers of the Carboniferous period only in thousands of years.

Trilobites and humans. The general perception has been that trilobites went extinct 250 million years ago. However, some dis-coveries clearly indicate that trilobites and humans lived simultaneously. There cannot be 250 million years between their ap-pearances on the planet.

William Meister made an amazing discovery on June 1, 1968 in Utah. He found several trilobite fossils in a fossilized human sandal print! But according to evolutionary periods, arranged on the basis of geological strata, trilobites became extinct about 230 million years before man appeared!

… Geologist Dr. Clifford Burdick found further evidence to support the hypothesis of human and trilobite coexistence. He found the footprints of a barefoot child, one of which contained a flattened trilobite. (9)

Dinosaurs and humans. The general view has been that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. However, there are numerous heritage stories that describe large dragons and lizards, which seem to have a resemblance to dinosaurs. These descriptions, which may be based on old recollections, are found among many different peoples, so that English, Irish, Danish, Norwegian, German, Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Babylonian literature mention them. The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265) explains these stories:

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.

Human evolution. The naturalistic philosophy assumes that humans have evolved even though it is well known that remains which are clearly from the modern man have been found in older layers than those of their assumed forefathers. We face this problem also if we use only the dating and classification used by the evolutionists themselves:

The next facts are about fossil data of man. First of all, fossils that cannot be distinguished from the modern man based on their external characteristics have been timed at up to 4. 5 million years in the past. Based on this it seems that there were genuine people well before the Australopithecus appeared in the fossil data.

(...) Based on the fossil data, we can state that when humans first appeared they were already fully humans. The fact that our forefathers suddenly appeared, morphologically fully humans, means that the fossil data complies with the ideology of Creation. This fact is undisputable even if fossils are arranged in order based on the evolutionistic dating system (although we believe this dating system is inherently flawed). In other words, even if we were to approve the evolutionists’ fossil dating system, the final result would not support the idea of human evolution. In fact, the results are so contrary to human evolution that they practically prove the theory wrong. Such is the true nature of human fossil history. (10)

Radiocarbon in fossils. Radiocarbon, which has a half-life of only 5730 years, has been repeatedly found in coal, peat, petroleum, natural gas deposits, and even fossils from the Cambrian period (supposed to begin 600 million years ago). Such discoveries show that the deposits and fossils cannot be even 100,000 years old.

In the early years of the invention, it was believed that all the preconditions needed to make accurate age measurements were now present. Researchers gathered all kinds of things to measure: items from the tombs of pharaohs and Neanderthals, teeth of sabre-tooth tigers and mammoths, fossils, crude oil, etc. Radiocarbon was found in all of them. These observations regarding age were published in Radiocarbon magazine. Many of the samples had previously been dated as being millions of years old. (11)

Radioactivity. The radiocarbon method is only suitable for measuring organic substances. Instead, other radioactivity methods are used to measure stones.

These radioactivity methods have given interesting results in those cases where the time of crystallization of the stones is known. For in reality, stones that are less than 200 years old may have been, according to measurements, even two to three billion years old. This shows how big the differences can be between reality and measurement results. If the methods are unreliable in those cases where the time of crystallization is known, how can they be reliable when this time is not known? It is worth noting that these methods measure concentrations, but the stones themselves do not have any markings or tags about their age.

The lava rock created in the volcanic eruption on Hualalai Island about 170 years ago was studied and its age was determined using new methods. With these "reliable" radiation meters, the age of the 170-year-old rock was estimated to be millions of years, from 160 million to 3 billion years. The same has happened in other similar measurements. Attempts were also made to measure the age of the layers of the Grand Canyon using these mentioned new methods. The results again surprised the researchers. The "young" basalt rock of the uppermost layers was 270 million years older than the "thousands of millions of years old rock layer" at the bottom of the canyon. After these measurements, the time estimates previously given by evolutionists for the rocks and deposits in the canyon have been partially transferred to the "old beliefs”. (12)

Q: How can one believe that the Bible is the word of God?

A: This issue cannot be directly proven. On the other hand, a person who turns to Jesus Christ usually very soon gets the understanding that it is really so. No one needs to talk to him about it.

A person who has not turned to God should approach this matter through whether the Bible is historically reliable. If the history of the Bible is true, e.g. the general ideas about the beginning of the universe are then wrong. It's that simple. And it is worth noting that numerous events in the Bible are confirmed by other sources. They include mentions of many people and places in the New Testament, but also descriptions of the Fall, the confusion of languages, the Tower of Babel and hundreds of flood stories. There are also signs of the Flood in all the high mountains. Many nature programs have brought out the same point.

Another way is to familiarize yourself with the contents of the Bible. The core message in everything is how to get in touch with God. If a person is honest and sincere, and really wants to get clarity on things, he will also find it. At the same time, the question of the meaning of the Bible is solved.

- (Matt 7:8) For every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.

- (John 7:17) If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Q: Why would Christian faith be the right kind of faith? What about the other religions?

A: Usually the fundamental of all religions is to get closer to God and to receive salvation and God’s acceptance by doing good actions. But the problem is that people cannot find assurance of salvation like that. It’s impossible, because people are faulty and far away from being perfect. This is true, no matter the religion. Paul Little tells about his observations:

The Muslims do not have an assurance of salvation either. I have often asked the Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists whether they are going to nirvana or heaven after they die. None of them has been able to give me a definitive answer. They have rather referred to the incompleteness of their life, which is an impediment in reaching this goal. (13)

What the Bible teaches is different from the previous one. It tells how God Himself has approached us through His Own Son and done everything for us so that we can receive forgiveness of sins and communion with Him. It is no longer about our own goodness or efforts, but about the gift of God, which can be received through Jesus Christ. Jesus was and is the Son of God, who came here from heaven and removed the gap between God and man. Therefore, it is possible to experience salvation and reassurance through Him. Indeed, many can testify that as they have received Jesus Christ in their lives, they have experienced these things.

- (2 Cor 5:19,20) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be you reconciled to God.

- (John 8:23,24) And he said to them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins.

- (John 14:1-6) Let not your heart be troubled: you believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.

5 Thomas said to him, Lord, we know not where you go; and how can we know the way?

6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

Q: I cannot understand all the wrongdoings committed in the name of Christianity throughout history, or that some people these days blow up abortion clinics.

A: You are absolutely right, in that many wrong and peculiar things have been done in the name of God and Christianity. However, the clear message of Jesus is that ”all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt 26:52). Moreover, Jesus and the disciples taught that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Similarly, Paul warned that after his departure savage wolves would come. Therefore, we should understand that many acts done in the name of God, are done by such people, who don’t know God.

- (Matt 7:21-23) Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

- (1 Cor 6:9) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived…

- (Acts 20:29-31) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Q: I am progressive. I think Christianity represents outdated values and an outdated world view.

A: What is progress? There are always currents that are considered modern in their own time. In the 1930s, Hitler was very popular and considered progressive, but he brought suffering to humanity.

Similarly, Darwin was considered progressive, but there is still a lack of evidence in favor of the theories he presented. He was a keen observer of nature, but it has been impossible to prove his theory of macroevolution correct.

What if happiness is the yardstick? There has been hardly any progress in that area in recent decades. On the contrary, the increase in single-parent families and the greatly increased depression and foster care among children and young people indicate a trend for the worse. Technology has gotten better, but this important area, happiness, has shown a decline. The biggest reason is probably the selfishness brought by the new freedom and morality.

What about the notion that Christianity represents an outdated worldview? This is an absolutely absurd notion, because eternal things are always current and modern. Because if a person is a being of eternity, and God calls him to eternal life through Jesus Christ, so what the so-called modern worldviews and currents can offer instead? Nothing at all. They are all poor and insignificant things next to these great truths. They cannot give eternal life and forgiveness of sins to people.

Q: I cannot understand why many Christians bless Israel. What about the Palestinians?

A: The situation in the Middle East is very difficult and there are no easy solutions.

The fact that Israel is being blessed and that people pray for the country is good, because that way we can receive God’s bless-ing for our own country (Gen 27:29, Gen 12:3). It doesn’t mean that we should be accepting of wrongdoings, but we can still pray for Israel, as we can pray for any other nation, including the Palestinians.

Building settlements is related to the issue. Many outsider nations don’t approve of this and think Israel has no rights to build. They don’t take into consideration that, for example, the Old Jerusalem, being one of the flashpoints, was the center of ancient Israel and that the same city majorly consisted of Jewish people already in the 19th century (in 1896 this city had 45420 inhabit-ants; 61,9 % Jewish, 19,3 % Christians and 18,8 % Muslims.). Outsider nations with their leaders also don’t want to admit that Israel is an independent country, which has the rights to build inside its boarders like any other country (This does not mean that we couldn’t try to find some kind of a negotiation solution to solve the current problems between the Palestinians and the Jews). Many thus get involved in the country's internal affairs. This kind of intervention does not usually happen to other countries, although they might be having similar issues.

Q: I want to be tolerant. I think Christianity represents an intolerant way of life.

A: When people talk about tolerance, they often mean two things: abortion and the practice of homosexuality. If a person thinks these things are wrong, it shows intolerance in their opinion.

However, what some consider tolerance is often sympathy for the wrong things. People "have pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess 2:12) and they regard as heroes those persons who promote these things. People do not know how to be ashamed of defending the wrong things, but they even boast about it. (Jer 6:14,15: They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? no, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, said the LORD.). Besides, favoring the wrong things is quite different from caring about people. Every person should be respected and valued (1 Peter 2:17), but that is quite different than defending things that are obviously wrong. This difference is not understood or does not want to be understood.

When opinions are divided on these issues, it is noteworthy that the most enthusiastic supporters of the previous issues can be found in big cities, supporters of left-wing parties and greens, and young people. The question is, are these groups or parties more tolerant than others? Can tolerance be associated only with a few parties, place of residence or age group, or is it a matter of differences of opinion regarding right and wrong?

Certainly the latter option is correct, i.e. it is a matter of differences of opinion regarding right and wrong. Because if the representatives of a few parties or a certain age group were more loving than others, they should also show it in other matters. Are they also ahead of others in hospitality, good manners and in polite behavior towards others? Or is it just a matter of imagination that these people have adopted in their delusion? Isn't it a fact that people in rural areas are significantly ahead in these matters, even though there is less support for abortion and practicing homosexuality? This matter is not as simple as it is often presented in the media.

If only abortion is considered, it is worth asking what is tolerance and what is not. Because it is known that a unique human being is destroyed in every abortion, supporting this issue is the greatest intolerance (This is not to belittle the people who have become pregnant through, for example, rape. Fortunately, these cases are only a few percent of the total number of abortions). Many are horrified if children or babies are killed, but abortion is no different from this. Ultrasound imaging has shown how early on the fetus has the same body parts as we do – eyes, hands, feet, mouth, nose, ears and other body parts. The sex of the child can also be checked with the same ultrasound scan. In India and China, this has led to the killing of female children. In India, there are only 914 women per thousand men.

More girls are now aborted in India than in past decades

STT-AFP: According to recent population statistics, the number of women in relation to the number of men has reached a record low rate in India. The relative number of women in the country has never been so low since 1947: there are 914 women per 1,000 men in India.

Abortions based on the gender of the foetus are illegal in India but many mothers still abort their unborn girls. Indian families rely on boys to support them better than girls. Some families consider girls to be a financial burden.

Gender imbalance is a major problem in many Asian countries. According to the UN, millions of girls are missing from the population of the Asian countries.

The census shows that there are now 1.21 billion inhabitants in India, compared to 1.02 billion a decade ago. 2.5 million local authorities participated in the census that took a little less than a year. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 1 April 2011)

Q: I want to be tolerant. I think Christianity represents an intolerant way of life towards homosexuals.

A: The main reason for such a way of thinking is certainly that homosexual tendency is thought to be an innate thing, just like skin color that is received at birth. Therefore, this cause is defended in the name of justice and love. It is thoughtt that it is a characteristic assigned at birth.

However, many homosexuals themselves think otherwise. They don't see it as an innate or inherited trait. Of course, some people think so, but many people think that this is due to difficult circumstances and the reaction to them - just as some people are more prone to become alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals or prostitutes. They may have had difficult relationships and circumstances in their childhood and youth, and as a result they are more prone to make wrong choices:

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.” (14)

Furthermore, when discussing this matter, the following aspects should be taken into account:

•Homosexuality is merely one sin in the list of many. It is not the only sin that separates us from God, there are many other sins too.

- (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.

• Considering eternity gives the right approach to love. When some people accuse the Christian view of being narrow-minded and intolerant, this is a completely wrong and false perception. Because if a person is a being of eternity, as the previous verses showed, then true love is to warn your neighbor about wrong choices, as if about weak ice: “I am worried about you. Don't go on weak ice, lest you just drown. It could be bad for you.” If we don't warn our neighbors, even when we see the danger is there, we don't really care about our neighbors. Warning about the consequences of sin is true love.

The well-known Finnish preacher Niilo-Ylivainio wrote about the same thing in his time. He showed how people might be arrogant about God's call and how he himself tried to make them understand its seriousness. He told how he tried to warn others so that they would not go to hell. He had a right and loving attitude towards people. That's what we need too. He wanted people to be saved and he was concerned about them because he didn't want them to perish:

"Uncertainty gnaws me day and night. There is enough of it.

But I am gnawed more by those people who are going to Hell. I see a line of people, a crowd that only walks. Shout to them, explain to them, teach them, try to gesticulate and to describe, that they are walking towards devastation! So what happens then? They just go! They just walk! They just slide! They laugh and walk toward the gates of hell!

You think about 'old Niilo' now, I can see by your face. You think, So you spoke and preached, and what of that.

I am compassionate by nature. I have always been like that. I would so love people to Heaven, if it helped. But when I was younger, I tried to frighten people to faith.

My intentions were good.

People say that my preaching was hard and harsh, and indeed it was. My intentions were good. I thought that if the frightfulness of the Judgment and the heat of Hell are described to people in the correct way, they will come to their senses.

Then, I still tried to prolong the moment of resolution. I asked and asked, persuaded, and tried to win time in order to give them a possibility until the very last moment. (…)

Yes, some were also saved by frightening. It worked on many. They understood that I wasn't scaring them for the sake of money, but that I was serious. Hardness, if it is straight talk, has its place. I was tough because I was worried about them. I thought that it is now up to me whether these people go to Heaven or to Hell.

It was honest work in the sense that people were honestly told where they were going. Being honest was hard on me. It cost me my strength and health already as a young man." (15)

• Being prone to homosexuality is different than practicing it, and an inclination towards something does not count as a sin yet. Everyone has some faulty inclanations, but we don’t need to live by them.

• In terms of moral, there are two options: everything we do is right, or there are some things that are clearly wrong. This is where we can find the major cause to why views regarding, e.g., homosexuality are divided. Some consider it wrong, whereas others don’t. It’s not about love or the lack of it, as the media usually puts it, but it’s about which actions are right and which are wrong. To which side do they fall into? The same applies to abortion and to other similar acts. Everyone – homosexuals and people who go through abortion - should be loved, but where is the line between right and wrong?

• When many homosexuals have a vacuum, as it were, because they have had few positive contacts with their own gender as children and teenagers, this vacuum does not need to be filled with a sexual relationship. God's healing action and ordinary friendships can fill this void.

• Are we more loving than Jesus and the apostles? When it comes to e.g. the verses of the Bible concerning homosexuality, their starting point is almost 2000 years old. They are not the invention of modern people and they have nothing to do with the different opinions of modern people. They have not been invented by any modern person, as if to annoy others, but they were uttered a long time ago. The only thing that matters is whether these old verses are true or not.

What about the love of Jesus and the apostles? After all, they taught that sexual relations other than between a man and a wife outside of marriage are a sin, i.e. wrong. Were they more unloving than many people today?

They certainly weren't. While many people today consider themselves to be loving and tolerant, it is pretty certain that none of them beat the apostles in love, let alone Jesus. Here we are not dealing with the life of Jesus, which is different from all others, and which involved a greater love than anyone else's life. Instead, we will highlight a few verses describing Paul's life. They show how he felt a strong love for people, even though he was hateful and cruel before his conversion. How many people today, who consider themselves loving, can honestly say that they have the same loving attitude?

- (2 Cor 12:14-15) Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.

15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.

- (2 Cor 2:3-4) And I wrote this same to you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.

4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears; not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have more abundantly to you.

- (Rom 9:1-3) I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh

- (2 Tim 3:10-11) But you have fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience,

11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

- (Phil 3:17) Brothers, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as you have us for an ensample.

• Jesus is a friend to all sinners (Luke 15:2). He talked with sinners, and He even died for homosexuals, like He did for all of us. Yet, He also said: ”sin no more, lest a worse thing come to you" (John 5:14). The only thing that prevents us from experiencing Jesus' friendship and God's love is deliberate resistance. David Wilkerson taught:

God is not angry with any sinner - whether he is a drug user, an alcoholic, a homosexual, a gambler, a massage parlor owner, an adulterer, or something else. Only deliberate opposition angers God. I have four children but I can't help them if they don't even listen to me. You also can't help someone who shuts you out. And God cannot work a miracle on anyone who refuses His love.

My sinful friend—God loves you as much as the holiest Christian. For him, you are good and you are worthy. He calls you his friend. But if you continue to build barriers and shut yourself off from Him – you will die in your sins…

As far as God is concerned, no one is a slave to sin - no one is hopelessly dependent on something - no one is forever in the power of Satan. There are only two kinds of sinners to God: 1) those who are lost and want to be found and 2) those who are lost and want to remain lost…

On Judgment Day, I believe Christ will be the first to ask the one who rejected Him: "Why?"

“Why did you reject my offer that could have made your life complete? Why did you prefer bad company and your sinful ways? You must have had a good reason - tell Me."

I wonder if God will ever understand the reasons for humanity's rejection of His love and forgiveness. (16)

Q: I can't understand why some people are negative about female priesthood.

A: There are two differing views on this within congregations around the world. Some perceive it in the way that the role of a shepherd is also meant for women, but some believe based on, e.g., the Epistle to Timothy (1Tim 3:2) that it belongs only to men: ”A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach…” Yet the same individuals understand that women are needed in spiritual work, which is also a biblical model. No one has been called to inaction.

What if you disagree on this issue? Is it worth abandoning all eternal life and keeping oneself outside the gates of heaven? We cannot rely on what others have done with a judgment. Everyone has to account for themselves:

- (Rom 14:12) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Q: I don't think there is a judgment. God will hardly judge anyone.

A: That's where you take a big leap of faith just like some believe that God doesn't exist.

What then, if the judgment exists despite everything and it is possible for us to be freed from the judgment of perishing through Jesus Christ? Isn't it foolish then to lose the eternal life that we can receive as a gift? Don't make such a foolish choice as to turn your back on this gift! Read the teachings of the Bible on this subject and turn to God!

Q: Maybe you're right. I probably shouldn't be indifferent to this matter. But what must I do to receive eternal life?

A: Salvation is a gift that is received. You get this gift when you turn to Jesus Christ and surrender your whole life to him. Through him you can be saved. He said (John 5:40): ”And you will not come to me, that you might have life”.

Q: Is it that simple that I can get everything as a gift in one moment? I have many sins on my conscience, but it is great if I can have them forgiven.

A: It's that simple. If you have turned to Jesus Christ and received him into your life, then you are the child of God and you have eternal life. You have this life no matter how you feel right now. Don't just base your certainty of salvation on your own fluctuating feelings, but on the word of the Bible and Jesus Christ, just as the ship's anchor is never thrown inside the ship, but always outside it.

- (John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

- (1 John 5:11-13) And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life.

13 These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God.

The prayer of salvation: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.

Viittaukset:

1. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley

2. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. toim. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.

3. Charles Darwin: The origin of species, vol 2, 6 th ed., p. 49 - Cit. from "Evoluution romahdus", Scott M. Huse.

4. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 446

5. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 457

6. Richard Owen; sit. Søren Løvtrup (1987) Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth. London: Croom Helm

7. A.N. Sherwin-White: Roman Society and Roman law in the New Testament, Oxford: Oxford university press, 1963, p. 173

8. Lee Strobel: Tapaus Kristus (The Case for Christ), p. 132-134,136

9. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25

10. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 286

11. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92

12. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 102

13. Paul Little: Tiedä miksi uskot, p. 129

14. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132

15. Mauno Saari: Saarnaaja, p. 268,269

16. David Wilkerson: Ihmeet ja merkit, p. 11,12