From: maier@romulus (Chuck Maier)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:48:12 GMT

In <1992Jul21.175302.12351@bcrka451.bnr.ca> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:
>I wrote:
>>>I find your marriage argument somewhat strange, however.  Many men of God 
>>>in the OT violated one man/one woman for life--Abraham, Jacob, Solomon to
>>>name a few.  

>Chuck Maier wrote:
>>Yes, and their lives were a mess because they did so.  Look at the strife
>>and contention...

>Well yes, that is my point--if these men of God with lousy marriages
>don't invalidate Christian marriage (and I agree with you that they
>do not), then why bring up Adam's marriage?  Adam's monogamy was 
>certainly no virtue if there were no other women around anyway.

No virtue - that's just the way it was and is always supposed to be.
The Lord Himself derived his doctrine from the fact of the original
created order (Mt 19:4,5; Mk 10:6?).  He did not introduce it as some
new "Christian" concept.

On the other hand , if A&E are just a figleaf of our illustration, and
humans originated from herds of apemen, then it is the natural order of
things to be polygamous and copulate with anything in heat.

Here's the problem:  I have met at least four people in this city alone
who claim to be Christians (and they may be), yet they are living in
SIN (unmarried and cohabiting with the opposite sex).  One is even a
minister!  I know at least as many more formerly married adults   who have lost any profession
of faith and engage in such a lifestyle.  Not to mention all the couples
who routinely "shack up" these days.  Even these have probably had some
religious upbringing.

I assume we're in agreement that these things should not be.  However, let's
say a niece of yours or mine decides to live in SIN.  On what authority are
we going to say it's wrong?  I doubt they are going to be interested in our
personal opinion.  And if we are going to appeal to the authority of The Lord
from the Scriptures, it is clear that he taught from the original created 
order as  fact and foundation for the marital relationship. Ultimately we
have the situations I've described above because few teach moral absolutes
anymore.  And if we're going to teach moral absolutes, we have to get back
having a foundation for doing so.  That means creation must be taught as
fact, as I understand it.

cm.

>Perhaps some atheists would like to draw moral conclusions from evolutionary
>evidence; certainly we have seen examples of this.  But there is *NO* reason
>why a Christian would do this.   It's OK for a Christian to accept evolution
>as a scientific explanation of origins *BECAUSE* it is science, and independent
>of religion or morality.  It would be wrong for a Christian to draw moral 
>conclusions or doctrines from evolutionary biology, just as it would be wrong
>to draw moral conclusions from astronomy or mathematics.

>-- 
>Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
>(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

>Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
>No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
>I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.