From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:10:09 CDT

throopw@sheol.UUCP (throopw@sheol.UUCP) writes:
: 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.