Perhaps he has, but has done so privately, I don't know.
What he is talking about, however, is a real issue. Here's an example from my own receny life:
A couple weeks ago, I chose, perhaps foolishly, to show the movie, "God is Real." I watched it beforehand, so I knew the problems in it, but I believed the core issue: the willingness to stand up for the Lord despite the potential consequences, as well as the importance to know WHAT you believe and WHY you believe it, were important enough to warrant it.
Afterwards, as discussed the merits of the issues, and then I spent some taim talking about the problems I had, (CCM being prevalent, worldly, carnal Christians shown as the norm-one scene with one of the Duck Dynasty guys and his wife-the man with unbiblical long hair, and the wife dressed extremely immodestly), one believer going to the store to shop for wine to serve at her unsaved boyfriend's cocktail party, the scruffy pastor of the huge, unnamed non-denomination church, the gospel without mention of sin or repentance, and, again, the ever-present Newsboys CCM group who somehow, in some form or another, makes it into almost every scene, be it in a tshirt, poster, or the final 10 minute concert.)
So I wanted to make clear that these issues proved some problems because it shows what really tends to be the most carnal, worldly version of Christianity, the one least likely to give the gospel or speak out about Christ, as being both the norm in Christianity, and really then, the best.
So, as I spoke about this, on of the men in the church began to berate me for being unloving toward the lost. Now, this guy really likes to make his point and will talk over everyone until his point is made. Finally, I had to get behind the pulpit, which I had not been, and raised my voice to pator level, and began to explain the truth to him, that we wer not dealing with the lost, to whom we owe nothig but the gospel in love, but with believers, who should know better-who spout songs about holiness while living anything but holy lives in speech and deed. I went on for about ten minutes trying to explain this, but the basic point was, because I spoke about the error I witnessed, according to the Bible, all he could see was hatred, and somehow, that toward the lost, who were never a part of the conversation. I told him it was my responsibility as pastor, to warn the church about error when I see it, to keep them safe from it, and that if I didn't do it, I should not be their pastor.
Anyways I think I got through to him, but this is so typical: when one calls out error, even in love, one is always accused of hating the other person, hence the Angry Birds-whose sole goal is to destroy the walls of the other.
I see it too often, in my ministry, in Clouds, in others, that to point out error, biblically, is to be hateful. And it just aint so.
“I know it’s uncivilised but I know it’s incredibly instinctual and human. Past generations of life, killing is a route of survival.
“It’s kill or be killed. I did not have a choice. It was kill her or suicide.
This is standard evolution jargon, what he said. Basically, its nature's fault, don't blame me. In effeect, he was saying that it is hardwired into him-I know he didn't say that specifically, but its what he meant. He is blaming evolution.
However, I agree with what you say about relativism, or the ends justify the means. Outcome based. After all, it its a good outcome that matters, cheat on everything and get an A in school. As well, many have used the Bible to try to justify heinous things, which of course causes people to discount the Bible, despite the fact that they are clearly using it wrong. However, evolution clearly teaches that humans are no more than slightly higher animals, no more, no less, so honestly, why not kill in its name? Abortion is justified by it, so why not "abort" someone when they are 61 years old and offending you?
Evolution provides no moral standards, no right or wrong, survival of the fittest, so it opens the door for literally anything. Even murder. Ask Hitler about it, its how he justified murdering the Jews.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist 'Christian' minister, and originally, the salute to the flag was the so-called Bellamy salute, though most know it better as the Nazi salute, right hand raised to just above the shoulder, hand outstretched, palm down. It was changed during WW2, for obvious reasons. The pledge was designed to place the state at the center of one's heat and mind above all else-a very socialist ideal, to say the least. The words "Under God' were not introduced until 1954, trying to make it less obvious as a socialist pledge, but also saying that God approved.
And seriously, the student himself admitted as much as that it was all about how we are wired evolutionarily, so, yeah, don't tell me it had nothing to do with it. Granted, being unsaved, he'd have found another reason for it, but evolution gives him a handy excuse, at least in his own mind.
As well, it isn't as though we don't have numerous other examples of people feeling justified in murder because of evolution.
And of course, when the Columbine killers were caught, one was wearing a t-shirt that said "Natural Selection", so they were making a statement.
Dr Dino, whatever you think about him, has one of his seminar DVD's called The Dangers of Evolution" where he goes into many of these things. Even if you disagree with his view on Behemoth and Leviathan, you'll be shocked at what he talks about on this one.I recommend it to anyone serious on the evolution vs Creation argument.
Edited to add: All of them can be found on You Tube, and there are some sites where you can download them for free, legally, since he didn't copyright his work. I have them all on my laptop, and in fact, tonight I am going to be beginning to show the series on Evening services.
Another good tape he did is called "100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid", and it is a lot of his info from his seminar in a more condensed form. He goes pretty quick, but its a good introduction. Again, find onlie for free, or on youtube.
**Edited again to add: The fact that the animal kingdom in general does not kill for sport or out of selfish reasons, but for food or territory, in general, removes the idea that something like what this teen did, killing someone just because she was an annoyance to him, tells me evolution is wrong. If you annoy an animal, ie, get in its face, pull its ears, etc, it will attack. BUt if you go away, it doesn't come after you, looking for you, to kill you. This is a distictly human activity. Animals don't seek revenge, only humans. It is a product of sin, not 'nature', not evolution.
just throwing this out there not saying for sure this is right: but I have heard it taught that when you make a vow before God and to your spouse to be married for life then God sees that for life and He sees you as still married to you (first) wife even though you have a paper that claims diferently.
Do you believe that in Gods eyes you are still married?
Let's hear from the mouth of Jesus what He thought.
"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." John 4:16-18
Now, in Jesus own words, those five husbands of the woman at the well were NO LONGER her husbands. "thou HAST HAS five husbands..." She had no husband, and Jesus didn't even consider the guy she was apparently living with as her husband, either.
So what are we to take from this? We can insist it doesn't work into the subject, but nothing is in the BIble for no reason. Simply, in Jesus' eyes, this woman was no longer married to those fiver earlier husbands. He didn't say, 'Thou hast five husbands'. It was past-tense.
You seem to really be in pain over this subject and I understand-I suffered with it a lot after my wife left me for another man. But after a few years, and seeing her live with two different men as her husbands, and then taking a ring from one of them to want to marry him, I believed I had done all that was required of me, biblically, AND more, in trying, even after her fornication, to try to work things out, I agreed to a no-fault divorce, so there was no money changing hands, no child support, because we shared them back and forth, mostly as the kids wanted, because they were old enough to have a say, and no extended, hateful legal proceedings. She has gone on to live a life embracing paganism and certain 'alternative lifestyles', and I believe that she was probably never saved in the first place, or she is at least acting like it, and I see that now as having been left by an unbelieving spouse, and so, through the fornication and unbeliving spirit of my first wife, I was free to remarry.
Understand, all things are under the blood. Even if I had left my wife for a you nger woman, dumper her unceremoniously, and remarried outside of God's will, I could still repent of my sin and be forgiven, its still under the blood, and, as was said earlier, to divorce the second is just to do wrong a second time. A second marriage can be sanctified the same as the first, if it is given up to Christ.
1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
I agree that our minds ought to always be of this thinking: I am married, I am married for life. When I do weddings, I always try to stress that with the couple, but we have a world that sees divorce and remarriage as almost a natural right, so much so that pre-nups are almost mandatory anymore. When you go into a marriage almost assuming you'll get divorced, what chance do you have? Its the ever-present open door.
Does God, hence the Bible allow it? Yes. Does He endorse it? No.
In the OT, of course, we know the Lord allowed divorce because of hard hearts, but it wasn't meant to be.
In the NT, we see many mentions of the subject
Matt 5:32 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Matt 19:9 "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
1Cor 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."
Divorce is aceptable in cases of fornication, or sexual sin. Notice, it isn't for adultery, becausew adultery can be acted out in the heart, wile fornication is of the body, We can't divorce because our spouse gave someone the googly eyes, and assume they are committing adultery in their heart-it must be actual physical sexual misconduct with another person.
Divorce is also allowed in cases of a believer being abandoned by an unbelieving spouse-it says they are not under bondage, which would tell me that the believer can remarry, whereas, before in the same chapter, when dealing with both spouses being believers who divorce, they can, but should remain unmarried, or reconcile with their spouse.
Now, again, having said this, the Bible is not pro-divorce, but it does allow it in certain cases, even in the New Testament. However even in such cases as fornication, it doesn't have to occur-it is better for spouses to reconcile and come into godly union with one another-this is to be far preferred, but if it can't be for some reason, then divorce is acceptabel, and in the case of fornication, I beleve the party who did NOT commit it, is free to re-marry.
One of the areas that I often am misunderstood, is that I believe the Bible gives allowances for divorce, but at the same time, that doesn't make me 'pro-divorce'.
Years back, I had considered attending a Baptist college, after having been divorced. Actually, I wasn't divorced yet, just separated. And their rules were that divorced men could attend, but not live in the dorms. And while I understood it, it just seemed like they saw me as, "he's divorced, so we don't want him spreading pro-divorce propaganda to the students, or prowling on the women".
Yet, because I'm dovirced, make me even more hating of divorce, because I know the great damage it causes, the pain it causes, and I believe it should be avoided at all costs.
As well, while I believe a person CAN be divorced, and the Bible even gives reasons for it, it doesn't mean we go looking for biblical justification to get divorced; rather, we need to seek biblical justification to remain married. Spiritual strength to keep a marriage together.
BUt the truth of the matter is, sometimes, we can do everything right, or err and do all we can to fix it, and one party is simply unwilling, and hardens their heart, and when that happens, what is the other to do? These days one person can bring about a divorce, legally, without the agreement of the other. And the problem with just allowing the one to do it all, is it will cause so much mess, so much pain and dissention, that it will really harm the children more, if there are children involved. That's when the Bible gives us the peace to go through what happens, knowing God won't throw you away and still has a plan for you, despite what some may teach.
Glad to hear of your zealousness and willingness to find a godly spouse.
My example: I didn't find the right one until I was almost 40, and had taken a small pastorate in a town of about 800. From Reno to San Diego to LA to Virginia, cities of millions, it took a place with 800 people for me to find the right woman. And I wasn't even looking!
Don't rush, let the Lord do His perfect will in His time. And remember, especially as a young man, when you find the right woman, you may differ in a few areas, may have slightly different priorities, but a coupld grows together. Remember, at 20 you don't know it all yet. I'm 51 and don't know it all yet, so expect to grow, to mature and learn new things, and if married, you will do it together! Its challenging, but never dull.