Category: Moral Relativism

A Little Sanity Please

12/7/2015

The following was written by Ben Stein and others have added to it. All in all, I find it to be not only appropriate, but timely as well.

My confession:

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat...

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school (the same Bible that says do not commit murder; do not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself), and we said OK.

Then Dr. Steven Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about.. And we said okay..

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with

We Reap What We Sow!

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you decide to copy this and send it to others, you will not send it to a lot of people on your address list because you're not really sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it, and you really don't want to offend anyone.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Perhaps you won't send it to anyone. Perhaps you will just ignore this, maybe write it off as the ramblings of just another “Christian wingnut.” But remember, if you ignore what you know to be true, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

0 Comments

Cultural Christianity vs. Convictional Christianity

5/25/2015

0 Comments

There was a very interesting article by Dr. Richard D. Land in the Christian Post recently, titled “Cultural Christianity vs. Convictional Christianity.” The article is a good article, and I would recommend taking a few minutes to read it. Essentially it addresses the issue of the decline of the Christian church in America today – which, in reality, it is not. I tend to think of it more as a “pruning” of our Christian Family Tree, a removal of those dead branches that are either bearing rotten fruit or no fruit at all. The article touches on this aspect as well when Dr. Land points out, “As cultural Christianity wanes the more faithful, traditional Christianity practiced by Evangelicals will stand out in ever more vivid contrast with mere civic or "country club" Christianity in America. The shameful gap between the "orthodoxy" (sound doctrine) and "orthopraxy" (sound practice) of too many Christians has been, and is, a disgrace to the Gospel.”

And he's right. There are those who applaud a good sermon, give hearty “amens” and sing hymns with a gusto many of cannot seem to muster. But when it comes to sharing the gospel, to reaching out and helping the poor, the orphans and the widows (Luke 14:12-14 among others) – and I do not mean dropping an offering in the collection plate, although that is certainly part of it, but actually going out personally, and doing what one can to help those in need while sharing the gospel with them. This is orthopraxy, this is “walking the walk” as some put it. There needs to be a a closing of the gap between orthodoxy and orthopraxy as God states in the Book of James, “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.” (James 1:22-25)

As clear as this is in Scripture, I am amazed at how many people in the church steadfastly refuse to apply this passage in their lives. Are they simply apathetic? Do they not care one whit about those who are hell bent, just as every single Christian once was? Do they think that now, since they are bound for eternal glory in heaven that they can turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the rest of the perishing? I would sincerely hope not. As Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the great preacher of the 19th century once said, “Oh, my brothers and sisters in Christ, if sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies; and if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay, and not madly to destroy themselves. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for.[1]”

I cannot say that I do not see the Word in action amongst my Christian brothers and sisters, but I can say that there are many in the church who are content to simply plop themselves in a pew on Sunday mornings, hear a sermon and then leave the church and do nothing for the Lord all week long, until the following Sunday when they repeat their obligatory “Christian” duty for the week once again. I see this time and time again, and I believe that not only is the church poorer for it, but our nation is all the poorer as well.

I will also point out that I am not the only one noticing this. Because of the large number of those who hear but do not do (as James 1:22-25 above points out), the evangelism, the sharing of the gospel both in word and in deed – which is our only “job” as Christians – there are that many more who never hear the gospel, never see the gospel in action, even as they sit day after day right next to a professing Christian, and the result is they believe the church is dead or dying. Because the number of Christians who are willing to tell others about Jesus, who are willing to help those in need, who are willing to be active doers of the word, is small (when compared to the hearers only crowd), the doers are now considered to be “fundamentalist extremists,” bigots, narrow minded and so on; and because of this sin grows and becomes more pronounced in America. It is more readily accepted as the norm as opposed to what it truly is – an abomination of God. And again, our country is poorer as a result.

In his article, Dr. Land notes that even when Christian's are engaged in both the hearing of the word as well as the doing of the word, our nation benefits from this, and that even an avowed atheistic country such as communist China has recognized this. He quotes a recent statement from communist China's Academy of Social Sciences which said,

We were asked to look into what accounted for the preeminence of the West all over the world. At first we thought it was because you had more powerful guns then we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past 20 years we have realized the heart of your culture is your religion, Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to Democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this.

However, because of the great amount of “hearers only,” and the relatively small number of doers in the church today, what I will call the “Unbelieving Worldly Contingent” (UWC) in our country are attacking the Christian church in America as never before, and doing their best to not only delegitimatize true Biblical Christianity in America, but to also outlaw as much of it as they can. Although the UWC will readily accept, and even endorse to some degree, those churches and groups who profess to be Christians while eagerly embracing, approving and even promoting sin (i.e. ordaining openly homosexual clergy, embracing homosexuality as normal, allowing pagan practices such as goddess worship and wiccan rituals in the sanctuary, etc). In other words, the UWC will accept any Christian professing group or church that adheres to the beliefs of the UWC. Biblical Christianity, however, is outright condemned by them.

This should be a wake-up call to the church, and especially those within the church who, as I said, refuse to be doers of the word. We do not have the option of sitting idly by, content to be hearers only, especially if we are going to call ourselves Christian!

The word Christian, comes from the Greek word, Christianos, which means follower of Christ. Listening is not following. Listening, combined with patterning ones life after Christ, that is what following means. And, no, before you say it (and I know you want to), this is not just my opinion. This is what God tells us in His word. For example:

“Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine” (Exodus 19:5)

“You shall therefore love the Lord your God and keep his charge, his statutes, his rules, and his commandments always.” (Deuteronomy 11:1)

“And Samuel said, 'Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.'” (1 Samuel 15:22)

“ through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations” (Romans 1:5)

“And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.” (2 John 1:6)

“Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12)

Clearly, the obedience of true believers to God and His Word is a central theme in Scripture from beginning to end, and lest you think that Jesus did not teach this very thing, think again. Jesus said,

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46)

“Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28)

“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.” (John 15:9-10)

“You are my friends if you do what I command you.” (John 15:14)

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)

It doesn't get much clearer than that. How can those who refuse to obey, whether consciously or unconsciously, continue to call themselves Christians? I am not talking about those who want to obey, but find it difficult due to physical or mental difficulties, but those who are completely able, but still will not. Why doesn't the church speak out against this practice of refusing to obey God? If we are physically and/or mentally able to share the gospel and live out the gospel as we minister to a lost and perishing world, then we are purposely and willfully disobeying God! Now whether you call this disobedience, or laziness, or rebellion, or lawlessness, the fact of the matter is that this is sin, plain and simple. Nothing more and nothing less. And Scripture is very clear about this:

“Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:4-10)

Personally, I believe that as the true Biblical Christian church is persecuted in this country, those who profess to be Christian while they are not, will slowly leave the church as they will eventually no longer be able to maintain their Christian looking facade. Of them, Scripture says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2:19)

In other words, one can easily call themselves a Christian, but if they are continually endorsing sin, encouraging sin, engaging in sin (including refusing to obey the Lord) all as a pattern of their life, as a pattern of who they are, then they are not Christians, as the Scripture points out. Why doesn't the church speak out against this practice of non-Christians calling themselves Christians? Is the church afraid of being labeled judgmental? I should think the church would care less what the world thinks about it, and more about those to whom Jesus will say, “depart from me, I never knew you.”

For those who insist upon calling themselves Christian, while at the same time refusing to obey the Lord by refusing to share the gospel in both word and deed when they are perfectly capable physically and/or mentally, but still refuse to obey and often go so far as to justify and rationalize their disobedience in their own mind, I can only give you my prayer that you will take the Lord Jesus seriously when He says,

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” (Matthew 7:21-23)

1. From Spurgeon's sermon titled, The Wailing of Risca, which may be read at: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0349.htm

I would also encourage you to read “Why is obedience better than sacrifice?” on the Got Questions? website, at http://www.gotquestions.org/obedience-better-than-sacrifice.html

0 Comments

The Failure of Moral Relativism

4/24/2015

Moral relativism is the philosophical belief that there is no objective moral standpoint that is inherently correct that can be applied to all people, all cultures, all societies for all time. This belief holds that with regard to an individuals morality, personal beliefs and specific situations will determine the correct morals for that situation. Perhaps Friedrich Nietzsche explained moral relativism best when he said, “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” In other words, whatever works for you is right. Perhaps you can see the problems inherent in moral relativism.

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason wrote an article for Salvo Magazine entitled, “Seven Things You Can't Do As A Moral Relativist”, in which he (obviously) lists these seven things. They are:

1. Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
2. Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil.
3. Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise.
4. Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice.
5. Relativists can’t improve their morality.
6. Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
7. Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.

During a conversation I recently had with with an individual, a professing Christian, who made the comment that morality was relative. Our conversation was so illustrative of the points being made by Mr. Koukl, I have to share it in conjunction with his above list. We had been discussing the homosexual marriage issue (he was for and I was against) that is being foisted upon America – and more importantly upon Christians – by a small but very vocal segment of our society. The person I was speaking with (I'll call him “Fred”) stated that. “People are people and morality is relative. Although we would consider the genocide of Indians to 'immoral' today, In the 1840's is was not. While gay marriage may be distasteful to some, it simply can't be immoral. What is immoral about two willing people of the same sex living together?”

“Fred” went on to explain that at his church he was a music minister and had always had gay men in key positions. He was aware of it, and even the pastor was aware of this, however, he said, “we don't meddle in parishioners private lives. Being gay is not a sin, Having sex outside wedlock is.”

As I went to explain that morality is not relative and, in fact, cannot be relative without disastrous results, is pointed to a recent news article as what happens when morality is considered relative, the gang rape of a young woman on a public beach, surrounded by hundreds of onlookers who did absolutely nothing other than video record the rape and then post it online. [Panama City Gang Rape: A Kitty Genovese for the YouTube Era, by Charlotte Lytton 04.16.15]

“Fred” tried to explain that what was different in the example of the Panama City gang rape is that in that incident there was a victim, therefore it was morally wrong because rape is a criminal action. However, that only addresses who is criminally responsible for that act, not who is morally wrong. I responded by asking “Fred” who he thought was morally wrong then? Was it the rapists? Was it the hundreds of onlookers who stood by and did nothing other than video record the rape? How about those who allowed the video to be posted to their website? How about the people who watched or downloaded the video? Are any of these people morally wrong? I asked “Fred” if he thought, as he apparently did, that an act is only immoral if there is a victim, then who decides if there actually is a victim? If a court of law allows a child molester to go free and makes the determination that the three year old that the molester actually raped, wasn't legally raped because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then no crime actually occurred and therefore there is no actual victim. Then, according to “Fred's” moral relativist belief, that rape of a three year old would not be immoral since the court determined that no rape took place.

Of course, “Fred” had no answer, and in fact, he told me that he could not argue with that. He did not, however, reject his moral relativism belief. “Fred's” responses, his arguments in our conversation perfectly illustrate Mr. Koukl's list of seven things a moral relativist cannot do. “Fred” could not accuse those involved in the Panama City gang rape of wrongdoing. He could not call what they did wrong or evil, he could not place any blame upon them for the rape or the video recording of it and he could not say that what the rapists or video recorders did was unfair or unjust; and clearly, “Fred” was unable to hold a meaningful moral discussion.

This is the problem, the failure of moral relativism. Since nothing is really immoral or moral, other than what the individual “believes” is moral or immoral in a given situation or at a particular moment in time, the moral relativist cannot, as Mr, Koukl states, improve their morality because they have no objective or absolute moral standard.

As Christian's – and I will even go so far as to make the distinction of “True Christian's,” we have an absolute, unchanging moral standard, and that standard is God. In fact, every person has that standard of God's absolute morality written on their heart, their DNA so to speak. The problem arises when the individual chooses to ignore that absolute moral standard in favor of their own personal wants and desires which they rationalize and justify by waving the banner of moral relativism, and that brings us back to the issue “Fred” and I started our conversation with. Homosexual marriage. It is morally wrong, and the only thing that an approval of homosexual marriage will do, is to lend a governmental approval of the immoral sexual wants and desires of a select group of individuals. And if that approval is lent by the government, then how can they disapprove of any other immoral sexual wants or desires of any other group?

Moral relativism is the key to a Pandora's Box that once opened, cannot legislatively be closed. Ever.

Recommended Reading:
The seven fatal flaws of moral relativism
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/the-seven-fatal-flaws-of-moral-relativism-3/

Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist
http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/12/top-7-things-you-cant-do-as-moral.html

What is moral relativism?
https://carm.org/moral-relativism

What is moral relativism?
http://www.gotquestions.org/moral-relativism.html

A Little Sanity Please

Cultural Christianity vs. Convictional Christianity

The Failure of Moral Relativism

Archives

Categories