Revisiting Moral Subjectivity and Absolutism

Arguments pertaining to moral subjectivism or absolutism are difficult to navigate.  Both positions have elements of truth weaved throughout to such a degree that is difficult for some to pick one.  Others hold fast to one ideal or the other without ever conceding any validity to the other position. 

Any conceived idea always has an element of truth. Some are closer to what is real than others, but each have a truth mixed into the concept.  Approaching the topic with this in mind one can navigate the waters of moral philosophy with greater ability to perceive a more accurate perspective on the matter. 

The extremes always lend themselves to showing their flaws.  On one extreme is the moral subjectivist who maintains with absolute certainty that morality is one hundred percent subjective. This position is usually maintained by those who believe it is impossible to know anything for certain from any external compass and therefore it is imperative to be certain that we cannot know anything for certain.  The philosophical trappings are apparent. 

Notwithstanding, the tendency to discount the entire proposed philosophy due to this error of extremes does an injustice to the topic.  Many throw out the baby with the bath water and refuse to allow any acceptance of subjective morality. 

Read the rest of the article at Helium.com by clicking HERE.

More On Morality

It is predominantly accepted that if something is true it is accurately corresponding to what actually is real. For example, if 1 + 1 = 2 is a true mathematical equation then we are accepting that if one thing is added to another thing the real result is that there is now two things.

This necessarily is not a truth we created, but a truth we discovered. People have assigned values to signs (numbers or letters) to explain that truth in a communicable form. Therefore, when a person sees the sign “1” we know it signifies the singular. Similarly, if a person sees the sign “I” it also signifies the singular in a Roman numeral fashion. However, regardless of the sign used, it has the value of representing what really is accurate. No one held a conference to decide if one object and a second object make two objects, it simply does. It is a reality, a truth.

To illustrate further, gravity is something real, it did not become real when we discovered it and gave it a name, it has been real. Man didn’t create or invent it. The real existed apart from our apprehension of that reality.

Therefore, when I use the term “really real” I am indicating that which is truly actual apart from our thinking about it. It exists or is true whether or not we know it or accept it.

To dig a little deeper, morality is either a reflection of what we think about the world and our humanity and does not correspond nor conform to any real good, or that which is really right morally is that which most accurately reflects the good.

If the former is true and there is no real good that morality corresponds to, then the only anchor for morality is that which we as humans devise. Those that agree with those morals remain free, and those who do not get punished by the system which enforces those ideals. So if humans devise that stealing is not an acceptable behavior then some form of punishment or retribution may be brought upon those who steal. But in the long run, the only wrong committed is that a person decided to do something outside of the cultural norm. Eventually a new cultural norm could be adopted and stealing made acceptable. This I think is similar to the argument given that slavery was acceptable and thus right and now not acceptable and wrong. Thus, morality changes over time or is different from one culture to the next. In this view, there is no good. Right and wrong are continually in flux based on whose perspective one is viewing the world for the oppressor and the oppressed see it very differently.

Now, in contrast to this view, there is the idea that morality is to be a reflection of what is truly good. Good exists, and what is right conforms to what is good. Something then is either really right or really wrong. We can do something that is wrong and not know it’s wrong, and it still be wrong. This view would say that if it is really good for mothers to love their children then it is good even if no one believes it to be so. If it is good for fathers to be kind to their children, then it is really good and right.

Moral principals, or laws themselves can be judged because they are to be reflections of what is right, and in them is not rightness itself. Thus if the government says that murder is wrong, their authority does not make it really true that murder is wrong. They could be incorrect and the law could be out of line with what is good, or it could be a reflection of what is really true and murder is indeed very much wrong. But there is a sense that we can judge if a moral is right or wrong, because there is an external good by which we judge. We might not be aware of this good, we might have a worldview that denies it, but we still think in conformity with the idea that we can reason about a moral that an entire culture upholds as right and we can contemplate whether it really seems right or not. There is something by which we judge it even if we haven’t understood it yet.

We use degrees of perfection all the time. Killing a child is worse than killing a fly. Or some would say we ought not to kill a fly either, especially if you are the President of the United States. Still to argue for either one needs a point of reference of what is the ideal good. One cannot argue that killing the fly is actually wrong, unless there is a standard of what is really good. Is it good for no living entity to be killed no matter the reason? Is that better than being killed? If it is truly better, then there is a standard that makes it better. One could say that standard is ourselves and what we want, but that only lends itself to a standard that is created by us by our feelings, desires, reason, but not something that is really real. That standard changes with each culture, generation, family, and person. It isn’t a constant good. It’s not a reflection of what really is, but what one wants, believes, or thinks. However, people believe and think things all the time that aren’t an accurate approximation of what is true.

So the two choices that I see on the table for those who accept the reality of humans living in relation to morality are that morals follow only from the human intellect and emotions and have no real correspondence with any real good or that morals are to reflect the real good and can do so in degrees of accuracy some being a bad or grossly distorted reflection and others being the best reflection available to us.

*******************************

I hope that has cleared up the discussion a little. If I have not accurately retold the perspective of morals existing without a perfect good, then please show me where I erred. Notice I did not use the term “objective” or “subjective” or “absolute” anywhere above in this post to be as plain as possible.

Morality Revisited

The nature of morality seems to be an ever present hot topic of discussion especially amongst the philosophical bloggers. I have addressed this subject often on this blog, but I feel the need to unearth it once again as I have been talking with bloggers outside of this forum regarding this topic. I am still encountering a lot of misconceptions regarding the Christian view of morality and so I hope to untangle the web of misconstrued ideas to provide some clarity. For those who have discussed this topic at length with me already, please excuse my return to the subject. What follows will be from the Judeo-Christian worldview regarding this subject, at least as best as I am able to represent it and communicate it herein.


All people of all cultures, tribes, nations, societies, have a moral infrastructure within their nature. Everyone has what Francis Schaeffer terms “moral motions” and C.S. Lewis often calls “the moral ought.” We all feel obligatory to some form of ethics and morals even if it is subjectively our own system of what we think or feel are the best course of conduct. Granted while there are great similarities the world over in particulars there are also many variances between cultures and within cultures. Even between families and down to differences between individuals. We all have different particulars of what we see as right or good.


In addition to this, we have the revealed laws given from God to man as recorded in Scripture. Some of these would be in line with what was already figured out by man naturally, but others are somewhat different to what would seem natural and yet often we see the goodness in them and sometimes we just have to trust that it is good. The Scriptural revealed morality is not exhaustive and it is not intended to be. The Old Testament law had a purpose in helping men through an external law to do what is good for them and it had a primary purpose of showing mankind our fallen state and our need for God’s salvation by grace. The law was setting the stage for the next phase of humanity that would soon open the door to freedom from a life in subjection to external laws. God was providing a way to heal the heart so that the laws become unnecessary for out of the heart a man acts if the heart is restored to righteousness the actions will follow.


Let us go back to discussing morality outside of a revealed law. Let us consider the people who have never seen any revealed laws or do not seek them for their moral instruction. These people still have a moral understanding. They feel they know the difference between right and wrong and know they “ought” to do what is right. Their idea of “right” may be skewed, the particulars may be wrong, but the idea that one “ought” to do what is right if only we can figure out what is right is universal. No one says they ought to do what is wrong. They may do what is wrong willingly, but they know they ought not to. The problem consists in figuring out what is the good, the right. The second problem is how to accomplish it for if we think a certain action right we struggle to do that which we think is right despite our convictions of its goodness. So even if we can be certain that A is the right course of action rather than it’s opposite we still encounter the struggle to do A. And even if we succeed several times at doing A, we might not the next time.


So in our natural understanding of morality we have a struggle to do what we think is right as well as having uncertainty regarding what is right. The only thing we really know is that there is a right/good and we ought to be doing that. However, I do realize that there are those who do hold the position that there is no right and wrong, but few if any seriously live out that philosophy in their daily life. Seldom do I meet an atheist who doesn’t think that there is a right and wrong even if our apprehending of the particulars is wrought with subjectivity. Moreover, I understand that atheists argue that morality is arrived at by agreement of a people group or by evolutionary progress of humanity by which our moral understanding mirrors what is beneficial for our survival.


This could naturally explain the moral obligation, but I do not think it satisfies our knowledge of the attainment of the good. We all seem to have this understanding even if we do not philosophically accept this that there is a right, good, true ideal of sorts by which we want to use to measure what’s right and good. However, when we try to actualize this without a God construct it eludes us. Plato spoke of good as being rooted in an abstract form, but his form had no being, no personality. It was just this allusive abstract thing with nothing real from which good could flow.


I present to you that there is this good true right absolute is not an abstract form, nor a subjective collective of humanity, but is found in a real ever present personal holy and eternal being; God. We strive to do what is right because we were created in the image of God. We were made good in a good world by a good God. But something happened that actualized evil and corrupted the good creation. Our struggle between good and evil and even attaining some semblance of certain knowledge of what is good has been brought on by this corruption. We still see glimmers of good, we have moral motions to attain what is good and yet we fall short of the goodness of God for the corruption of creation and our own sin that is in our beings separates us from God. We can see enough to lead us to the path of righteousness, but our efforts are futile without accepting His aid which He has given freely through the work Jesus did in our place to bring an end to the corruption thus bringing restoration to a path of fruition.


Through faith we accept the gift of grace from God to step out of a world of corruption and into the normal good world found only in Him. The real, the good, is rooted in His being and when we step into Him we find what we are looking for. The reality of our being is changed in an instant giving us complete and perfect righteousness free from any performance, work, duty, or moral obligation. It is a gift of grace. Then we start day one afresh walking a new life being born into righteousness and learning along the way how to actualize the reality of our new restored condition awaiting with eager expectation the day when all who are in Him and all of creation will see the full and complete restoration of all things. The glory and goodness will be free from all corruption, sin, death, and decay and it will all shine in the perfect goodness we sometimes see glimpses of when we see a sunrise, the birth of a baby, or some other magnificent beauty of nature that captures our hearts in wonder.



So where does this bring us regarding morality? Morality then becomes obsolete for we don’t earn moral goodness we are given it by the grace of God. We are given righteousness. Our identity changes from one who is unrighteous and struggles for the elusive good to one who has been made righteous and learns to live a new life. Just as when we are naturally born into this world we have to learn how to live this new life. We don’t instantly know how to live it, it is a process being worked out in us. We are not alone in this process, we journey with God’s presence aiding us each step of the way as we go from learning to sit up, to crawling, to walking, and onward as we grasp the reality of this new life. Our transformation is from the inside out; our restoring heart produces new actions that are in line with truth and goodness. We journey as a community helping and encouraging each other in our walk with Jesus. So morality then comes from the inside from our new being as righteous people and not from obedience to laws. The right actions then follow truly from our righteousness in Christ instead of from futile moral obligation to rules that only lead to guilt. Christ sets us free from this guilt of moral failure and gives us the goodness we once sought through obligatory duty to what is right. He makes us right and then shows us how to live right in freedom.


I know this is a whole lot of information, but I attempted to give a thorough treatment of the topic. Each paragraph could easily be an essay or a chapter in a book in and of itself and I am willing to discuss any aspect of these thoughts in further depth in future posts. To those of you that read here regularly and have repeatedly given me your positions on this subject please don’t feel the need to reiterate as this post is more for those who are new here and to those I am conversing with in other forums. However, if you do have any questions or things you want me to expound on I am always willing to hear what you have to say. Thank you for your patience and time.

More Thoughts On God's Goodness

I have noticed a trend of sorts in the discussions regarding the goodness of God that I think needs further examination. There seems to be a common agreement that if a God existed, He ought to be good. Hence, if the best candidate for God is shown not to be good by reason of His acts recorded in the Bible, His failure to end suffering in the world, or His plan of salvation is found to be flawed, then He doesn’t meet the qualifications of goodness nor Godhood.

Is this a fair assessment of the charges levied against His goodness and existence? I will continue on the assumption this is fair and I am sure you will all correct me if need be in the comments. At any rate, this is what I am hearing from all the discussion in the comments.

The idea of a “good” is resonate within us however we arrived at this construct. We value the good. We have standards for good. We differentiate good from evil. From what I see, the debate revolves around how we came to these constructs more than whether or not these constructs are part of humanity. Few argue that we don’t comprehend a difference between the two. I think most accept this dichotomy as obvious.

Can you put yourself in my shoes for a moment? Can you think about what the existence of an eternal God who is the author of all life means for the world? Is it possible for you to imagine with me a world where an eternal God created all? If such a God exists and is goodness personified eternally all He creates would naturally be good. This is the story of the Christian God. He created a good world with good people in it and He said it was all good. But we object that it cannot all be good we know there is evil, there is suffering, and there is disease and tragedy. We see natural disasters and not so natural ones. We see war, brutal violence, murder, destruction. We are appalled by what we see, so we, if a naturalist, can deduce we have evolved to have this natural indigence within us towards such cruelty. But what if there is another answer. What if when good was created, that which was not good was made possible. Man being created good, but with freedom sees what is not good and chooses to try that out for size. Man was warned not to do what is not good, but the not good was available to him, not because it was created, but because it is the absence of good or sometimes a distortion of good. The non good defiles the man who was warned it would not be a good thing to do. A course of events was set in motion to bring about the redemption of man to righteous goodness found in God that he became separated from through sin.

The evil and suffering in the world, is thence, a product of the gravity of sin causing corruption in man and in creation. But man has been on a journey ever since to become the great people of righteousness who will reign in a world where sin and evil has been conquered once and for all. God paid the debt for us, and as that reality is lived out in His Church in the world a great restoration will take place and is taking place. He waits and seems slow about bringing it to fruition so that more rather than less will find life in Him. He tarries to allow the fullness greater time to grow and more hearts and lives be brought to life through Him through the work of those who are in Him and are bringing Him to others.

I am a huge fan of C.S. Lewis’s books The Chronicles of Narnia. Maybe you have seen the new movie The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. In this mystical land of Narnia the land had been subjected to constant winter weather due to the reign of the White Witch in the land. However, when four children come into Narnia they set out on a journey with the great lion Aslan who ends the curse upon the land. His presence begins to melt the snow and end the winter whilst the children lead a battle to purge the land of the Witch and her followers. Aslan journeys throughout the land with the children breathing life back into Narnia. Lewis wrote this as a fanciful supposal of the truths of Christ depicted in a semi-allegorical manner.

The longing we have for the good is thus explained as a desire to find this restoration that all for which creation longs. We know intuitively that things ought not to be like they are, that violence, and suffering seem out of place to the way things ought to be. Could it be that there is meaning in it all and that our yearning to set things to rights is because there is a right to set it to? We can give up, so to speak, on our journey and accept things are simply the evolutionary pattern of life that we may or may not evolve past. But it would appear that even in terms of evolution we still have this nagging since of “rightness” and “oughts” and “the good.” It lingers despite evolutionary theories. So much so that we know that if a God exist He “ought” to be a good one or else He’s not worth bothering about.

These charges levied against Him can only be discussed in a framework of “a good” and if we imagine a world with no God I see a world where only humans make up what is beneficial to life based on evolutionary patterns to promote the continuation of our people and yet that doesn’t satisfy me. If that answer is good enough for you, then I can’t argue with that. We can say a God that destroys life for whatever reason under the sun cannot be good because life is good. But how do we determine life is good or valuable? How do we charge this Christian candidate for God with violating morality if He is our Creator and goodness is His nature? Or how do we charge Him, if He doesn’t exist and our morality is a product of evolution? There would be no one to charge, and nothing to charge Him with.

Unless you are talking about the finite gods of the Greeks and Romans and other ancient cultures, no one believing in God posits a God who is less than good. It seems to be a prerequisite for Godhood. We use our own standards to question it, but we are obviously not a perfect standard of good. So I question our appeal to ourselves to have grounds to question Him.

I realize I have not given some awesome argument that defeats all objections to His existence or His nature. But I hope I have left you with some things to consider. I’m not offended or threatened by such questions. I think they need to be asked and the questioners deserve to be taken seriously with great time and consideration taken in forming responses. You will find I do write on the same topics repeatedly because I am trying to have something worth your time to consider and I want to keep at it and keep reading and learning and inquiring. So I give answer, and then study some more, and listen some more, and engage in conversation some more, then write once again. So for today, this is where my musing pauses for you to consider.

Origin of the Moral Sense

I have been expending a great deal of thought regarding the common contentions I hear from atheists, agnostics, etc. regarding the matter of the origin of morality. My concern is that when I hear an atheist give the “Christian” reason for the existence of moral understanding it is not really the Christian argument at all. Then they proceed to give response to this and fail to give a response to our real assertion. I would think if we want to further understanding and dialog we really need to understand each others position much better and fully address it adequately.

Many of the apologists I am familiar with often spend time getting to know real people of other beliefs and seeking out the expert representatives of those beliefs to truly understand their position. Moreover, when they write a book they give a copy of their manuscript to said experts to ensure that they have fairly and adequately presented their beliefs. This way they can give the counter response to legitimately held beliefs without setting up an unfair straw man.

When I listened to The God Delusion Debate, Professor Richard Dawkins summed up why God is not needed to explain morality. One point that he made was that we don’t need a holy book to give us the rules of morality for we are able in and of ourselves to realize what things a book tells us are good and what are not good. So there must be something outside of reading of a book by which we use to judge morality. This is a very good point, and I concede the point. There is indeed something beyond reading a book even if that book is the Bible by which we know right from wrong. Someone who has never read the Bible still has the ability to differentiate between right and wrong.

Next Dawkins asserted that the only reason a God based morality is needed is to create a fear of punishment by God if one behaves badly or to provide a system of rewards for good behavior. I can understand his reasoning. To him it is complete lunacy to believe God exist. Thus his argument assumes God’s non-existence. If God didn’t exist and God was an invention of man it would follow that somewhere in the past the powers that be used this myth to make people behave out of fear or hope for rewards. All very logical, expect there is one problem. He hasn’t answered the Biblical Christian argument for the reason for morality.

Before I present it, let me reiterate that Dawkins admits that humanity universally accepts a moral right and wrong. He said, “its common sense.” His brief explanation of its evolution is that it probably began with the hunter-gather tribes that formed a value of good things and sympathized with suffering passing on this value from generation to generation. He cited that attitudes towards women and slavery have changed to support that morality isn’t fixed, it is evolving. Again, he only had a few minutes to give a response to such a matter and I am sure he has or could write entire books on the subject.

Now let’s turn to the Christian argument for the reason for morality for Biblical Christianity does not teach that one ought to be good to avoid punishment or to earn God’s favor. In fact, the Bible teaches that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The Bible further teaches that we cannot earn righteousness by good deeds. Nor can we lose righteousness by bad deeds in and of themselves. Our righteousness comes as a gift from God for those who look to Him for eternal life. I am not seeking to insert a salvation message. I am merely illustrating that Christianity isn’t about doing good for the reasons aforementioned.

The Christian argument as best as I know how to state it is this:

A good God exists. He created us good. In actualizing the good into creation, all that is not good became possible, but not actualized into being in creation. For instance, before there was light there was nothing, but when light came into existence darkness became the absence of light. Similarly, the actualization of the good gave that which is outside of the good a potential of becoming something actualized. Moreover, man had freedom to choose between what is good or leaving the good and entering something unnatural so to speak. When the non-good was chosen over the good the non-good came into existences gaining a reality of evil. Thus, man now knew good and evil. This altered the good. This changed the creation, corrupting it, subjecting it to a foreign contaminant so to speak. Now all mankind had in their nature the understanding of a difference between good and evil. It is common sense, as Dawkins says. It is universal. It is in man’s nature. That is why all men, except a few with physiological problems, internally know right from wrong. A struggle between the two natures exists to this day. The good news is that there is a solution to that struggle and it is not found in human efforts to do good things to please a dictator God. It is found in coming back into alignment with our created nature through redemption. God paid the debt to this corruption of sin for us so that we can step forward into a redeemed nature that doesn’t struggle with the corruption of sin. We grow into becoming people who do what is right because of the righteousness that flows through us as one of the many byproducts of knowing the Lord relationally.

To recap, the reason for our knowledge of good and evil is that there is a good God that created a good creation and when by the choice of human will evil entered the picture that knowledge increased to include awareness of what is not good. The struggle in every human between doing what we know in our hearts and minds as good and what is not good is a direct result of the corruption that entered creation. Yet that is not the end of the story, and the way of redemption was provided by God for all who will enter life through Him and the fullness of the glory of creation will be redeemed as well.

I understand that many religions have their own explanation and science has its. I think we need to take a look at them to see if they logically answer these questions of the origin of morality and the reason we have moral understanding. Compare and contrast the different explanations. Scrutinize the atheists’ argument the same as you would the theists’ argument. The truth can stand up to investigation. Most of all be sure you know the position of the one you discount and have researched it fairly and present a response that actually corresponds to the argument given. Don’t set up a non-good God scenario that is not given by theists. Actually respond to what is given. Thank you for your time.

Q & A by Ravi Zacharias: Atheism, Feminism, and the Bible

What is Righteousness?

Righteousness happens in us when we become reconciled to God through Christ. We are aligned to His rightness. The evidence of being righteous is living rightly, but living rightly doesn’t make us righteous. We can’t earn it by works, but are freely given it by grace. We gain a new nature in Christ, one that is reconciled to God and is free of the impurity of sin. Evidence of that new nature is a new way of living; living from love, not from fear, or by following rules. We do what is right because we are in God’s love and it overflows from us back to Him and our fellow man. We do what is right not out of a moral obligation or duty, but because His nature flows through us.

Fear is the opposite of love. “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear.” (I John 4:18) Love always trust, always preservers, and always hopes. It is kind. Not self seeking. It is sacrificial. It keeps no record of wrongs. It does not easily anger. It always protects. (I Cor. 13)

When we are reconciled to God’s love we are made righteous and we live lives of love. Love is perfected in us as we mature in our relationship with Him. We grow in love as we grow in Him. We do what is right because we love, not because we fear. We do what is right because we desire to, not because we ought to, because His love motivates us internally.

We drink from his eternal love; a well spring that never runs dry. We don’t depend on ourselves for the strength to “be moral” we depend on Him for a changed nature being made righteous by His sacrifice and living accordingly by His power.

A Standard For Knowledge and Morality

Note: This post began as a comment to respond to cyber kitten's comment to my last post. Due to the length I am posting it here. Please note that I am addressing the perspective shared as quoted and not suggesting it is representative of all atheists.

Cyber kitten: “I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a representative atheist just as there is no such thing as a representative theist. Personally I'm on the subjective end of the spectrum.”

I can certainly accept that there are differing perspectives within the broader atheists’ category. I try to address the main ones I have encountered. I was hoping to see what Kevin’s response was to your response before responding, but he has not weighed in yet. When I address subjectivism I am not saying that all atheists think this way, but I am addressing those who do. I am not trying to claim that all atheists think the same way. All theists are not the same. I hope everyone can understand that simply because I address a way of thinking that I am not trying to set up a straw man for all who claim to be atheists. Moreover as Quixote pointed out we may mean different things by our word choices and need to look at that before assuming what we mean.

Cyber Kitten: “I think he's right when he says that if you're not a Christian you can't really have Christian values - but of course many of the values claimed as Christian are pretty universal (the Golden rule for example).”

There are ethics that are specific to Christian teaching. I think though what I gathered from what Nietzsche was saying wasn’t simply a certain kind of morality, but the base for morality itself was nonexistent if there is no God. Again I am no authority on Nietzsche, so if anyone reading this is better acquainted with him please correct me if I err. I think he did indeed struggle with the conclusion for he saw that such a world without moral adherence would be unlivable. I think this bothered him greatly. I also see that “new atheists” do not agree with Nietzsche because morality is so widely adhered to regardless of belief in God. (see next paragraph for qualification)

However, I contend that it’s not ones belief in God or lack of belief in God which creates the need to be moral, but that we are designed by God with the moral knowledge irrespective of our environment or culture unless some stimuli robs us of our moral sense. Just the same, due to our fallen nature we often do the things we know we ought not to do even while we understand we “ought not to.” That moral awareness is a God given protection to keep us physically, emotionally, and spiritually from the consequences of living outside our created order and to draw us to Him who can supernaturally enable us to live life to the utmost – the fullest available to us which is beyond our imagination, but can be found in Him.

Cyber Kitten: “I think that largely Secular societies are 'going through the motions' where morality is concerned. Few people have any ethical training and I don't think that most people really give it much thought. Of course this doesn't mean that its either Christianity (or theism) or nothing (or nihilism). There's lots of ethical thinking out there that can be accessed by anyone with an interest in the subject.”

Small children know right from wrong even before they are taught. They will cry out “I had it first.” or “He can’t take it from me.” or “She shouldn’t hit me.” They know from a young age what’s right and wrong. All cultures have a sense of right and wrong even if they disagree on the code of ethics. Yes, much of the world simply goes through the motions. Even Christians in churches are merely trying to follow a moral code because they think they ought to, to earn favor with God. Jesus, however, came to change our nature to ones who live lives of love from a place of knowing Him and pouring out to others selflessly. Not because we follow a code of morality to earn righteousness, but because righteousness was given freely to us by God and it is He who enables us to love in a way that is impossible without being united with Him the way we were created to be. It is through that relationship with Him that we can become people who start to love like God does.

karla said: The only way to be certain is to find a stable eternal foundation for all knowledge/truth. If such a foundation doesn't exist there can be no certainty.

cyber kitten said: That pretty much is my position.

What is the point of knowing anything if it is all unknowable if there is no firm foundation? If all that you know is uncertainly known then it seems pointless to gain more knowledge. How can you trust anything you know even that there is no God? You may say given the lack of evidence it’s the surest place to be in, but if there was evidence you couldn’t trust it without believing He exist and is the eternal stable firm foundation of all truth.

Cyber Kitten said: But nothing is "wrong for all people in all times" is it?

I don’t see right and wrong as being solely culturally determined. Sure cultures create morality at times – certain dress codes or city laws etc. But over all things like child abuse, murder, rape, etc. are wrong for all times in all cultures and in all places. Even if we don’t talk specifics we know that all people (except a few with physiological disorders) have a sense of right and wrong even if the specifics are disagreed about. That knowledge of not living up to a standard of good is in all of us, we all fall short of it, every one of us.

cyber kitten said: I find it difficult to understand how anyone can say that morality is objective. There is nowhere outside of culture that we can stand to say such a thing.

Only if an eternal good God exists do we have a place to stand to know that there is objective morality and at the same time love those who fall short of the standard (which is all of us). If there is no objective standard, there is no wrong doing that means anything beyond the cultural level. Yet we all have this feeling of failure to live as “good” as we feel we ought to and yet we have no foundation to posit an “ought” without an objective standard. Otherwise we have no reason to feel we have missed the mark or to see anything another does as wrong no matter who is harmed. We have no call to claim an “ought:” without the firm foundation of an eternal good God.

If you have a piece of cloth that appears to be white and you place it up next to a piece of paper that is perfectly white you will see that the cloth looks rather dirty in contrast. The only way one could say that cloth isn’t white is in comparison to a greater standard than itself. If we look at ourselves in light of the rest of humanity we can say we are doing pretty well. We haven’t killed anyone or hurt anybody and we try to treat people well. Then we look at ourselves compared to a perfect standard, the living God, who created us and we see we aren’t so clean after all and yet there is hope for He offers to freely clean us from all unrighteousness and to show us how to live in a way that frees us from all bondages of sin. He can show us this because He sent Jesus to live the life of a man stripped of His divinity yet still being God to show us how to live a life rightly related to God. Moreover, He doesn’t ask us to live that life on our own strength, but by His strength which enables us to live like never before. Jesus took upon himself our debt to sin so that we could live a heavenly reality.

I think atheists want a solution to the evil in the world just as much as everyone else. However, if God is denied, not only is the solution denied, but also the problem. For if there is no standard then all the “evil” in the world isn’t really evil for there is no standard to judge between good and evil.

Also I have heard some say that if God exist, He is to blame for the evil because He is all powerful and hasn’t ended it. G.K. Chesterton once responded to an editorial question “What is wrong with the world?” with two words, “I am.” He knew the evil starts in our hearts and minds before it is actualized in the world. If God eradicated evil from the planet, who would be left standing? Is any heart perfectly free from evil? Is any mind perfectly good? Is any person perfectly good? God doesn’t end evil the way we want Him to because He loves us and has a better way of bringing about our redemption. The Bible says that God isn’t slow in keeping his promises as some understand slowness, but he is patient wanting none to perish. He is working in this world through those who have joined Him in Christ and through His Holy Spirit. He doesn’t force us by His omnipotence to come to Him, but He does pursue us with His love.

Freedom To Righteousness

Humanity typically looks at good with reference to evil. We see some acts as evil and others as good. We judge subjectively. We usually judge others harsher than we judge ourselves. We think we are good because we haven’t stolen anything or murdered anybody. Or we think we are good because of what we do, aiding our neighbor, raising our kids, loving our spouses, or giving food to a hungry person. But at the same time we are doing things that are not good all the time. We see good as the opposite of evil or evil as the opposite of good. But we don’t understand “good” without reference to evil. Even in our own hearts evil is always lurking. We are always comparing and contrasting and justifying ourselves. We find even the most giving people in the world have dark nights of the soul with the published diary writings of Mother Theresa. Yet we still reach for righteousness. We yearn for world peace. We want everyone to get along with everyone as if fighting, murder, and violence isn’t supposed to happen. We see these actions as somehow out of kilter with what “ought” to be. How can this be if at the same time we deny that there is a standard of what “ought” to be outside of our own subjectivity?

I’ve been watching the popular TV show Heroes. The characters are becoming duplicitous. The “good” ones are becoming corrupted in their fight for justice and the “evil” ones are showing compassion and integrity for the first time on the show. The lines are being blurred. The struggle in the hearts of man is coming to the forefront. Corrupted morality and compassionate acts of kindness are rising up in the same individuals. How can they determine the right path when their own hearts are so duplicitous?

Humans are only left with subjectivity when we try and figure out how to live in a way that is good. Some would say that’s all we have and we must make the best of it. But what if that’s not all we have? What if there is a better way than the human way? What if we can enter righteousness to where we can have our eyes opened to pure perfect goodness without contrast to evil?

The biblical moral code is quiet extensive. The law that was given to Moses was in effect when Jesus walked the earth. He encountered many people who were living out the law, or at least claiming to be, but whose hearts were corrupt making them unable to keep the law. Jesus said the law is fulfilled by loving God and loving people. He said that these were the two greatest commandments that fulfilled all law. The law was given to show us that we cannot keep it without His eternal love working through us. The focus was never to control people to conform to God’s law, but to free people to conform to righteousness personified in Christ Jesus. When we live in our corrupted nature we are not free. When we live in oneness with His nature we are the most free. Jesus said he came to give us life so that we could live life more abundantly. We can be transformed to righteousness and be free of all the weight of corruptness of heart, mind, and soul. The chains that bind us to thinking naturally, to evil, to sin, to corruption of the heart, and the bondages of addictions are broken by the cross of Christ. There’s more, Christ resurrected making it possible to live life a new – to live like Him.

To often the Church has tried to control people to live a certain way instead of simply leading people to Christ who doesn’t need us to put rules on people. Christ transforming power is more than sufficient to bring about righteousness in a person, to change hearts, to renew minds. Moreover fear ought never to be employed in sharing about Christ. Jesus didn’t invoke fear of punishment, penalty, or hell. He lived the truth He personified, being himself the example of life properly aligned with God. He came to point us to the way to life, not to bring condemnation and judgment. The world was already living in that by their own corruption. He came to free them from that way of living. He came to free them from guilt, condemnation, judgment. He came to raise us up to be heirs with Him in all things.

Postulating Moral Possibilities

Judy walked along the well traveled streets taking in the vast array of merchandise on display at the market. Large succulent peaches caught her eye and she neared the produce vendor. The sweet aroma of fresh juicy peaches filled her delicate nostrils.

“How much for these,” she asked pointing to the desired fruit.

“Four dollars a pound,” retorted the gruff voice of the vendor.

“Four dollars!” Judy exclaimed, thinking his prices too steep. She could still smell the tantalizing fragrance of the peaches. They were her favorite fruit. However, she was a very frugal person. . .

“Will you accept three dollars per pound?” She asked hopefully.

The man eyed her with dripping annoyance; “Three-Fifty,” came the booming voice.

“Thank you” she retorted jubilantly despite his sorry disposition. He motioned for her to select her peaches. She picked up a bag and began to fill it with her peaches. Then she handed it to the vendor for him to weigh, hoping she would not exceed three pounds.

She watched as the vendor sat her bag of peaches upon the scale with his right hand. He was leaning so close to it. Her eyes fixed on his left hand, almost imperceptible, but there it was, he was adding weight to the scale. The nerve of him, she thought as she glanced at the calculation rising to five pounds. She knew full well there was no five pounds of peaches in that bag. Maybe he just wasn’t paying attention.

“That will be $17.50,” his gruff manner pulling her out of her thoughts.

“No, I’m sorry, but there isn’t five pounds of peaches in that bag” Judy responded indignantly.

“You saw the weight madam”

“I also saw your left hand on the scale.”

“What of it?” He snapped.

“What of it?” she repeated, her astonishment rising. “What of it? I’ll tell you what of it. It is wrong, that’s what.”

“Who are you to tell me how to run my business?”

“You must be fair to your customers.”

“Why? I make more money my way.”

“But it’s wrong.”

“So you say.”

“Not just me, everyone knows that’s not right, it’s stealing.” She was unnerved at this point.

“Lots of people steal” he argued.

“That doesn’t make it right.”

“It’s right to me,” he countered.

“You don’t determine right and wrong.” Judy insisted.

“And you do?” he scoffed.

She looked at him askance. She was unprepared for this verbal assault on her philosophy of right and wrong. She just wanted peaches. How had this turned into a philosophical debate?

“The law,” she retorted, “the law says it’s wrong.”

“Who’s law?” He questioned.

“The law of this city . . . this country!” Judy exclaimed.

“I don’t care about the law.”

“You ought to.”

“Why?”

“Because you just ought to, everyone knows that.” Judy exasperatedly retorted.

“Look, young lady, if you can’t come up with a better reason why I “ought to” other than because “everyone knows that” I see no reason to waste my time further with you.”

Judy stared at him. The audacity of this man, she thought. Tears filled her eyes and she glanced around the busy market place trying to decide if she should just walk away or if there was some greater standard of morality to which she could appeal. Her eyes fell on a small ceramic of Moses and the Ten Commandments. She brightened and turned back to the vendor. Just then a loud siren came out of no where.

The market place began to slip away into a memory of sorts . . . the sound was getting louder and louder. Suddenly she opened her eyes and smacked off her alarm clock. She sat up thinking about her dream. The answer is “God” she mused to herself, “God is why you ought to. He’s the one that is the standard of goodness.”

How are we representing the Lord?

Christians and non-Christians a like often loose sight of what it really means to be a follower of Jesus. I read many blogs lamenting against Christian education and Christian values and Christian anything. I think this is because Christians have misrepresented the Lord to the watching world. I recently read about Justin the Martyr. In his day, Christians were misrepresented as being immoral and, believe it or not, atheists. They were charged with atheism because they did not serve the Roman Emperor or believe in the polytheist gods of Rome. They were charged as being immoral for rumors abounded that they were cannibals because the teaching about taking communion was misunderstood. Justin the Martyr wrote and spoke to the Roman world citing example after example of Christians who were the most dedicated soldiers and citizens of Rome. He spoke of the morality Christians adhered to and how this was beneficial to Rome. He explained that Christians were not cannibals and helped give an apologetic for the Christian teachings to belay the concerns of the Romans. Notwithstanding, he was soon martyred at the hands of the Romans for his public professions of faith in one God.

I think of the Sermon on the Mount and how there is nothing that Jesus taught that is not good for the world. Matthew 5 recounts His most famous sermon. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Blessed are those who are merciful. Blessed are those who are pure in heart. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake.

He calls His followers to be shining pure examples of His Light so that others will see and praise God. Our lives are to be living testimonies of Him so much so that people see us and want to praise God.

Jesus goes on to speak of forgiving those who owe us a debt or have done us wrong. He speaks of being faithful to one’s spouse. He speaks of keeping ones word. He tells us to always give to those who ask and to go the extra mile as well. He says that if someone steals from you give them more. If they strike you on one cheek, give them the other as well. He says we are to love our enemies, not just our friends.

Just think of a world where everyone lived just by these words of Christ in Matthew 5 given in the Sermon on the Mount. What would that world look like? Would it not be a world of peace, mercy, love, forgiveness, giving, righteousness, purity, faithfulness? Jesus says that this is possible, not by our might, but by His working in us and bringing about these things in our lives. These things do not earn us God’s approval. We, as Christians, are already stamped with His forgiveness and His holiness in Christ. But we are called to live as Christ did and we are empowered to do so through Christ, doing so causes the world to praise God. It is not for our glory that we live this way, but for His. It is because of His love overflowing in us that this ought to be what it looks like to follow Jesus. We owe it to the world.

The Validity of the Moral "Ought"

Are there moral absolutes? Or does morality change over time? I’ve been contemplating these questions and how best to articulate my thoughts concerning them. If morality changes over time and something becomes wrong that was not wrong in the past, then we give up the right to judge the past. For instance, when slavery was a normal part of society in Europe and the Americas for many years was it right then and now wrong because we have evolved to know it is inhumane? If it was not wrong then, but became wrong we diminish the injustice done to the African people by our philosophy. It either has always been wrong, or slavery is only wrong subjectively in the communities and individuals who believe it to be wrong. Hence one community has no right to impose it’s morality on another. Essentially in this line of reasoning our hands are tied when it comes to present day Sudanese slavery we have no voice to proclaim slavery in their community as wrong. Unless, of course, morality is the same for all people, places, and times.

I enjoy history and minored in history in college. I sat through many a discussion concerning Christopher Columbus. I have read documents where he called Native American’s “savage” and spoke derogatorily of this “uncivilized” people group so foreign to him and his culture. The cultural mindset he carried saw them as less than human and often took advantage of them as our history so sadly reports. Professors like to use Columbus as a good example of how he ought not to be declared a hero of American history, but ought to be despised for his contempt of the Indian people. However, if his ethics concerning them were culturally based and right in his day by all cultural standards, we have no reason to sit in judgment that he ought to have treated them as equal human beings. However, we do know that despite his ignorance of the truth, the Native Americans ought not to have been treated thusly and we have apologized to them as a nation and have rendered financial retribution for our horrific treatment of them. Therefore we see the past actions as not those of a changing morality, but of an injustice done to them in that day. We see it was wrong then as much as it is wrong today to mistreat a fellow human being.

Either we confine morality to each community and time period or even to each family or individual and have no right to tell anyone what “ought” to be, or there is an objective morality to which we appeal throughout the generations cross cultures. However, believing the latter creates a necessity for a giver of that objective morality. If morality is not a product of our own invention and is instead objective and true to all people, then we enter into the Christian worldview. Now, I know here is where people are beginning to object and say that I am inferring connections between objective morality and God that cannot exist and cannot be proven. Maybe I cannot scientifically prove God’s existence. However, if we want to continue to dispense with the idea of God we must dispense with the idea of an objective morality for all people irrespective of community, culture, and time. If it was wrong for the European colonies to participate in slavery and to mistreat the Native Americans even though most of them thought it acceptable and right behavior, then right and wrong exist objectively outside of human construct. If instead, one wants to believe that morality changes, and slavery became wrong then they can only say it is wrong for them or their culture, if their culture agrees, and not for those cultures of old or modern ones still practicing slavery. One cannot have it both ways. And if there is an objective moral standard not created by humanity then where would it have come from?

My answer from the Christian perspective is that God is the giver of this knowledge and the standard of goodness by which all things are measured. And with all things being equal, morality is absolute. If humans are to treat other humans with value simply because they are created as valuable then any action that demeans the value of a person whether it be slavery, murder, abuse, rape, etc. is wrong for all people in all times regardless of culture.

Something is less than good when it fails to keep with God’s good nature. Sin literally means “missing the mark” thus not lining up with the standard. The Bible says that all have sinned. We have all missed the mark, because none of us can be holy without God by His grace and mercy making us righteous through Jesus Christ. If we persist in moral relativity we ignore the standard and make ourselves the giver of morality and I think we all know that we are not good and we do things that break our own standards so how can we be a standard giver? The only one qualified to give a standard is one who doesn’t break it, one who is perfect in goodness. The only one who can sacrifice himself for those who break the standard is one who is perfect and without blemish being sinless himself. The only way we find mercy is through the cross of Christ because He breaks us free from the law of sin and death cleansing us from our unrighteousness and empowering us to live righteously.

For the Christian, doing “good” is not means to earn favor with God. It is because of the favor of God that we love to do what is right. Even Christians forget this and sometimes get into a pattern of trying to earn favor with God and to impose this idea on others that their actions gain them favor or take away God’s favor. In actuality, our actions do not merit us salvation for we cannot save ourselves. We strive in Christ to live lives pleasing to God because we love God and not because we are working for something from God.

The Euthyphro Problem

Socrates asked “Is what is good good because God wills it or does He will it because it is good?”

If the answer is the former then God can make anything good by His decree at will. He could have easily have reversed the 10 Commandments. For instance, commanding us to murder instead of not to murder.


If the answer to this question is the latter then God is held to some standard outside of Himself that makes Him will good versus evil. This would suggest a moral standard outside of God, which determines objective morality. This would also mean God is not perfect in and of Himself.


The answer is neither. God Himself by His nature is the standard and He is always Himself. All that He does is according to His nature.


To quote Paul Copan, “Indeed, the final resolution to the Euthyphro dilemma is that God’s good character/nature sufficiently grounds objective morality. So we don’t need to look elsewhere for such a standard. We have been made in the divine image, without which we would neither (a) be moral beings nor (b) have the capacity to recognize objective moral values. The ultimate solution to the Euthyphro dilemma shifts the grounding of morality from the commands of God to something more basic—that is, the nature or character of God. Thus, we human beings (who have been made to resemble God in certain ways) have the capacity to recognize them, and thus his commands—far from being arbitrary—are in accordance with that nature.”


Now one can push the age old question further and ask “Is God good because it is God’s character, or it is God’s character because it is good.”


However, to quote Paul Copan again, “if a good God does not exist, why think that morally responsible, intrinsically valuable, rights-bearing beings would exist at all? Without God, moral properties would never be instantiated or realized.”


He continues, “God, who is essentially perfect, does not have obligations to some external moral standard; God simply acts, and what he naturally does is good . . . God’s action and will operate according to the divine nature. So God’s goodness should not be viewed as His fulfilling moral obligations but as expressing the way he is.”


Moreover, the dilemma goes both ways as the atheists must consider, “Are moral values good simply because they are good, or is there some independent standard of good to which they conform?”


One either has to maintain a standard of objective goodness or digress to no goodness at all. Richard Dawkins writes in River Out of Eden, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”


If there is no objective good and evil we have “nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Yet we live in a world where everyone has a concept of good and evil. Are these merely terms made up by man with no inherent meaning? Is morality a myth and our ethics merely derived from what is best for survival or fitness to this nature we live in? We really aren’t left with satisfying answers to the need to be good.


I read a book review of a biography of Albert Einstein where it quoted Einstein as saying that he did not believe in objective morality, but had to live as if it existed to get along in the world. Why must we conform to a standard of goodness even if we disbelief in the very nature of good and evil? Why do we struggle between good and evil in our souls if it’s simply an idea produced by man? If man produced it, why is it so difficult for man to dispense with it? Why do we keep asking why? Maybe it’s because there is something real behind it all and our hearts yearn to be freed from this struggle because we were meant for something more. We try and find it through philanthropic acts of kindness, community service, religious activity, worship of man, worship of gods, worship of spirituality, etc. What is man searching for? Why the search if there is nothing to find at the end of the journey?


Could it be there is a real good God behind it all and our search is prompted by His image impressed upon us and our indispensable need to be rejoined to our Creator? Could it be that we have been fighting against our only hope and we need to stop fighting and surrender to the only one who can save us?


He is the author of this grand story and until we find our place in Him we will feel things just aren’t right with our place in this world for we were destined for more and we do know it. We even know by our own desire that He exists. For every desire has a purposed fulfillment. I think all our questions exist because there is an Answer for He is the Truth for which we are searching.


Paul Copan quotes taken from the book To Everyone An Answer

A Worldview Challenge

Christians, myself included, have often argued that no one can know that God does not exist for one cannot prove a negative without knowing all things and being an omniscient being oneself. However, atheists’ counter that they believe in nothing and Christians believe in something, therefore the Christian has the burden of proof of proving God’s existence. They also counter that it is lame to assert that just because you can’t prove God doesn’t exist ought to follow in accepting that He must exist.

Of first importance, I never intend for anyone to believe God exist simply because there is no evidence to prove He does not exist. The argument often presented, that one cannot prove a negative, is simply meant to show that maybe there is reason to at least consider His existence based on a multiplicity of supporting evidence. It is not the end all argument that closes the debate and expects the atheist to all of the sudden accept the existence of the Christian God.

However, this business about atheist having nothing to support because they believe in nothing and therefore the Christian, asserting something supernatural, must be the only one who defends that proposition is not completely fair.

I agree that I hold the greater burden of proof as one who claims to know, not only that God exists, but to know Him personally. I do not profess to know all that He is, for I am not omniscient. But I do profess to have a tangible relationship with Him. Therefore, I carry a great deal of the burden of showing unbelievers whether atheists or otherwise.

That being said, it is still important for the atheist to assert a reasonable defense for the application of their worldview to reality. How does it answer the problem of evil in the world? How does it give credence to the existence of good in the world? How does it answer our need for justice and moral judgment? How does it answer our ability to reason?

I challenge people from any worldview and any stream of worldviews to answer these questions and check their worldview with reality. Does it work practically? Does it line up with what is real? I’ve been answering these questions on my blog from the Christian worldview. I challenge others to do the same from their worldview to add to the exchange of ideas and to sharpen our thinking.

The Reality of Goodness

God is good. For God, to be God, He has to be eternally good. He can’t change back and forth from bad to good because that would make Him less than perfect. And if He is not eternally perfect, He is less than God, and not God at all.

All of humanity, granting a few exceptions, despite our failures, adheres to a standard of goodness versus badness. No one, in his right mind, sets up evil as the preferable standard of living.

Some are of the opinion that the dichotomy of valuing good over evil is a product of evolution and not of God’s design. It must be one or the other, for most people will attest to the existence of good and bad with the understanding of good being the standard by which we must live.

Atheist argue that being good of their own accord and not because God is going to punish them for being otherwise or reward them for their goodness is more admirable than one who desires to be good because God decrees it. However, there in lies a faulty view of God which is not based on real Christianity. Jesus did not come to make mankind more moral, but to transform mankind to a supernatural way of living empowered by Jesus which enables us to live as we were created to live which is not a life bond by sin. It is much more than freedom from bondage to sin, but to focus on the morality issue, we become free from sin, not out of religious compulsion to be good, but out of a changed nature that has been delivered from living in the bondage of sin.

Goodness, thus, is a byproduct of a relationship with Jesus, and not the result of religious compulsion. Thus, we love, not because we “ought to” but because tangible love bubbles up from within us out of our relationship with Christ and it becomes a natural expression by which we live and not something we work at to please a vindictive God. More accurately, it is a supernatural express for it comes not from our heart alone, but from God’s heart through us.

In fact, I think that this argument of the atheist lends itself more to religion than the authentic Christianity I am explaining. Let me expound on this idea. For the atheist to adhere to being good because they are evolved to prefer a standard of good over evil, they are still following rules of goodness. The atheist either follows society’s rules of goodness or their own rules of goodness or some combination of the two. The Christian, on the other hand, does not follow rules of goodness, but is transformed to do what is good as a byproduct of their relationship with Jesus. So “goodness” comes from being connected to God who is good and who transforms our nature versus “goodness” coming from a mere adherence to rules and law. Morality, then, is authentic of who we are in God and who God is in us.

People have a desire to live good lives, while, at the same time, often failing to keep our own standards of goodness, because we were created in God’s image and His stamp of the way things ought to be is ingrained in our very DNA. However, because we have the freedom to choice to follow God’s way of living or our way of living we also have the stamp of a fallen human nature produced when the first man chose his way instead of God’s way. We, thus, struggle between the two natures and when we come to Christ, our fallen nature is replaced by our redeemed nature and through this real tangible relationship with Jesus we become more and more like Him.

This is authentic Christianity. No one by their own efforts can ever perfectly live up to even their own standard of goodness, much less the perfect goodness of God. We all fail. However, God in His perfect goodness and love provided a way to redeem us, making us holy by fellowship with His holiness through the finished work of the cross of Jesus Christ.

Now, of course, if God doesn’t exist and this worldview is merely the creative imagination of a bunch of first century fisherman who miraculously created the best selling book of all time and died torturous deaths for their belief in this reality, then this is all rubbish. Christians are, therefore, mistaking God for what is really the work of an evolutionary process which amazingly created in all mankind a desire to do good even if it is self-sacrificing to do so. Moreover, even though evil still exist in this world, it’s merely a product of evolution as well and yet the entire history of humanity judges evil actions as bad. It’s all a matter of chance as to whether our DNA leads us to good or evil. Or maybe evil is what Christianity claims, a product of man living apart from the way God designed life and man left to his own nature produces evil in some form or another because it is impossible to live up to even our own standards without being connected and redeemed by God.

Life as a Christian is exciting. Real Christianity doesn’t look like religion. It has a taste of heaven, a substance of glory, a freedom of Christ. It is a wondrous reality. The Gospel of Christ is good news about a good God. G.K. Chesterton famously wrote that “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and untried.”

Moral Framework Continued

I will now transition from the existence of a common moral framework in humanity to how God sees humans living in that framework. To answer this contention about the nature of the Christian God, I must for the sake of illustration, answer from the Christian worldview that you do not yet accept as valid. Please read this as an answer from Christianity and allow me to establish the foundation for the legitimacy of Christianity in other blogs.

God created a moral framework not as a system of rules by which to bind us, but as a protection against living outside of how we were designed to live. It’s like the warning label on an electronic device that cautions the user not to use near water to avoid electrocution. There is a moral framework written into the fabric of our DNA, but because of our sinful nature we often ignore that framework and do things our own way because we live separated from God. The evil in the world is because of that separation. God provides restoration to the way we were born to live as beings connected with the eternal God.

Jesus was never about imposing laws and rules. He came to fulfill the requirements of the written laws given to Moses by God to enable man to gain redemption and righteousness, not by adhering to laws and rules, but by relationship with Jesus for Jesus came to restore man to God. God’s justice isn’t punitive in nature. He loves mankind. Jesus said that sin entangles us and creates bondage over our lives to sin and death. That is the nature of what sin does. In contrast, God is in the business of freeing people from that sin and death and giving them life, eternal life. That relationship is not merely a matter of eternal destiny, but of present day living on earth. He takes away the weight of guilt from sin. He removes the entanglements and replaces our bondage with His freedom and life.

Thus, Christians don’t practice morality to please God. Their morality is an overflow of the change Christ has made in their life. Because He is love we love. It is out of our fellowship with Him that we live the way we do. Not because we think about if we will make him mad at us or not by our actions. Granted, as you will see in my prior blog entitled “Common Ground” sometimes Christians get into religion and start to become about laws and such, but this is not the standard. Jesus is the standard and He wasn’t about religion.

I believe I have responded to each of your objections or questions in your blog Unmuddling Morality

Moral Framework

A response to http://godlesswoman.blogspot.com

I will now respond to your second objection on the topic of morality. I asserted that there is a moral law at work in humanity and that for there to be such a construct there must be a moral law giver, God.

To set it up as a syllogism it would look like this:

• If there is a moral law, then there is a Moral Law Giver.
• There is a moral law
• Therefore there is a Moral Law Giver

Let’s unpack the idea of the existence of a common moral framework in all of mankind. In use of the term “moral law” I am merely claiming there to be a moral framework at work in mankind.

There is a difference between agreement on specifics of right and wrong and a basic understanding that there is right and wrong. The specifics can be subjective at times; however, the framework is objective. For instance, you give the example of slavery.

Throughout history slavery was not always seen as wrong by all people. Even today, slavery continues in parts of the world such as in Sudan. If morality was subjective to a culture or a person, one could say that the English slave trade or the American slavery was not wrong to those who didn’t believe it to be wrong. However, I think the reality is that it was always wrong even when people justified it to be right. Also, just because a community justifies something to be right, doesn’t mean deep in their souls they know it to be right.

When someone is on trial for murder, they can submit a plea of insanity if they have no understanding between right and wrong. One of the key things the prosecutor must prove is that the Defendant not only committed the act, but that the Defendant was cognizant the act was wrong. For if the defense attorney proves through a physiologist that the Defendant has no moral understanding he is able to present the defense of insanity. So even if someone does something wrong and is convinced that it is not wrong, even in a court of law, it is still wrong and the person is seen as insane.

If morality is subjective then we have no right to judge another culture or community for doing atrocities to people such as the holocaust. However, if it is objective and all people really do know right from wrong somehow then the Nuremburg Trials were warranted. However, if moral truth is merely what a community agrees upon there could never be any justice for the millions of Jews exterminated in the concentration camps. Was this historical event evil? Or was it merely Hitler, to quote Richard Dawkins, “dancing to his DNA.”

[Regarding the Bible condoning slavery, it does not. Jesus didn’t come to force political change; that was not His mission. He knew that the heart change that happens from knowing Him would change the world and force would never produce love which was what was needed to treat people the way He designed them to be treated]

The second part of the syllogism proclaims God must exist because there is a moral framework. How else could a standard of morality exist in humanity if it were not for a conscious designer placing it there? The objective nature of a moral standard that man kind experiences guilt when he breaks it and demands justice when it is broken against him is not explained by evolution. Again that is why I maintain that non-Christians must borrow from the Christian worldview regarding these things to even posit questions about good and evil and how to differentiate between the two. It’s the only worldview that gives a good explanation about how this all works and is the most viable in corresponding to reality.

To Be Continued: Last Response Blog will address the matter of how God sees mankind in light of moral failures