Tag Archives: lifestyle

I’ll Do It My Way -the terrible harvest of moral relativism

The anthem of western civilization for the last 100 years could well be Frank Sinatra singing, “I did it my way.” Morality has become a matter of preference rather than principle. As the Creator God has been either denied or relegated to the closet of human thought, the Ten Commandments as absolute standards have also been rejected.

Indeed, if madscn1336-1nkind had an impersonal beginning there is no basis for absolute standards of right and wrong. If we are nothing more than an evolved combination of forces and elements, then we must do what our genes tell us to do. Why question any action? Cruelty will occur in some cases and generosity in others and there is no difference. As a result of such thinking, we have fluid and ever-changing ethics. Abortion is justified. Euthanasia will shortly be acceptable. Sex in any combination and situation is promoted. How can rape be defined? How can pornography in a free-speech society be curbed? Gender becomes what I feel I am, male, female, transgender, whatever.

Moral freedom defined by personal preference rules. Hugh Heffner, founder of the Playboy empire who brags about having slept with 1000 women, told the Daily Telegraph “I’m dscn4172a very
ethical guy. I’ve managed to live on the edge. But I’ve done it with a lot of class.”
Without a glimmer of irony, he said, “Moderation is the key.” When individuals like Heffner manipulate morals these ethical choices become nothing more than subjective personal preferences. The results are outrageous.

When Woody Allen was challenged about having an affair with the adopted teenage daughter of his live-in partner, Mia Farrow, he defiantly replied, “The heart wants what the heart wants.”  In other words, his heart’s desire determined what is good and his decision was no one else’s business.

As someone has said concerning letting feelings define sexuality: “Shouldn’t a 16-year-old teen-ager who identifies as a 21-year-old be allowed to purchase alcohol? Shouldn’t a 40-year-old who identifies as a 70-year-old receive social security and get a senior’s discount at the movie theatre? If we are going to identify people by their feelings, doesn’t anything go?”

But is moral relativism really morality at all? If there are no absolute, unchanging standards of right and wrong, why or how can we condemn human cruelty? On what basis can we condemn Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or ISIS?

These approaches to morality fly in the face of the innate sense among people of all Greece, Parthenoncultures that certain things are right and others wrong. As Scripture declares, [Those] “who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law [of God]…they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness , and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them” (Romans 2:14,15). There are, whatever society might say, absolute, unchanging standards of right and wrong written into the consciences of all mankind and into the fabric of the universe.

Moral relativism has led to the horrific events of the twentieth century and continues to create a harvest of misery in our day. Millions of unborn people continue to be killed. Sexually transmitted diseases continue to thrive. The number of single mothers increases as does the number of fatherless children. Pornography and addictions will surge higher. Wars will increase.

If we are to see the disastrous results of moral relativism curbed, we must re-instate the Ten Commandments personally and socially. What may be impossible in society, without
revival, must at least be the absolute norm in the Church dscn1243-copyand in our Christian families.

We were created in the image of God as moral creatures responsible to him. And we should remember, “As it is appointed onto man once to die, and after that the judgement”.

(Much of this meditation came as a result of re-visiting Francis Schaeffer’s “He Is Not There And He Is Not Silent”.)

(Further articles, books, and stories at: http://www.countrywindow.ca –Follow him on Facebook: Eric E Wright; on Twitter: @EricEWright1; on LinkedIn: Eric Wright )

Advertisements

Irrational Choices Versus Common Sense.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAI’m neither a philosopher nor the son of a philosopher—as you can easily discern. My dad and one of my brothers were engineers, the others skilled in the building trades. I took forest engineering. We were taught pragmatics, something most profess but few practice.

Why do I say that? Well, legislators seem to be abandoning common sense. They propose practices that run counter to reality: replacing his and her pronouns, adopting multi-sex bathrooms, financing sex-change operations, legalizing some drugs and on and on it goes. It’s time to ask why? Where have these ideas come from?
In my search, I’ve returned to Francis Schaeffer’s book, He Is There And He Is Not Silent. In the 1950’s and ’60’s he challenged the irrationality of atheism and agnosticism as philosophies. Today irrationality rules.

As Schaeffer pointed out, our world view (philosophy) must explain the reality and dscn4172complexity of our universe. There are two main answers given. One, there is no answer. All is chaotic and irrational. No one has been able to live with this answer in real life. They daily depend on gravity and a thousand concrete and unchanging realities.

Answer two, there is a rational answer that can be communicated. Among those who accept this thought, there are three possible sub-answers.

1. Everything that exists came out of absolutely nothing—no energy, no mass, no motion, and no personality. No one has ever been able to sustain this answer. It is unthinkable. Those who maintain this as a view embrace other irrational ideas. But empirically, everything we enjoy practically, comes not from zero but from already existing matter.

dscn39502. Everything had an impersonal beginning whether from mass, energy, or motion. However, if we start with an impersonal something, how do any of the particulars that now exist have any meaning? No one has ever demonstrated how time plus chance, beginning with the impersonal, can produce the needed complexity of the universe, let alone the personality of man. If we subscribe to this answer, human love is just an impersonal chemical reaction. And if everything arose from impersonal “things” why have values. Why worry about pollution, poverty, or injustice? Indeed, why ponder questions at all? The dilemma of modern man is simple: he does not know if or why mankind has any meaning. He is lost. Man remains a zero.

3. Everything had a personal beginning in a personal-infinite God. This choice alone explains value, complexity, and personality. Schaeffer comments, “I would

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

be an agnostic if there were no Trinity. Without the high order of personal unity and diversity as given in the Trinity, there are no answers.” Man, created in the image of God, has personality and in his complexity he has unity. God expresses in his being, the unity and diversity we see in the universe. There is no other answer that explains reality.

If, as most in the west do, we reject answer number three, we are left at sea without direction, purpose, moral principles, or goal. By choosing to ignore our divine origin and accountability, our society runs either by consensus or according to whoever has the loudest voice or the most influence. Whether a policy fits with reality doesn’t matter. Society just does whatevdscn1336-1er it wants; whatever feels good at the time; whatever gets the most votes; whatever is most convenient.

Is this any way to live? You be the judge. As for me and my house, we accept the third choice and thus embrace the description of reality and values as revealed in the Scriptures.

(Further articles, books, and stories at: http://www.countrywindow.ca –Follow him on Facebook: Eric E Wright; on Twitter: @EricEWright1; on LinkedIn: Eric Wright )