Missing the point
Lately I’ve been having some good discussions re: Christian morality vs. morality of those who are non-Christians, or more specifically, atheists. I’ve been trying to make the point that morality without any objective truth is really unsustainable. That is to say, if one’s morals are basically subjective, ultimately you can’t hold anyone accountable because you have no objective basis for telling them they’re really wrong. It’s not to say in the end that Christians are ultimately more moral than non-Christians or even that non-Christians aren’t moral. It’s just that at least with some frame of reference (e.g. God’s Word – objective truth), you can at least make an appeal when someone does something that’s wrong rather than just say “who are you to say that this is really wrong?”
That’s all well and good (no pun intended), but I’ve realized that it’s really missing the point. The point is that no matter how hard we try, it’s never going to be enough. God demands that we live perfect lives – lives free of sin. The reality is, none of us can measure up to His standard but that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 6:23) So whether you’re Christian or not, and whether you recognize it or not, you still have God’s Law written on your hearts. That – and not the subjective morality of society – is what orients your “moral compass” in the ballpark of the right direction. However, since the fall (Genesis 3) and the entrance of sin into this world, our compasses are in need of some serious recalibration. Though we may all have some basic sense of what’s right and wrong, left to our own devices and sin-darkened reason, we still never get it completely right. And again, the point is we never will – no matter how hard we try. That’s why we often have that unshakeable feeling of guilt – that we just wish we could do better. And even when we master one problem, another one rears its ugly head. So left on our own, there really isn’t much hope – no assurance of being good enough – Christians and non-Christians alike. And really, this is at the heart of the Biblical message – that even though we can’t do good enough – even though we can’t measure up to God’s standard of perfection, Jesus did. And He didn’t just do it to show us how bad we are; He actually did it in our place – He did it for us. Jesus Christ – 100% true man and 100% true God pefectly fulfilled the Law for us and then suffered the punishment we deserve. He did it out of pure, unconditional love for us, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ” (Romans 5:8). Through his death and resurrection, he has won for us the forgiveness of sins and promise of eternal life. It doesn’t mean we just throw our hands up and say “oh, I’m forgiven so I can do what I want.” Certainly not. The forgiveness of Christ has the power to change lives and that’s what it does for us. It restores our relationship with God and renews our hearts and minds, re-orienting our “moral compass” toward God’s Will. Again, we’ll still never get it perfect; but it doesn’t mean we don’t try. In the end, it’s not about how good we can be or how much evil we can avoid. In the end, it’s about trusting in the One who died and rose for your sins and mine.
The cross where Jesus gave his life for us; the empty tomb where he declared victory over sin, death, and the devil for us. That, dear friends, is the point.
“I’ve been trying to make the point that morality without any objective truth is really unsustainable.”
Ah, but we do have an objective truth, demonstrated with the scientific method.
Harm and benefit is the basis for my morality. And it seems to work pretty darn well.
morsec0de said this on January 26, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Okay, I know this isn’t where your discussion goes, but I challenge you to find me a person who really believes that there is no objective truth. Sure their are people who try and make that claim, but they really don’t hold to it and, as soon as you run through a few basic questions, it makes it clear that they hold to some kind of overarching truth that typically is based in Natural Law ideals. For example, “Was the argument made by the Nazi’s at the Nuremberg Trials legitimate?” That event could be argued as the death of academic postmodernity.
Rather, what people really believe in is truth that is so vast, that neither you nor I are capable of containing it in a simple little package. In the end, I agree with this, because my God certainly doesn’t live in a box and has an abundance of things that are hidden from me … which is why I only work with the stuff he’s revealed.
Anyway, here’s something I wrote on this a while back to spur on a bit more discussion: http://joeburnham.com/community/2007/04/27/atheists-and-purpose
Joe Burnham said this on January 26, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Joe – I agree with you 100% and thanks for the link to your post – it was very insightful and well done.
morsec0de – I see what you’re saying and I would agree that it is the objective truth for many (and just for the record – because I feel like I always have to repeat this: I do not have a problem with science, per se, but the way it’s sometimes interpreted.) But my point is there starts to be a problem when “science” says “oh, life doesn’t begin at conception but…” and that’s how we justify the murder called abortion. And exactly who’s harm and benefit are we talking about? How is that objective? What benefits you may be harmful to others – does that make it right? What do you appeal to then? That’s my point – but again, not my main point.
The Rev Russ said this on January 26, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“But my point is there starts to be a problem when “science” says “oh, life doesn’t begin at conception but…” and that’s how we justify the murder called abortion”
I think the question isn’t so much about life beginning at conception than it is about human-ness beginning at conception. As a species we don’t seem to generally have a problem with destroying life.
As far as human-ness, science can help us understand a point in the development of a fetus in which is becomes human. Not a definite point, at least not yet, but it can certainly aid us.
I think that to say that human-ness begins at conception is shown to be wrong by science and wrong, or at least disturbing if true, by your own religion.
I say this because there are a significant percentage of embryos that naturally and spontaneously are miscarried. This happens mainly due to the time of a woman’s cycle in which there is conception. I forget the exact figures, but it is out there. And, if your religion is true, that suggests that your deity has designed women in such a way that they would naturally abort a large percentage of conceived fetuses with human souls.
Perhaps you can jibe that with your religion, but I don’t imagine how. Besides the non-answer of ‘god works in mysterious ways’.
morsec0de said this on January 26, 2009 at 3:32 pm
@morsec0de – again, we’ve already gotten away from the main point of my making this post (which is somewhat ironic), but I’d still like to respond to your comments.
The Bible seems to make it clear that we are humans from the moment of conception (Psalm 51:5). To relegate our “human-ness” to our subjective whims seems a dangerous game at best. When, then, does someone cease to be human? When they stop breathing? When their heart stops? Or is it simply when they are no longer able to contribute to society like the majority of people? Do you see what I’m getting at? How is science ever going to be able to tell us when our “human-ness” begins or ends – how can science define what human-ness even is?
As for your comment about miscarriages – I’m sorry to play right into your hand, but I don’t fully understand why God allows them to take place. To argue with my frame of reference (God, the Bible, etc.) you then have to consider my presuppositions. You see, in the Christian understanding we live in a world that is now fallen. Nothing is as it was perfectly created. The Bible isn’t explicit in every detail, but in the case of miscarriages, I assume that they wouldn’t have taken place had the fall into sin not happened. So did God create women that their bodies would naturally abort fetuses? No. Do they now post-fall? Yes. Why does God allow this? I wish I had an answer. As my friend, Joe, indicated – there are many things about God which I just can’t speak to clearly because He doesn’t fully reveal Himself to me. Why does the teenage boy – a loyal and devout follower of God – get killed in a horrific car accident? Why does the 3 year old child of Bible-believing Christians die from cancer? Why does God allow all of this to take place? I don’t know the specific answers but I do know what He has revealed. 1) That His love for us is made known in Christ and not necessarily the things of this world and 2) in all things, God works for the good of those who love Him. ( Rom 8:28 ) What exactly that means and how it all plays out is often a mystery to me. I’ll refer you to my prior post and the devotion offered there from Dr. Dale Meyer. It doesn’t speak directly to the topic at hand, but it does get at the issue of “why do bad things happen to good people.” I hope that doesn’t come off as a “non-answer” but I really can’t think of a better way to express myself.
The Rev Russ said this on January 26, 2009 at 3:53 pm
But that is a circular reference. You can’t use the scientific method to prove that we can only discern truth through the scientific method.
I’ve yet to meet someone who builds all their test equipment by hand and does all their own experiements. They rely on experts and testimony all the time and don’t realize it.
First, human life does begin at conception. That is a scientific fact. See any embyrology textbook — http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony.
It is a great and bizarre irony that the “scientific method only folks” ignore that fact and jump to philosophical statements about “human-ness.”
Back to your post: Good points. Truth is not relative, and postmoderns contradict themselves all the time when they make moral claims upon you. But yes, we are still all sinners in need of a Savior.
Neil said this on January 26, 2009 at 9:12 pm
russ…bro…you GOTTA start referencing my threads when you post about them…DONT I do the same when I reference you? cmon man…it lets me know in my console that you updated your blog and it drives traffic between the two blogs..now i can’t even start on this thread because it has gone too far…
and regarding “the point”. In my view…the point isn’t good enough, Jesus and all that crap isn’t good enough to be the point. The cross was not sufficient and I can’t accept that as good enough…ever…the cross has failed at saving me and MorseC0de here so OBVIOUSLY it is not good enough to bother with…
Matt Oxley said this on February 3, 2009 at 8:38 pm
THANK YOU .
Now we can be friends again…
Matt said this on February 4, 2009 at 12:11 am
Matt, sorry for leaving out the linkage. The discussion on your blog was already up to 60 comments and I just thought it would be overwhelming. I’ve gone ahead and included a link.
As for Christ not being good enough for you, well, I really don’t think there’s much else I can say. To throw a phrase back at you, just because you’ve convinced yourself it’s not true doesn’t mean it isn’t. Just because you’ve rejected God, doesn’t mean He’s rejected you. But you’ve hardened your heart against Him to the point of disbelief and that really saddens me. The cross hasn’t failed at saving you; you’ve rejected it and made yourself your own god. The true God and His gift of salvation wasn’t enough for you so you’ve gone your own way like the Israelites so often did even after He brought them out of bondage from Egypt. I continually pray for you, Matt, and I enjoy our conversations. But I think the life your living is dangerous; not in terms of what you’re doing or not doing, but because you’ve rejected God. You’ve exchanged His truth for the worlds lies. And that may never change, but at least I know I’ve tried.
The Rev Russ said this on February 4, 2009 at 12:19 am