The more Western culture rejects its Christian roots, the
more we will hear disparaging remarks like:
·
The Bible is no basis for morality. Just look at
the treatment of gays, women, and the Canaanites. The Bible should not be taken
seriously by anyone!
In effect, they are saying:
·
The Bible does not agree with our modern norms
and values. Therefore, it is wrong and must be rejected.
Instead of the Bible, the current norms have become the new
authority and every other religion or value system must be measured against
these current norms. If they fall short, then they must be rejected.
This “tyranny of modernity” is no less dogmatic than the
values that they seek to replace and, in many cases, it is more intolerant.
Just look at a recent Federal decision to criminalize schools that forbid a
boy, if he deems himself “transgendered,” to enter a girl’s bathroom. The
entire school is made to conform to the whims of one child. Reasonable? Not in
the slightest!
This cultural/moral relativism is unreasonable in many ways.
For one thing, this philosophy is a denial of any higher, absolute values.
Instead, relativists claim that morality is just something that we create. And
yet, they will defend their decisions by invoking an appeal to innate human
rights – that Transgenders have an innate human right to choose any bathroom
that feels right to them.
Well, what gives them this human right if there is no higher
objective law to which we must adhere? If instead morality is subjective – just
something that we create – how then is it possible to appeal to the higher
principle of an intrinsic human right when, according to their own assessment,
none actually exist.
If there is no God to confer human rights, based upon His
overriding concern for humanity, then “human rights” is just an idea that we
create, and if we create it, we can just as easily retract it. Consequently, “human
rights” are just a useful and temporary tool to argue for our own set of
non-existent rights.
In fact, such human rights advocates acknowledge that the values
of society are evolving. Therefore, this made-up concept of “human rights” is
also evolving. But if it is evolving and based on nothing more than societies
passing whims, then on the basis of what can the relativists claim that the
morality of the Bible is wrong? All they can coherently say is that the Bible
violates their own created standards.
It is like grading a math exam and failing certain students despite
the absence of and correct answers. As
the teacher needs correct answers in order to fairly and objectively grade an
exam, the relativist also needs objectively correct moral laws to judge the
Bible. However, they admit that they lack such a thing. Instead, they admit
that they judge by a relative and subjective standard of their own liking.
It’s equivalent to the teacher saying, “I don’t have any
correct answers, but I will fail you anyway!” This is the predicament of the
relativist. He wants to judge, but with only his own arbitrary and subjective
answers, he knows that he cannot judge.
It would be one thing to say, “I don’t like the morality of
the Bible.” Logically, at least, that statement is acceptable. However, when
the relativist charges that the morality of the Bible is wrong because it doesn’t
conform to his subjective, relativistic, and evolving standards, he is acting
illogically. If his moral standards are merely something that he created, he
has no right to insist that others conform to them!
If fact, if morality
is just something that is humanly created, then they cannot coherently
criticize anyone, not even Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
Of course, the moral relativist will not admit that his
subjectivism has placed him outside of the realm of responsible moral
discussion. Therefore, the Christian should remind him:
·
You cannot make objective critiques of the Bible’
standards once you have rejected objective moral law and are left with only
your own created standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment