Who Am I to Say?   7 comments

Okay, so I put my foot in a sink hole last week and they’re hating on me at the Alaska Dispatch News. How dare I not walk in lockstep with the modern LGBT agenda! I am such a hater!  Read Part 1 of this series.

Christians can’t duck this issue anymore. Those of us who reject the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle are routinely denounced a homophobic, intolerant, even hateful, which results in tremendous intimidation concerning this issue. Businesses are being forced into bankruptcy or reeducation classes and some churches have even endorsed the homosexual lifestyle and welcome those who practice it to be their ministers.

It’s not just happening in liberal churches. Evangelicals Concerned is a group of people who are to all appearances born-again, Bible-believing Christians and also practicing homosexuals. They claim that the Bible doesn’t forbid homosexual activity or that its commands aren’t valid for today, being just a reflection of the culture in which the Bible was written. These people can be orthodox about Jesus and every other area of teaching; but they just think it’s Biblical acceptable to be a practicing homosexual.

So who am I (or you) to say that these apparently earnest Christians are wrong?

Good question! Who are we to say that they are wrong? This question raises an even deeper question, which we’ve got to answer first. Do right and wrong really exist? You see, we get it backwards often. You have to know that there really is a right and a wrong before you can determine what is right and wrong.

What is the basis for saying that right and wrong exist or that there really is a difference between these two?

Traditionally, Americans (not just practicing Christians) have answered that moral values are based in God. God is by His very nature perfectly holy and good. He is just, loving, patient, merciful, and generous. Everything good comes from Him and is a reflection of His character. God’s perfectly good nature issues forth in commandments to us:

  • You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength.
  • You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
  • You shall not murder, steal, or commit adultery.

These are examples of right or wrong based on God’s commandments, which are not arbitrary but flow from His perfect nature.

This is the Christian understanding of right and wrong. There really is such a being as God, Who created the world and made it so we can know Him. He really has commanded certain things. Christians really are morally obligated to do certain things (and not to do others). Morality isn’t just in your mind. It’s real. When we fail to keep God’s commandments, we really are morally guilty before Him and need His forgiveness. The problem isn’t just that we feel guilty; we really are guilty, regardless of how we feel. Even if my seared conscience, dully by sin or justified by a government edict, does not feel guilty, I am guilty if I have broken God’s law.

What Hitler did was sin regardless whether he or his society thought it was right. Chattel slavery is still wrong regardless if the slaveowner or the society he lives in thinks of it. Murder is still a sin even if the killer feels like he’s doing something right. It’s wrong because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God and are unaffected by human opinions.

There are people who will argue over that because it is a foreign concept in western society today. I estimate that the majority of people today think right and wrong are matters of taste, not fact. Moral values are given the same weight as Baskin Robbins flavors. I like World Class Chocolate. My husband loves Coffee. We can both be right. What’s the problem? It’s just a matter of opinion. I choose to cheat on my partner, you do not. We can both be right and all is well … until my partner divorces me anyway.

If there was no God, these people would be absolutely correct. In the absence of God everything is relative. Right and wrong become relative to different cultures and societies. It’s all up to the flavor-of-the-decade zeitgeist. Prominent American philosopher Richard Taylor, who is not a Christian by the way, makes this point very forcefully.

The idea of . . . moral obligation is clear enough, provided that reference to some lawmaker higher . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense? (Richard Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1985), pp. 83-4)

Taylor went on to write:

 “The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone. … The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong …. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.

This non-Christian philosopher understands that, if there is no divine lawgiver (God), then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no actual right and wrong. They’ve just become human customs, perhaps balwarked by human laws that vary from society to society. Even if we all agree on them, they’re still just human inventions that will evolve … or devolve …eventually.

If God does not exist, right and wrong do not exist and anything goes, including homosexuality. Atheists should have no problem defending the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle, but that’s where a new problem arises. Many defenders of homosexuality don’t want to be atheists. They especiallly want to affirm that right and wrong exist, so they make moral judgments about their fellow citizens.

“It is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals.”

That’s a moral judgement, but not one solely relative to a culture or society. They would condemn a society like Nazi Germany which threw homosexuals into concentration camps along with the Jews and other “undesirables”, and when Colorado passed an amendment prohibiting special rights for homosexuals, Barbara Streisand called for a boycott of the state, saying, “The moral climate in Colorado has become unacceptable.”

These kinds of value judgements lack meaning unless God exists. If God does not exist, anything goes, including discrimination and persecution of homosexuals. Murder, rape, torture, child abuse … none of these things would be wrong, because without God right and wrong do not exist. Everything is permissable.

So in order to make moral judgments, we must affirm that God exists, but then our first question reappears in front of us. “Who are you to say that homosexuality is wrong?” We can put the question to homosexual activists now. “Who are you to say that homosexuality is right?” If God exists, then we cannot ignore what He has to say about the subject. The correct answer to “Who are you to make moral judgements?” is now to say, “Me? I’m nobody! God determines what’s right and wrong, and I’m just interested in learning and obeying what He says.”

So, if I’m a Christian or want to pretend to be one, perhaps I need to look at what God says on the subject.

Continued here.

7 responses to “Who Am I to Say?

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I suppose I’m a bit of an oddball. While I am not for the church promoting and abiding to laws of same-sex marriage, I don’t have a problem with same-sex unions. Realistically, it seems only logical that God would want heterosexual unions in order to procreate. At the same time, I do find it interesting that Christ never condemned homosexuals. B. argues with me that Paul does, and because he was an apostle, he was following Christ’s teachings.

    While I won’t be the judge of these unions, it makes perfect sense for a society to deem one as acceptable and one as not…….unless it unfairly benefits one union over another. If the govt. showers tax breaks on one, yet deprives the other, I do not think it is fair if they are both contributing taxpayers. That said, by opening the doors to gay marriage, I see no reason why it should not then be opened for these polygamous unions.

    Ultimately, whatever society deems as law, the individual should also have their first amendment right to refuse to accept it.


    • Hi, Kells. Catch my article from Thursday, or maybe it was Friday, that kicked this off. God Damns it. I don’t think we can argue any longer that we have the 1st amendment to protect our religious freedom to refuse to participate in sin. I’ll link them all together so they’re easy to follow.

      There will be a couple of more posts in this series this week.

      In earlier posts, I have said I think Christians have brought some of this on ourselves by trying to impose our morality on a sinful world. The letters to the Corinthians make is abundantly clear that Christians are supposed to flee sexual immorality and discipline it when it crops up in the churches, but we’re not really supposed to concern ourselves with what non-Christians do in their bedrooms … unless they want to coerce us to attend, in which case we should be willing to walk unarmed into an arena filled with hungry lions rather than bow to man’s law that opposes God’s.

      I’d like to see all marriage laws set aside in this country. We could all be “living in sin” and the conversation could shift from special tax status to religious freedom where it belongs. The modern concept of government marriage has only existed in the United States since the 1920s. It’s not a Biblical principle at all. Which is not to say that marriage before the church lifting vows to God would go away. Churches might have to learn to write legal contracts for couples is all.

      Christ did not condemn homosexuals directly, but His depiction of marriage as an archetype for His relationship with the churches didn’t include homosexual imagery. Do look for the rest of this series because I explain it better there and I take the churches to task for some heterosexual sexual immorality.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, I will. Would be great to have it compiled in one post (cause I’m lazy.)

        Now then, you bring up sexual immorality. What is interesting is that in Biblical times, these dudes (or desert dwellers) had more than one wife. That right thar will get a guy or doll arrested these days. Honestly, I oftentimes feel that the reference to sodomy being a sin, in addition to the lack of procreation, was referring to rape (a victim, a child, an unassenting adult…) I reckon the interpretation of the Good Book has a lot to do with our actions and reactions of the times we live in.

        That said, I will happily sign up for multiple husbands and a spare wife. <——-some Kells' humour………but, seriously, if you wanna move to FL… 🙂


      • It’s interesting to notice that those multiple wives never worked out well for those desert-dwellers. Abraham ended up the father of two races who have been at war with each other ever since. Jacob — the sons of one wife sold the son of the other wife into slavery. Those are just the most notable examples. There are many others. In Romans, Paul makes it very clear that he’s discussing voluntary sexual activity and in Corinthians, he was writing to people surrounded in sexual immorality that makes Las Vegas look tame. We really have to recognize that if God is real, then what He says about things matters and what He requires of us has never made Christians popular with their culture.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Pingback: God Damns It | aurorawatcherak

  3. Pingback: What Does God Have To Say About It? | aurorawatcherak

  4. Too bad it’s not women with multiple husbands. I believe we’re very adept at multi-tasking.


What's Your Opinion?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

The Libertarian Ideal

Voice, Exit and Post-Libertarianism


Social trends, economics, health and other depressing topics!

My Corner

Showcasing My Writing and Me

The Return of the Modern Philosopher

Deep Thoughts from the Shallow End of the Pool

Steven Smith

The website of an aspiring author


a voracious reader. | a book blogger.


adventure, art, nature, travel, photography, wildlife - animals, and funny stuff


The Peaceful Revolution Liberate Main Street

%d bloggers like this: