Diamond 17 Absolute Morality
I had an interesting FB exchange yesterday that led me to ponder greatly on the idea of Absolute Morality. The concept of an absolute right and wrong is not a very popular idea in the world, but I call it my diamond for today. I am so grateful that in a world where there is conflict over abortion, gay marriage, transgender rights, and a host of other battles that are fought every day in the halls of congress, I have a perfect, unfailing, compass to look to for my guide. I am grateful that whatever my personal opinions are on a topic, or what popular opinion is, I don't have to worry about what is right and what is wrong. An all knowing, all powerful, kind, loving, Father in Heaven has already drawn the line, my decision is if I have enough faith to stand on His side of it. In contrast to the view of the man in the following video, who would rather live in a world where there is no absolute morality, where morals are decided by "a secular moral philosophy, and rational discussion." When faced with a decision about morals I will leave it to a perfect God who created the universe, rather than a group of philosophers and politicians.
You can see the video here:
and my exchange with some fans are below:
J.d. Sheppard What Dakins fails to address is the danger when all the discussing, debating, and final decisions about morality happen in a society where there is no supreme being. If I belong to such a society, and happen to be in a position of power, what's to stop me from bending morality to match my best interests. If I am a powerful debator, or convincing orator, I may be able to sway the majority of society to my "morality" even though it can be very harmful to others who are not as talented as I am. We can see this time and time again in a government that has excluded God and separated church and state. Right now one good example is Pornography. Christianity states that Pornography is immoral. This comes from scripture and from a God that can see all, know all, and has felt all. I can trust that whatever my views may be on pornography, if I believe in God, I can trust that he knows better than I do on the subject. Not because he has discussed it in a group of rational people, and it is the popular feeling at the time, but because I have faith that he knows more than I do on any and all subjects. Now take pornography in Dawkins world where all morality is decided through debate, discussion, and logic in committees. If at a particular time the majority of society believes that pornography is moral (or at least is not immoral) and the porn industry is given free access to all advertisements, television, banners on websites, etc.. there is no course of action for those who disagree with the "decided morality". If I oppose pornography and feel it is immoral, it doesn't matter because the matter has already been decided and the majority of society has decided that it is not immoral, so too bad for you and your ideas. Now, this example could happen with any topic, drug use, gun control, murder. Now you may say that the collective would never come to a consensus that murder was moral, my argument would be to look at capital punishment. Who decides what crimes against the "accepted morality" are punishable by death? In the Philippines the president is killing anyone that is arrested in connection with the drug cartels. Selling drugs is against his "morality" thus he feels he is justified in killing those who participate. What if a leader or group of leaders that is drunk with power feels that grand theft auto is a capital crime and thus kills all car thieves. It is easy to see how quickly Dakins logic can be abused. Anytime we give man power there is the danger of abuse of that power, and in Dakins argument that is exactly what he wants to do, give power of morality to a group of people that can be easily mistaken, misunderstood, swayed to believe one way or anther based on "mob mentality". I am glad that my morality is based upon principles layed out by a perfect and loving God. As for the claims that modern society now has evolved and has created this 'moral' place where we are gentle, women have rights, and we are kind to animals, where is your proof that this didn't come from religion? These are things that have been taught by Christ since he walked the earth: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; love thy neighbor as thysef" I could go on. So if we live in a society with these principles, isn't logical to assume they come to us from a God that has been preaching them for over 2000 years? Dakins states that we pick and choose the good parts of the bible and that we have grown out of the bad parts because of "secular moral philosophy, and rational discussion", I argue that we don't pick and choose, I am a Christian, and as such I follow what Christ teaches. His examples of death to an apostate, and stoning of an adulterer are from the Law of Moses. I don't want to dive too deep into doctrinal belief, but the Law of Moses was not "grown out of" but fulfilled in the death of Christ. My point being that God has certain laws and morality that is stated in The Bible, and we don't pick and choose the good ones, all of Christ's teachings I will stand behind as moral. Not because of "secular moral philosophy, or rational discussion" but because He is an all knowing, loving God that has taught and continues to teach basic moral principles for His children to be happy.