Greetings I am but s simple Christian who has become completely disenchanted with “chasing the ‘almighty’ dollar” thus now pursue knowing The Almighty G-d; Jesus Christ / Yeshua Ha Mashiach; Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef. It is my hope that I may present some insightful yet provocative food for thought. I welcome all who read this to ask questions. In fact please do not take anything I write at face value, rather research and verify the facts and form your own opinions. Blessings in Christ, Da Bauz
you one of many who argues that - "I have morals because I know right from
wrong." - yet you also deny even the possibility of, let alone the
substance of, an 'Absolute Set of Moral Guidelines'? It's called moral
relativism, and it has been the downfall of
many a kingdom throughout history including, but not limited to, Rome,
Persia and Egypt. Many, if not most, people who challenge moral
relativism, default to questions about endorsing regimes like Communism's or
Nazism's moral standard(s).
Unfortunately, this usually just leads to the various participants of
the debate eventually crying - 'argument to absurdity', or reductio ad
absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity")... So, let's consider
some other ways of prompting musings over morals.
you are one who is given to arguing that a single, absolute moral law, or
guideline is neither needed, or nor even practical, consider sporting
events. Imagine, if you will, the U.S.
and the U.K. competing in a Football game, wherein each nation was simply asked
to select a team full of players from their nation's best Football players. The problems would be enormous...
numbers and Field dimensions bear similarities. Active players on the field at
one time - U.K. Football, 11; U.S. Football, also 11... But, what the two teams
of 11 players normally use for their ball ofthe play, and what they are
'allowed to do', and even 'expected to do', with that ball... now these are all
vastly different. Also, the equipment
the various players wear, this too is, aside from the fact that each team is in
a specified 'uniform' with team name and logo, player number, completely
incomparable. So what?
* one team uses a round black N' white ball
* one team uses an oblong, typically Brown
* one team uses significant physical contact,
with the opposing players
* one team has very limited, if any, physical
contact with their opponents
* one team regularly picks up, holds, throws
and even runs with the ball
* one team says that even touching the ball,
never mind picking it up, an carrying it down the field, is deserving of a
* one team uses almost exclusive kicking, with
the occasional bounce off of a player's head, to navigate the ball down the
* one team occasionally kicks their ball
across the end zone, targeting a designated area between two upright bars
* one team 'scores points' by kicking the ball
into a netted off goal marker, on the opponents' end of the field
* one team 'scores points' by navigating the
ball, while holding it, and cross the ' end zone' line on their opponents' end
of the field
could go on, but the main point is that with the vast differences in what 'each
side' views, believes and even understands the rules and methods of play to be,
a game between these two teams would be completely impossible, because the two
teams are utterly incompatible.
ask any proponent of Moral Relativism - "what makes you think your moral
views are correct, and not someone else's?" - and you'll be hard pressed
to get a straightforward, meaningful answer.
Human beings, and thus human moral conduct, is much more complex,
perhaps infinitely more complex, than a mere Football Game will ever be. Yet,
here is a quote from a fellow who is a Postdoctoral researcher, UC San
Quoting – “Morality as a system of rules over behavior is perfectly consistent with
the evolution of socially structured lifestyles through selection on inclusive
fitness” – End Quote, Mr. Aaron Hardin, resident atheist, Postdoctoral
researcher, UCSF, · January 6, 2014 to present
absolute right, and no absolute wrong, morals are all just an endless sliding
scale of an infinitely vast array of myriad shades of gray. There is no
God, says the fool (read ‘Secular Humanist’) in
his heart - Psalm 14:1. The fool
says morals are the result of a ‘majority consensus’ on the part of any given
society. And the fool boldly proclaims
that – “We humans sure as hell did not and do not become moral, or develop
morals, because we read about them in some text somewhere. Text, written by a pack of wandering nomadic,
bronze-age halfwits, known as the Bible” – and setting aside the inflammatory
linguistic choices of the fool, I would agree.
do humans have a single moral code? Mr.
A. Harding sure seems to think not. If
yes, why, and where did it come from? If
no, why not? And how can anyone ever be
found guilty, or not-guilty, of violating any rules, laws, or even simple
guidelines, where there's no set standard?
If there is a standard, how is it decided, by whom and why (or on what
basis) is that one single standard accepted, while others are rejected?
makes the moral standards of any one nation, or kingdom, more or less correct,
meaningful and functional, than those of any other nation's moral
standards? What makes something like a
large international organization, such as the U.N.,
and its morals standards, more or less appropriate than any one individual
nation's or kingdom's set of moral standards? And why?
Which Is KNOWN ABOUT GOD Is EVIDENT Within Them [In Their Inner Consciousness],
FOR GOD MADE IT EVIDENT to Them, such that They
Are Without Excuse
one does not know that G-d is real, or have morals, BECAUSE he / she read it in
a book, or a volume of some 66 Books somewhere.
One has morals, and ‘knows’ that G-d is real, very real indeed, because G-d made
man that way (with Morals).
People deny G-d is real, some even deny that they somehow know, deep
down inside, that He is, indeed very real, and that’s okay. As an aside, C.S. Lewis deals with this theme
in his book, “Mere Christianity”. Denial
of a fact, does not make the fact any less real. Many deny gravity… some deny it at their own
peril, sadly a few, very, very few thankfully, deny gravity to their own
What makes you believe that your specific idea of a moral set of standards,
absent a single absolute set of guidelines, is better than your neighbours?
“No Jesus, NO peace” and yet, “Know Jesus, KNOW peace”
does one get to “know” Jesus? Simple,
invite Him into your heart, as Jesus says: “Here I am! I stand at the door and
knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with
him, and he with me.” [Revelation
3:20 NIV] How can be assured that this Jesus stuff
means anything? Well because the Bible
tells us so, as the Apostle Paul wrote:
you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that
God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart
that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess
your faith and are saved.” [Romans
for those of you who say to me, I can’t be bothered reading the Bible, “it’s
confusing” or “it’s a waste of my time”, may I draw your attention to what the
Bible says about wisdom: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and
knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” [Proverbs 9:10 NIV]
your relationship with the Living Almighty God Himself as your personal Lord
and Saviour depends on it!
is #ATEND G-d (Christ)? Ask me!
3:16, Revelation 3:20, Romans 10:9 -10, Revelation 21:27, II Corinthians 5:21
and I John 5:13 / John 20:31!
Cited or consulted sources and
relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to
some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical
period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.", http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re