Friday, 6 January 2017


#‎RAD #‎ATEND G-d (Christ) #‎IIC714

Musings over Morals - Moral Relativism[1]

Are 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.

If 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...

Team 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 coloured, ball
 * 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 penalty
 * one team uses almost exclusive kicking, with the occasional bounce off of a player's head, to navigate the ball down the field
 * 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

I 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.

Well, 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 Francisco:

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

No 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.

So... 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?

What 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?

Man’s morality is the sole and direct result of G-d’s (Christ’s) creative process, and Will, in and for our lives.  His Word tells us that – “…the secrets of God from the foundation of the world are appearing to his creatures through intelligence, even his power and his eternal Godhead…” – Romans 1:20, Aramaic Bible in Plain English; and “…heaven declares the glory of God…” (adapted from) Psalm 19:1, NIV; and the very pinnacle of WHY we have morals – “…that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them…” – Romans 1:19, AMP, such “…that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20 b, KJV

That 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

Again, 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 demise.

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”

How 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:

“If 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 10:9-10 NIV]

And 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]

If nothing else, PLEASE read two chapters from the Bible – (don’t own one, sorry NO excuse, if you’re reading this, you can access this: John 3 and John 14!

John 3:16 says:  “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

And John 14:6 says: “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Well that’s it, that’s Da Bauz’s Take on, “Moral Relativism” – this 6th day of January 2017 © 2017, All Rights Reserved. wr (Da Bauz, Christian Zionist “creationist” too!)

Just sayin’...

Shalom, pray for the peace of Jerusalem...

What is #RAD? #RAD is:

R epent of rejecting Christ
A ccept Christ as your Lord
D evelop your relationship with G-d

#RAD your relationship with the Living Almighty God Himself as your personal Lord and Saviour depends on it!

What is #ATEND G-d (Christ)?  Ask me!

What is #IIC714?

II 2nd
C hronicles

John 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 resources

[1] - "Moral 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.",, “Bible Hub”, “BibleGateway”, “”

No comments:

Post a Comment