Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 29 results found
The approach many relativists take at this point is confused. First, they say that the Holocaust was evil and ask why God would allow such depravity? Later, when the tables turn and their own behavior is in question, they argue that morality is merely a matter of opinion. This reduces their earlier objection to: "How could a good God allow things that are contrary to my opinion?" or, to put it more bluntly, "I can't believe in the existence of a God who would disagree with me."
When some tragedy strikes, people ask "Where was God?" I ask "What precisely did you expect God to do? If you were in His place, what would you do?" If you would use your power to stop evil, would you punish it or prevent it? Either choice presents you with problems. One reason God doesn't wipe out all evil immediately is that the alternative would be worse. This becomes evident by asking a simple question: If God heard your prayer to eliminate evil and destroyed it all at midnight tonight, where would you be at 12:01?
Sometimes detractors to Christianity object to the idea of God's existence because of the occurrence of "evil" natural disasters like earthquakes and floods, etc. God created a natural world that is good in that it accomplishes certain things. In order for plants to grow and to continue to nourish humans, the crust of the earth must be replenished. Plate tectonics is one thing that accomplishes this. The incidental by-products are things like earthquakes.
If the truth were known, we do not judge disasters based on unprejudiced moral assessment, but rather on what is painful, awkward, or inconvenient for us. We don't ask, "Where is God?" when our pleasure comes at the price of another's pain (e.g., when our adultery destroys a marriage and the lives of the children involved).
Notice that one can't tolerate someone unless he disagrees with him. We don't "tolerate" people who share our views. They're on our side. There's nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong. This essential element of tolerance--disagreement--has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you're called intolerant.
A favorite ploy of professors whose teaching on relativism is challenged in class is to ask, “If you believe in moral absolutes, what are they?” A person might offer that it’s immoral to dock the professor’s pay just because he’s Jewish, or African-American, or a woman, or approves of homosexuals (or whatever your professor’s hot-button happens to be).
When we raise children, we desire them to do good, but we realize they may turn out to be bad. So what do we do? Chain them to their beds or lock them in a closet to insure they stay out of mischief? That would be barbaric, In the same way, God has dignified man by giving him choices. He's gifted him with the privilege of making his own decisions. Man's choice to do good, to live in conformity with God's desires, is only meaningful if there is an alternate choice to do evil. God won't chain man to the bed or lock him in a closet. That would be cruel.
Recently, I opened my talk before a group in Southern California with an observation: There's a difference between ice cream and insulin. When choosing ice cream, you can choose what you like.. When choosing medicine, you must choose what heals. When choosing ice cream you can choose what's true for you. When choosing medicine you must choose what's true.
The skeptic says, “If Jesus would only show Himself to me—if God would just work one dramatic miracle—then I’d believe in Him.” This kind of person overestimates himself. Even miracles can be denied or dismissed. During Jesus’ passion week in Jerusalem, he was called to nearby Bethany because his friend Lazarus was dying. By the time Jesus arrived, Lazarus was gone. In a dramatic scene Jesus called him forth from the tomb alive, still wrapped in burial cloths.