Tag Archive for: Rich Hoyer

Por Rich Hoyer

La mayoría de la gente está de acuerdo en que debemos amarnos unos a otros. Pero ¿Qué significa amar a los demás?

Amar no puede ser lo que nuestra cultura dice que es. Tampoco puede estar desconectado de un estándar moral y trascendental (por ejemplo, la Palabra de Dios y las Leyes naturales) dejando que nuestros sentimientos lo definan subjetivamente, darle la forma que las tendencias sociales actuales le den. El ciudadano promedio en los Estados Unidos de América es un Secularista Popular[i] y ha aceptado la definición de amor dada por el Secularismo Popular. Cuando se habla de amor hoy en día, se hace referencia a “amar a otros” y decir esto parece tener el siguiente significado. “Deseo que obtengas aquello que anhelas; y que supones que te hará feliz.” En estos tiempos el amor es entendido desde los principales valores del Secularismo Popular que son la comodidad y la felicidad y se han desechado los valores tradicionales de la bondad y la verdad. Asi, en nuestra cultura actual, ser incapaz de amar o ser cruel está relacionado con interponerse entre las personas y su elección de un estilo de vida el cual consideran que les brindará felicidad y satisfacción, basta con decirles que lo que anhelan es “equivocado” desde cierta perspectiva e invitarles a que por voluntad propia se abstengan de ciertos anhelos y deseos. Hoy en día a eso se refiere nuestra cultura Secularista Popular con ser “incapaz de amar.”

Cuando el concepto de verdad moral comprensible (una norma para diferenciar lo bueno de lo malo y el bien del mal cuyo origen se encuentra fuera del ser humano y de la opinión social) es rechazado por una cultura, nos quedamos sin una norma confiable para medir nuestros anhelos y deseos. Se vuelve imposible decir, “Mi deseo hacia esa persona es incorrecto,” o “Mi anhelo de hacer esto es dañino para mí y para la sociedad. “Lo único que queda es que la gente y la sociedad expresen su opinión.  Sin embargo, muchos de los integrantes de nuestra sociedad actúan sin considerar que su definición de amor es una opinión más. Algunos se esfuerzan por imponer sus opiniones sobre quienes están en desacuerdo con la perspectiva socialmente aceptada a pesar de que carecen de fundamentos filosóficos sólidos para sostener sus afirmaciones. La sociedad aún delibera sobre varios conceptos como el amor, pero se ha perdido la definición tradicional del amor que firmemente se vincula con la Verdad.

Todo esto deja al amor en la misma situación de un bote que carece de amarras y va de aquí para allá de acuerdo con el viento y las olas de las pasajeras modas sociales.

No obstante el amor y la Verdad van de la mano. Sin la Verdad, cualquier cosa que se afirme del amor es falso —muy parecido a lo que sucede cuando una persona confunde enamoramiento con amor. Amar a otro implica el deseo de todo tipo de bien en la vida del otro. Siendo más específico, amar a alguien es esforzarse por traer el bien a la vida del otro. Sin embargo para medir “el bien” es indispensable una norma que provenga de una fuente que no sea la opinión de la sociedad con esta norma podremos examinar cada opción que se presente. Afortunadamente, tenemos una verdadera vara de medir el bien en la forma de la revelación de Dios que se nos da a través de la Biblia y de la Ley natural.

Los cristianos deben saber qué es el amor y cómo se manifiesta. No debemos dejarnos engañar y aceptar la definición cultural del amor que se basa en los sentimientos y  no en la verdad. De hecho, podemos aprender mucho acerca del amor simplemente observando los aspectos que están en juego en la conversación cuando Jesús respondió a la pregunta de un  fariseo en Mateo 22:36 (LBLA), “Maestro, ¿cuál es el gran mandamiento de la ley?” La respuesta de Jesús la encontramos en los versos 37-40:

Mateo 22:37-40 (LBLA)

  1. Jesús le dijo: —”Ama al Señor tu Dios con todo tu corazón, con todo tu ser y con toda tu mente”.
  2. Este es el primer mandamiento y el más importante.
  3. Hay un segundo mandamiento parecido a éste: “Ama a tu semejante como te amas a ti mismo”.
  4. Toda la ley y los escritos de los profetas dependen de estos dos mandamientos.

Jesús dijo que amar a Dios y amar a los demás como a ti mismo es el mayor de los mandamientos, la mayor responsabilidad del ser humano.Es en este punto donde el secularista popular podría estar de acuerdo en decir: “¡Sí, el AMOR es el mayor valor!  Observa, que aún Jesús dijo eso. Ustedes los cristianos deberían mostrar más amor a la gente. Deberían aprobar lo que otros hacen y no criticar su estilo de vida ni sus creencias solo porque son diferentes a las suyas.” Tristemente, cada vez vemos a más y más cristianos aceptar estilos de vidas inmorales bajo el nombre  de ser  inclusivos,  accesibles y de mostrar más amor ¡incluso en el espíritu del Amor del propio Cristo! i

Sin embargo aquellos que adoptan esta postura han fracasado en considerar el contexto y LAS RAZONES IMPLÍCITAS tanto en la pregunta del fariseo como en la respuesta de Jesús. Ambos están de acuerdo en que la verdad moral PUEDE CONOCERSE… Ambos basan su definición de amor, no en la subjetividad de los sentimientos, sino en la clara revelación de la Verdad moral que  proviene de Dios mismos. Después de todo, la pregunta era, “¿Cuál es el mayor mandamiento de la Ley?” Así que debemos hacer la siguiente pregunta, “¿De qué Ley se refieren ambos?” La respuesta, es clara, ¡es la Ley que fue dada por Dios al pueblo de Israel! ¿Y de dónde vino esa Ley? ¡De Dios! En otras palabras, si tú deseas amar a Dios y amar a los demás, debes cumplir con las cosas que Dios mandó en la Ley que le entregó a Israel.[ii]Tal como dijo Jesús en el versículo 40, “Toda la ley de Dios está hecha para ayudarte a amar a Dios y a amar a los demás” (el parafraseo es mío). Esto no es otro concepto subjetivo del amor, sino que está basado en clara capacidad de acceder y conocer la revelación de Dios hacia hombre. En pocas palabras amar a Dios y amar a los demás implica obedecer la Ley de Dios.

Esta misma revelación hacia el hombre  es la que se niega en la cosmovisión de los Secularistas Populares. De acuerdo con el Secularismo Popular, puede que Dios exista o puede que no, pero estamos completamente seguros que no podemos decir “quién” es Dios, y mucho menos qué es lo que Dios quiere. Por lo tanto, el concepto del amor está a la deriva para ser definido por cualquier ola y viento de doctrina que la sociedad esté promoviendo en ese momento. Este amor se parece a un bote que por no estar amarrado anda de aquí para allá sin un rumbo fijo.

No nos sorprende que los no cristianos, como los Secularistas Populares adopten este punto de vista, lo que nos debería sorprender    es cuando los que profesan la fe cristiana acepten este mismo punto de vista. Y se debe en parte a que muchos cristianos no conocen las Escrituras porque no leen la Biblia, por ello son fácilmente arrastrados por los “vientos y olas” de falsas doctrina  que nace  de la cosmovisión de los Secularistas Populares. Algunos se dicen cristianos, yo me atrevería a decir que son, desde el fondo de su corazón Secularistas Populares aunque afirmen creer en Jesús. Sus acciones y actitudes, al igual que las de los demás, nacen de sus convicciones más profundas, que se alinean más con la cultura en general que con el cristianismo. Pero como cristianos, si en verdad lo somos, debemos aceptar las enseñanzas de la Biblia,  las palabras del propio Jesucristo, en vez de adoptar las convicciones de la cultura en la que vivimos. Debemos medir cada cosa que vemos y oímos con la norma que Dios nos ha revelado. Si no hacemos esto, no seremos transformados a la imagen de Cristo y nos conformaremos a todo tipo de falsas nociones —incluyendo distorsiones  de conceptos fundamentales, como el amor.

Notas:

[i] El Secularismo Popular es la cosmovisión dominante en el Occidente de hoy en día. El Secularismo Popular sostiene las siguientes suposiciones sobre la realidad:

  1. Dios puede que exista o puede que no.
    1. Si Dios existe, nadie sabe cuál es el Dios verdadero.
    2. Nadie puede decir con razón, si una religión es la correcta y otra está equivocada.
    3. Hacer tales afirmaciones es intolerante
  2. Nadie puede asegurar que sabe lo que Dios quiere de la humanidad y excluir las afirmaciones   de los demás.
    1. Por lo tanto, ningún libro religioso (la Biblia, el Corán, etc.) puede proclamar rotundamente ser la Palabra de Dios.
    2. Cada libro tiene el mismo peso, pero menos peso que la sabiduría
  3. Es probable que la moral exista pero tiene que ver más con la supervivencia de la sociedad y no con aquello que le agrada a Dios.
    1. Es innegable que el “mal” es real
    2. Como no sabemos si Dios es real o quién es, nadie puede afirmar que las acciones de otro son objetivamente erróneas a menos que la mayoría de la sociedad esté de  acuerdo.
    3. Por lo tanto, la moral es un constructor de la sociedad y no es el producto de lo que Dios nos ha revelado.
  4. La comodidad y la felicidad son las máximas consideraciones humanas.
    1. La humanidad debería esforzarse para lograr que todos alcancen la comodidad y la felicidad.
    2. Cualquier cosa que impida la comodidad y la felicidad debe ser evitada y en lo posible debe estar prohibida.
  5. Los fines económicos siempre deben estar por encima de cualquier reclamación religiosa.
    1. Las políticas y leyes públicas deberían decidirse  tomando en cuenta si traerá más dinero a la sociedad  y no basándose en las consideraciones morales de la “religión”.
    2. Como ejemplo moderno: Al legalizar los juegos de apuestas se generarán ingresos económicos que servirán de apoyo a los raquíticos presupuestos que se le otorgan a la ciudad, esta razón debe ser considerada como más importante que las directrices religiosas que afirman que los juegos de apuesta no son “buenos” para la sociedad.
    3. “El bien” se define en términos de la economía, lo sexual y lo ambiental.
  6. La (casi) total libertad sexual es algo que todos deben tener derecho.
    1. La homosexualidad, la transexualidad y el sexo fuera del matrimonio son estilos de vida y elecciones legítimas de estilo de vida, ya que las personas deben tener derecho a hacer lo que quieran.
    2. Solo las actividades sexuales que “lastimen” a otros son incorrectas.
    3. Un creciente número de Secularistas Populares creen que cada persona debería dársele el derecho a no ser ofendido, lo que implica censurar toda opinión contraria.
  7. La ignorancia y el abuso causado por “los ricos” son los dos principales problemas de la humanidad.
    1. Si educamos a la gente, mucha de la maldad del mundo y sus desigualdades desaparecerán.
    2. El gobierno también debe perseguir la redistribución de los bienes para establecer justicia económica.
    3. Si todos cooperamos, podríamos generar condiciones casi utópicas, y la vida mejoraría para todos.
  8. Nadie sabe lo que pasa cuando morimos.
    1. Si no existe Dios, no debemos preocuparnos por el Juicio Final.
    2. Por otro lado, algunos creen que casi todos van al cielo.

En la mente de aquellos, solo las personas realmente malas van al infierno, si tal lugar existe.

[ii]  Hoy en día, no hay que instituir inmediatamente todas las leyes del Antiguo Testamento a la ligera. Debemos reconocer que existe una revelación progresiva de Dios. El Código Moral lo volvemos a encontrar en el Nuevo Testamento y aún es válido, mientras que las leyes Ceremoniales y Civiles están obsoletas porque han sido cumplidas por Cristo.

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rich Hoyer es el Ministro Principal de la Iglesia Cristiana Lyndon en Louisville, Kentucky. También es presidente del consejo administrativo de la Reveal Conference, la cual se esfuerza por educar a la gente del área de Louisville en las evidencias y verdades del cristianismo. Rich obtuvo su título de maestría en religión de la Universidad Cristiana de Cincinnati. La apologética cristiana es la pasión más grande de Rich.

Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3EYaMC1

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez 

Editado por Monica Pirateque 

 

By Rich Hoyer

Most people agree that we should love one another. But what does it mean to love others?

Love can’t mean what our culture says it means.  It can’t be untethered from a transcendent moral standard (i.e., God’s word and natural Law) and left to be defined subjectively by our feelings, to be molded and fashioned into whatever shape current societal trends bend it. The average person in the US today is a Popular Secularist[1] and has accepted the Popular Secularist definition of love. When most people speak of love today, to speak of “loving others” means something like, “I want you to have whatever you want; to exist in whatever state you think will make you happy.” Love is now defined in terms of the core Popular Secularist values of comfort and happiness rather than by the traditional values of goodness and truth. Thus, in today’s culture, to be unloving or hateful is to stand in the way of a lifestyle choice of another which that person thinks will bring him happiness and satisfaction, even to tell someone that what they want is “wrong” in some way and to suggest that they should deny themselves of certain wants and desires. That’s what it means to be “unloving” in our Popular Secularist culture today.

When the concept of knowable moral Truth (a standard of right/wrong and good/evil which originates from beyond mankind and beyond societal opinion) is rejected by a culture, there is nothing by which to authoritatively measure our wants and desires. It becomes impossible to say, “My desire for this person is wrong,” or “My desire to do this is bad for me and for society.” All that is left is for people and society to voice their opinions. Yet, many in our society don’t act like their definition of love is opinion. Some even seek to impose their opinion on those who disagree with the dominant societal view even though there is no solid philosophical foundation to justify such action. Society is still left to talk about concepts like love, but the traditional definition of love which joins love tightly to Truth is lost.

Thus, love becomes like a boat that is untethered from its moorings, left to drift here and thereby the wind and waves of societal fads.

Yet love and Truth go hand-in-hand. Without Truth, that which is claimed to be love is a counterfeit—much like what happens when a person mistakes infatuation for love. Love for another must include a desire for that which is good in the life of the other. More specifically, to love someone is to work to bring about that which is good in the life of another. Yet the only way to measure “the good” is to have a standard that originates from a source beyond society’s opinion by which we can examine the choices put forward. Thankfully, we do have a true measuring stick to measure the good in the form of God’s revelation given to us through the Bible and through natural Law.

Christians should know what love is and what it looks like. We shouldn’t be deceived into accepting the cultural definition of love that is grounded in feelings rather than Truth. In fact, we can learn a lot about love simply by looking at the assumptions at play in the conversation when Jesus answered a Pharisee’s question in Matthew 22:36, “What is the greatest commandment in the Law?”  Jesus’ answer is found in verse 37-40:

Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV)
37  Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38  This is the first and greatest commandment.
39  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Jesus said that to love God and to love others as yourself are the greatest commandments, the highest responsibility of man. It’s at this point that the Popular Secularist might agree to say, “Yes, LOVE is the greatest value! See, even Jesus said so. You Christians should be more loving of people. You should affirm them and not criticize their lifestyle choices and beliefs just because they are different than yours.” Sadly, we are seeing more and more Christians affirming immoral lifestyle choices in the name of being more inclusive, affirming, and loving—even in the spirit of the Love of Christ Himself!

Yet those who adopt such a stance fail to consider the context as well as WHAT WAS ASSUMED by the Pharisee’s question and by Jesus’ answer. Both assumed that moral truth CAN BE KNOWN. Both were basing their definition of love, not on subjective feelings, but on the clear revelation of moral Truth originating from God Himself. After all, the question was, “What is the greatest commandment in the Law?” We must ask the question, “To which Law are they both referring?” The answer, of course, is the Law that was given by God to the people of Israel! And from where did that Law originate? From God! In other words, if you want to love God and love others, you must do the things detailed in God’s Law given to Israel.[2] As Jesus said in verse 40, “All of God’s law is designed to help you love God and love others” (my paraphrase).  This is not a subjective concept of love, but one that is based on the clear ability to access and to know God’s revelation to man.  In short to love God and to love man is to obey the Law of God.

That very revelation to man is what the now dominant Popular Secularist worldview denies. According to Popular Secularism, God may or may not exist, but we certainly can’t definitively say “who” God is, much less what God wants. Thus, the concept of love is left to float about and be defined by whatever wind and wave of doctrine the current version of society pushes. Love becomes like a boat detached from its moorings floating aimlessly this way and that.

While it may not surprise us when non-Christians such as Popular Secularists adopt this viewpoint, it should surprise us when professing Christians adopt this viewpoint. It is partially because many Christians don’t know the Scriptures because they don’t read the Bible, that they are easily led astray by this “wind and wave” of false doctrine that is born from the Popular Secularist worldview. Some professing Christians, I would dare say, are really Popular Secularists at heart even though they profess to believe in Jesus. Their actions and attitudes, just like those of everyone else, flow out of their deepest convictions, which align more closely to the culture at large rather than Christianity.

Yet as Christians, if we truly are Christians, we must accept the teachings of the Bible, the words of Jesus Christ Himself, rather than the convictions of our current culture. We must measure everything we see and hear by the measuring stick of God’s revelation to us. If we fail to do so, we will not be transformed into the image of Christ and will instead conform to false notions of all sorts of things—including distortions of fundamental concepts, even love.

Notes

[1] Popular Secularism is the dominant worldview in the West today. Popular Secularism holds the following assumptions about reality:

  1. God may or may not exist.
    1. If God does exist, no one knows which God is true.
    2. No one can rightly say one religion is right and another wrong.
    3. To make such claims is intolerant.
  2. As such, no one can claim to know what God wants mankind to do to the exclusion of the claims of others.
    1. Thus no religious book (the Bible, the Koran, etc…) can rightly claim to be the word of God.
    2. Each book carries the same weight, but less weight than the wisdom of elite educational progressive knowledge today.
  3. Morality is probably real but has more to do with the survival of society rather than the pleasure of God.
    1. It’s undeniable that “evil” is real.
    2. Yet since we don’t know if God is real or who he is, no one can rightly say that someone’s actions are objectively wrong unless the majority of society agrees.
    3. Thus, morality is a construction of society rather than a product of God’s revelation to us.
  4. Comfort and happiness are the highest human considerations.
    1. Humans should work to make sure that everyone is comfortable and happy.
    2. Anything that denies comfort and happiness should be avoided and possibly forbidden.
  5. Economic considerations should always be held in higher regard than religious claims.
    1. Public policy/laws should be decided by considering whether something will provide more money for society rather than based upon “religious” claims about morality.
    2. As a contemporary example: If legalized gaming with bring added revenue to a city to alleviate budget shortages, that knowledge should be considered more important than religious claims that added gambling opportunities are not “good” for society.
    3. “The good” is defined in economic, sexual, and environmental terms.
  6. (Near) total sexual freedom is something to which everyone is entitled.
    1. Homosexuality, Transgenderism, sex outside of marriage, are all legitimate lifestyle choices as people should have the right to do what they want.
    2. Only those sexual activities that “harm” others are wrong.
    3. A growing number of Popular Secularists believe that each person should be entitled to freedom from being offended, including silencing dissenting voices.
  7. Ignorance and the abuse caused by “the rich” are mankind’s two main problems.
    1. If we educate people, many of the world’s evils and inequities will disappear.
    2. Governments also need to pursue income redistribution to bring about economic justice.
    3. If all would cooperate, we could usher in near utopian conditions, and life would improve for everyone.
  8. No one knows what happens when we die.
    1. If there is no God, there is no Judgment Day to worry about.
    2. On the other hand, some believe that just about everyone goes to heaven.
    3. In the minds of those, only the really bad people go to hell, if there is such a place.

[2] Today, one must not immediately institute all the Old Testament laws willy-nilly.  One must recognize that God’s revelation is progressive in nature.  The Moral Code is repeated in the New Testament and is still valid, while the Ceremonial and Civil laws are obsolete, having been fulfilled by Christ.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Right From Wrong by Josh McDowell Mp3

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

Deconstructing Liberal Tolerance: Relativism as Orthodoxy (Mp3) by Francis Beckwith

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

 


Rich Hoyer is the Senior Minister of Lyndon Christian Church in Louisville, KY. He is also the Chairman of the Board for the Reveal Conference, which seeks to educate people in the Louisville area regarding the evidence for the truth of Christianity. Rich received his Master’s in Religion from Cincinnati Christian University. Christian Apologetics is one of Rich’s greatest passions.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/2YgPiuM

By Rich Hoyer

Many have asked the question, “Why are churches considered ‘non-essential’ during the Coronavirus shutdown and places like restaurants considered ‘essential’? Why are churches closed while grocery stores and restaurants remain open (at least for carry-out orders)?” The insinuation is NOT that food isn’t necessary, but the focus of the inquiry is on why churches are not considered ‘essential.’ After all, if social distancing is practiced in the church building and if surfaces are sanitized, how is being around people in a church building any different than being around a few hundred people in the Walmart or Meijer or the grocery store (especially since most church gatherings in the US number 100 people or less)?

Part of the answer lies in worldview analysis. Everyone, whether a person realizes it or not, has a worldview.  Everyone thinks with their worldview. And our worldview assumptions drive the decisions we make. For instance, if we believe that God is real, knowable, and cares for mankind, we will pray to God because our basic worldview assumption tells us that God hears our prayers. If, on the other hand, we don’t believe that God is real, knowable, or caring, then we won’t pray because we would consider doing so a waste of time. It’s my assertion that the average person in the US holds to a worldview that I call “Popular Secularism.”[i] Popular Secularism (PS) is a softer version of classic Secular Humanism (SH). SH flatly denies God’s existence. It also explicitly denies any spiritual realm beyond the physical, material world. PS, on the other hand, allows for a person to believe in whatever spiritual realm and religious view that he/she chooses. God may or may not exist. PS, however, considers spiritual concerns as being less important than physical, material concerns. Thus, a person can believe whatever he wants with regards to spiritual things. But PS treats a person’s spiritual beliefs like a parent views a child’s fairy tale. These are nice things to believe, but when its time to get serious, there is little-to-no room for certain spiritual practices.

Thus, enter the current discussion about why church gatherings are deemed “non-essential” while restaurants and other retail businesses are deemed “essential.” Because the average person in the US is a Popular Secularist, and because our politicians are elected from the general populace, we see Popular Secularists making the decisions for our country. And since PS views spiritual concerns as less important than physical and material concerns, church gatherings are deemed “non-essential” while food concerns are deemed essential.

Someone might object, “It makes sense to limit gatherings of people to protect the populace from getting sick.” Yes, but the question raised is this: If the populace is already gathering together (several hundred at a time) once or twice a week at the grocery store, how is the church gathering together once a week any different? The answer from the Popular Secularist might be that “people need to eat but they don’t need to go to church?” Here, though, we see the Popular Secularist reasoning from his worldview, which considers spiritual things less important than physical and material concerns. Again, the point of making this statement is not to say that I don’t think food is essential; it’s to point out WHY church gatherings are officially considered “non-essential.” PS considers spiritual things less important than the material.

When the dominant worldview of culture says, “This world is all that we can be sure exists,” of course, those who think with that worldview will prioritize this life, the here and now. PS reasons, “This life is all there is. We need to make sure that we extend it as long as possible.” While the Biblical Christian worldview says, “Life is a gift from God. We will take precautions to stay healthy and to help others stay healthy. But gathering as a church is just as important as going to the grocery store because spiritual things are just as important as the physical. And we are confident that eternity with God is far greater than life here and now.” As the Apostle Paul said, “To live is Christ; to die is gain.”

Notes

[i] [i] Popular Secularism is the dominant worldview in the West today. Popular Secularism holds the following assumptions about reality:

  1. God may or may not exist.
    1. If God does exist, no one knows which god is true.
    2. No one can rightly say one religion is right and another wrong.
    3. To make such claims is intolerant.
  2. As such, no one can claim to know what God wants mankind to do to the exclusion of the claims of others.
    1. Thus no religious book (the Bible, the Koran, etc…) can rightly claim to be the word of God.
    2. Each book carries the same weight, but less weight than the wisdom of elite educational progressive knowledge today.
  3. Morality is probably real but has more to do with the survival of society rather than the pleasure of God.
    1. It’s undeniable that “evil” is real.
    2. Yet since we don’t know if God is real or who he is, no one can rightly say that someone’s actions are objectively wrong unless the majority of society agrees.
    3. Thus, morality is a construction of society rather than a product of God’s revelation to us.
  4. Comfort and happiness are the highest human considerations.
    1. Humans should work to make sure that everyone is comfortable and happy.
    2. Anything that denies comfort and happiness should be avoided and possibly forbidden.
  5. Economic considerations should always be held in higher regard than religious claims.
    1. Public policy/laws should be decided by considering whether something will provide more money for society rather than based upon “religious” claims about morality.
    2. As a contemporary example: If legalized gaming with brings added revenue to a city to alleviate budget shortages, that knowledge should be considered more important than religious claims that added gambling opportunities are not “good” for society.
    3. “The good” is defined in economic, sexual, and environmental terms.
  6. (Near) total sexual freedom is something to which everyone is entitled.
    1. Homosexuality, Transgenderism, sex outside of marriage, are all legitimate lifestyle choices as people should have the right to do what they want.
    2. Only those sexual activities that “harm” others are wrong.
    3. A growing number of Popular Secularists believe that each person should be entitled to freedom from being offended, including silencing dissenting voices.
  7. Ignorance and the abuse caused by “the rich” are mankind’s two main problems.
    1. If we educate people, many of the world’s evils and inequities will disappear.
    2. Governments also need to pursue income redistribution to bring about economic justice.
    3. If all would cooperate, we could usher in near utopian conditions, and life would improve for everyone.
  8. No one knows what happens when we die.
    1. If there is no God, there is no Judgment Day to worry about.
    2. On the other hand, some believe that just about everyone goes to heaven.
    3. In the minds of those, only the really bad people go to hell, if there is such a place.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Economics, Environment, Political Culture CD by Kerby Anderson

Government Ethics CD by Kerby Anderson

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

 


Rich Hoyer is the Senior Minister of Lyndon Christian Church in Louisville, KY. He is also the Chairman of the Board for the Reveal Conference which seeks to educate people in the Louisville area regarding the evidence for the truth of Christianity. Rich received his Master’s in Religion from Cincinnati Christian University. Christian Apologetics is one of Rich’s greatest passions.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/2S4ZCSH