No God, No Justice
The constant cry for justice in our times is tiresome and boring. Like my six-year-old's toy train's sounds, they were cute at first. After a few hours, they're just insufferable. The "justice now" train is not going much farther than my son's convoy tracking around him in circles as he plays on his knees. They, too, are not really trying to get anywhere. They're just having fun — while annoying the rest of us.
It's not that there are no injustices in our polity. Injustices are plain for all to see. The problem is that our response to injustices requires us to define justice in the first place. The childish, emotional reactions of today are so confused people cannot see the irony of their unjust responses to injustice.
Fighting evil with evil brings us no benefit. Who cares who wins that fight? We are left with evil either way. It is evident the Apostle Paul was right to encourage us to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21, emphasis mine). That is easier said than done. Once again, the challenge of semantics, with its dispassionate demands, must be dealt with if we are to find some solutions.
Jack Phillips and the Freedom to Be Christian: Dissenting from the Sexual Revolution How Big Abortion Strikes Out on 'Choice,' 'Access,' 'Reproductive Health' What Is Hate and Who Defines It? The SPLC? If We're Tearing Down Statues, Let's Be Consistent However, the spirit of this age is particularly dreadful at this most needed of tasks. Having abandoned all objective standards, we find ourselves incapable of defining anything. "Justice," "evil," "virtue," "sin," what is all this but whatever you opine? Even more basic, what is "man," "woman," or even "human"?
The results of our willful blindness have made us insecure — fearful. And fear is the foundation of defeat. Can you see that? Can you see that the promise of "freedom" and "equality" of those who urge us to abandon objective standards is a lie? Having tasted the rotten fruit of secularism, do you hunger for beauty and wonder, peace and benevolence, stability and truth?
If you do, I suggest you move towards reality. The reality of the human heart is a good starting point. All other things are outside of us and somewhat foreign, but we know our own hearts. The condition of the human heart is nowhere better dissected than in the Bible. You do not have to believe in God or the inspiration of the Scriptures to see that. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" asks Jeremiah 17:9.
The picture of man's heart in the Holy Scriptures comports with reality — what we see in ourselves and in those around us. Even the men of God — think David, Moses, or Paul — do despicable things. "[N]o one does good, not even one," in the language of Romans 3, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (verses 12 and 23). In this sense, no one can rightly claim the moral high ground. But if the Scriptures rightly diagnose the human heart, why not consider its other claims? Might they not properly reflect reality, too? There is no more important claim in Scripture than its solution to the human condition. It is surprisingly verifiable. For the Bible focuses not on philosophical or spiritual proclamations, but on a person — Jesus of Nazareth. More specifically, a real, historic, empirical event in space and time. Namely, His death on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the dead.
This Jesus is a problem. You see, his life, was remarkable — exemplary, really. Every standard we can think of when it comes to "good" and "just" comes from His example. The Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do to you, is His (Luke 6:31). His was the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). More profound still, He was the personification of those teachings. He lived them. Jesus was real. Facing this reality then, what is our response? If, as St. Augustine reminds us, justice demands "giving every man his due," what is due Jesus? Well, we must make up our minds about Him. Is He the Son of God? He said, "I and the Father are one," in John 10:30. And, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" in John 14:9. If this is true, justice demands we give Jesus what is due to God. There can be no justice without Him on the throne.
But this is the very thing the spirit of this age denies: Jesus. It's Jesus that's most offensive. Even the abstract idea of "God" is okay, as long as we keep the title open for Muslims, Buddhists, and any others. Jesus' exclusionary claims on the other hand are offensive. Dare we say, "hateful." Our predicament is plain to see. We have rejected the very foundations of justice and are surprised when the entire structure comes crumbling down. This is what we are seeing unravel in our streets every day to the bewilderment of all but those holding tightly to that old, ancient script long forgotten by most: The Word of God. http://www.christianpost.com/news/no-god-no-justice-197898/
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
97 visitors
A great Thomas Sowell video on social justice
I like reading his work. He's been a great writer since 1980 when I first started reading his work.
You do not have to believe in God or the inspiration of the Scriptures to see that. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"
Speak for yourselves, Christians. I am a virtuous, moral atheist. My heart is neither deceitful nor desperately sick. I wholeheartedly agree that yours are, however.
Yet you Harbor much anger. Why lash out and resort to attacking what others believe? Just curious if you could answer what your virtue and morality is based on? Is it a virtue to lash out in anger at reading what others believe?
Donald Trump was swept into power by Dominionists. Neither he nor they have any moral standing in society whatsoever, as evidenced by Trump's callous disregard for anything that doesn't benefit him personally.
But, televangelists laid hands on Trump in the oval office. That doesn't impress you?
I was impressed the oval office didn't burst into flames.
If there was a god like the one Christians dream about, it would have.
Whatever arranged the atoms to be what they are is what I call my GOD.
Justice is man made.
So a force powerful enough to arrange all the atoms in the universe exactly the way they are now couldn't instill in us what justice is? I'll go with the creator and our God given inalienable rights.
"our God given inalienable rights."
................................
Also man made.
I see no where where GOD gave us "Rights" What you are refering to is a man made written ideology. Rights
GOD may have installed a conscience but written down and nationally observed Rights are a made made thing.
... our God given inalienable rights.
One of the important philosophical advances of the American Revolution was precisely the opposite.
We "are born with" our rights. They are intrinsic. No one "gives" them. Neither the king, nor God, nor anyone. And therefore no one can take them away.
We "are born with" our rights. They are intrinsic. No one "gives" them. Neither the king, nor God,
Reality is indeed a harsh mistress Bob.
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
" endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Sky fairies, imaginary friends, flying spaghetti monsters, Zeus, Apollo, Yahweh, Jesus, Danu, Johava, Krishna, Vishnu. Or some old Babylonian deities like the sky god Anu, the storm god Enlil, and the water god Ea. I'm down with all of them, the more the merrier I say. Diversity, it just makes life grand.
Now the G*d of Zoroaster "Ahura Mazda" it was, as we would say today, a really bitching deity for its time. It knew what it wanted and so it was written in stone (pottery) so as not to be forgotten. The first "rights" of man were granted by "Ahura Mazda". But in twenty-first century America, you are more than likely to think of an affordable Japanese Sedan when you hear of "Ahura Mazda ". Now, it's got a four cylinder engine, automatic transmission and rolls down the road on 14-inch rims.
But back in the day, old "Ahura Mazda" granted rights the likes of which had never been seen.
The first "Human Right Document" Ever in The World 538 B.C.
Don't let the "light" die, keep it burning as an eternal flame .....honor the Memory of Ahura Mazda...keep the fire of liberty burning in the hearts of free men, and women everywhere. Fight to extend these rights, so other men and women can be free. Let them, and all humanity enjoy the bountiful gifts of that un-named "creator being" mentioned.
" may Ahura Mazda aid and guide us" ......
"A. Mazda " was a " vehicle " for change in the sixth century BC, but it lost its "mojo". It's "pimp hand" grew weak, no one recognized it, or it's power to grant rights after a period of time.
So man slowly eroded those divine rights, one by one by natural progress , "the more progressive" among the people acquired those rights exclusively for themselves. They were no longer "divine" rights, they were now rights granted, at the will of the ruler or other potentates. Forward, ever forward man marches. They were no longer fixed in time and place as eternal as "Ahura Mazda" intended.
I don't care what sky fairy, deity, or what you call your delusion, or even if you have a delusion at all about "sky fairies" so long as you recognize the rights "divine" origin as the writers of the document did over two hundred years past.
In America, it's not the government who grants rights. Here, in America, we know that "rights" granted by man, can be taken by man.
That is why even though we are a secular nation, your rights are granted by a sky fairy.
When a sky fairy descends from the heavens, then and only then, are certain rights negotiable
Rights granted by the "sky fairy" concept, can't be messed with by man. One big plus, in recognizing the something another concept, or "sky fairy" idea. Rights granted by "collective action" can be rescinded.
if you want to infringe on my inalienable rights, please bring the "sky fairy" of your choice with you, you'll need him, her, or it.
A demonstration or multiple displays of continuous acts of omnipotence will be required of your deity, well before we start talking about giving any of them G*d granted rights back.
kpr37 A pagan's perspective.
Since I screwed up in the other conversation, I won't just blow you off here... but neither will I be caught in a debate between you and stuff-I-never-said.
For simplicity, here's my previous post:
... our God given inalienable rights.
One of the important philosophical advances of the American Revolution was precisely the opposite.
We "are born with" our rights. They are intrinsic. No one "gives" them. Neither the king, nor God, nor anyone. And therefore no one can take them away.
So your long screed about various gods is kinda sorta beside the point. I'm sure you're aware that the controlling document for rights is not the Declaration, but the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights.
I invite you to search for God in the Constitution. But of course we both know that you already knew... or maybe you only now learened it.
Designating God as the source of rights was already the subject of debate in 1776, and was ejected in 1789.
As I said, if rights are given, then they can be rescinded. By 1789, the Fathers had decided that innate is a better formulation.
As for your fairies and ancient gods... they are irrelevant.
Jack Phillips and the Freedom to Be Christian: Dissenting from the Sexual Revolution
How Big Abortion Strikes Out on 'Choice,' 'Access,' 'Reproductive Health'
What Is Hate and Who Defines It? The SPLC?
If We're Tearing Down Statues, Let's Be Consistent
...
Yes, I want Breaking Christian News
SUBMIT
Better and better...
So those weren't included in the article above so you go to the original source and import them anyway.
Actually, it doesn't even matter what some say about Christianity. Some just like to shoot their mouths off, actually, believing that we care a flip about what they say about fairies, spaghetti God, etc etc. There was a time when I did care, but not anymore. It just shows their ignorance and intolerance.
Indeed it does. Well said. There is no intolerance that matches that of the secular progressive atheist.