See, this is why I prefer to stand on solid rock than sinking sand.
They will tell you that Science is clear, that we are the product of a lengthy process of Evolution and everything essentially came into being out of nothing and if you don't believe Science you're a dark-ages idiot. Unless, of course, if he thinks he's a she or she's a he or, better yet, they think they're a "something else" -- a "non-binary gender" -- even though science tells us quite clearly that males have "this" body part and females have "that" body part and females lack the capacity to impregnate and males lack the capacity to ovulate and there can be no doubt what sex he or she is. If you doubt his/her or her/his feelings, then you're just a dark-ages, idiotic hater.
They will tell you that the solid basis for any moral code is the concept of "harm", that if it causes harm it's bad and if not it's okay and you're just a religious nut if you offer some fancy Divine Lawmaker. Unless, of course, you factor in "consent", where she can consent to be beaten for sexual pleasure or he can consent to be executed because he's tired of living and the obvious harm it causes becomes irrelevant because "consent" trumps "harm".
The Beatles assured us that "Love is all you need" and we are almost universally certain that love is the best of all possible reasons for anything at all. But we've modified the word and changed the rules and "love" becomes the sure rationale for redefining marriage because "Why should I not be allowed to marry the person I love?" but is not an acceptable rationale for "But I want to marry my mother" or "my dog" or "my fence.") (Yes, someone has done that.) In this "Love is the reason" mindset they hold on tightly to ensure he can "marry" him or she can "marry" her, but set it aside flippantly when he wants to "marry" them or when "Those two can't marry" is arbitrarily applied. Because in these cases (where "these cases" is a moving standard) love is all you need but in those cases we do not allow it. Why? Because love is irrelevant in those, but paramount in these.
It just goes on and on. We, as a society, continue to stand firmly on sinking sand. "Life is precious" unless it's an unwanted baby, then it's literally disposable. "Stealing is wrong" unless it's office supplies they'll never miss or taxes they won't catch you at or something else I can get away with. "There is no God!" they like to yell because "God is evil!" without realizing that there is no actual basic standard of evil available without the existence of God. Sinking sand. Even the religious types are sinking into it when they discard any solid standard, like God's Word. I prefer the Solid Rock -- God and His Word -- myself.
3 comments:
Given that God chooses not to elect all humans, is it overly harsh to condemn those not elected for looking to science as their best guide on how to form a world view?
When I build my first house, we discovered bad soil that had to be fixed. Imagine my surprise when the fix involved filling a large hole with compacted sand.
The question suggests you missed the point. In today's world we "stand" on science ... until we don't like the outcome. (In the examples I used we stand on science regarding Evolution but reject science regarding human genders.) I wasn't speaking for or against science, but merely point out that people who like to use it as the "solid basis" for such a worldview reject it just as easily.
Post a Comment