We are an arrogant and foolish race. We can see quite clearly the truth of an assertion and ignore it completely and consider ourselves wise. So when God says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9), we blithely ignore the evidence and the facts and press on. "Pshaw! We know better." And we don't.
You don't have to be a religious zealot to see it. Consider the current moral mantra of our day. We get it in different terminology, but it's all the same. "If it feels good, do it." "The heart wants what the heart wants." "Love is love." That is, the primary test of any moral question is, "Do I want it?" If yes, it's good. And that's not merely mistaken, it's crazy. Consider the dieting woman who goes into a bakery for a loaf of fresh-baked bread. With all those sweets arrayed before her, she must not think, "The heart wants what the heart wants" or the diet is destroyed. Or the neighbor who covets his neighbor's wife. "I want it, so it's good" would be devastating. Or consider the toddler who finds the pool unlocked and just must feel what that water is like. "The heart wants what the heart wants" is a recipe for catastrophe. But, here we are, walking through life with "love is love" as a justification ... which we clearly don't mean because "No, you can't marry three women and a dog" or "Wait, wait, incest is evil" and on and on. Where is your "love is love" now?
A long time ago God said that humans have deceitful hearts and we, on a daily basis, prove Him true. "I want" cannot be the basis for "I ought," but it's our standard method of determining what's good and right ... and so often it's absolutely wrong. Proving once again that the heart is deceitful ... and we apparently have a learning disability where the heart condition is concerned.
4 comments:
A third party, objective standard of morality is necessary for there to be any true morality. Otherwise we will always be forever condemning others wrongfully. If what is moral is deemed by individual or culture, then it is wrong to condemn slavery in the 1800s. It wasn't immoral to them, so how dare we say now that it was immoral then for them to do that. And because we are so short-sighted about morality, we need Someone else to tell us was morality truly is.
Wow, first you introduced me to “piffle” (at 12/5/23’s post), and today is it “pshaw.” How did I not hear those two before now?! I’m glad to know of yet another acceptable swear word ;). The one I heard my mom say growing up was “pish tosh” (or was is “pish posh”?). She also said “Jumping Jehoshaphat!” a lot (at least he was biblical, although she probably didn’t know that!).
Ah, David! But who's "interpretation" are we to follow? You see, I also believe that Scripture is the ultimate authority on morality....that God determines what is or isn't moral. But I'm told that because I'm an imperfect human being, others can't be sure my understanding is correct and therefore, nothing more than my "opinion". With this in mind, my citing "thou shalt" not becomes as ambiguous as one needs it to be in order to dismiss it and still claim to be Christian.
Oh, the things told to the self!
Well, mine of course. But then mine isn't opinion, but taking the Word for what it says. It's those others that require reinterpretation to make the Bible say what they want it to.
Post a Comment