Reason and Morality

Reason and Morality

When it comes to reason being the source of morality, reason is a joke and its control over morality is greatly exaggerated. The reign of reason over man’s morality is a social construct of the enlightenment. This was demonstrated by David Hume decades ago and is now supported by science. Reason is the handmaiden of the will and emotions. It was exalted to a place of predominance by the skeptics of the enlightenment as a weapon against religion and it is still used that way by atheists today. Reason on its own has no creative power in regards to morality and nor is it the main source of atheism. Atheism mainly stems from attitudes, disposition and behavior, not reason. Atheists call upon reason and claim reason as the source to justify their lack of faith and their disposition when in actuality their unbelief is simply an attitude often springing from the human ego and other genetic and environmental sources.

What about the explanation of morality given by evolutionary psychology? When people make an appeal to evolutionary psychology they’re making an appeal to more psychological babbling. I personally enjoy that subject but it is not science. To be a science something has to be able to be witnessed or observed happening and you have to reproduce it through experiments. It also should be open to falsification. You need to have facts not just the presupposition and a well-spun story to explain existence without God. Read Henry Gee’s book “Deep Time”.

Let’s look at some real science and history. One hundred years ago there was a grand experiment done in Russia when atheistic communism took over the country. At that time atheists in Russia were saying the same thing as atheists today about morality and reason. They believed they could build a better culture and morality on reason alone. Many of them lived to witness the corruption and collapse of that culture. Their atheistic reasoning didn’t create their perfect morality or state. The idea that reason can create morality is nothing but a myth. The rider (reason) does not control the elephant (emotions), the elephant controls the rider as Hume demonstrated decades ago. All that atheists have is an attitude and a created imagination.

Even in view of their failed experiment, many atheists have not changed. They still exalt reason to an unreasonable level and refuse to admit that if in power they would be corrupted like every other group. They also still maintain the  utopia vision and the myth of progress which is their hangover from Christianity, i.e. they still believe in creating a new paradise on earth through their atheistic communistic ideology.

 

 

Do atheists have the moral high ground?

Do atheists have the moral high ground?

Watch the video at the end of the article

“The rationalists’ and atheists’ claim to the moral high ground is based on ignorance of history.  The hallmarks of atheistic regimes were persecution, oppression, brutality, cruelty and mass killings. Atheistic regimes from the start embarked on violence and have been amongst the most evil and bloodthirsty in all human history. The motivation of many of the killings was a hatred of religion.”[1]  John Gray whom himself is not a believe adds, “Yet the mass murders of the twentieth century were not perpetrated by some latter-day version of the Spanish Inquisition.  They were carried out by atheist regimes in the service of Enlightenment ideals of progress.  Stalin and Mao were not believers in original sin.  Even Hitler, who despised Enlightenment values of equality and freedom, shared the Enlightenment faith that a new world could be created by human will.  Each of these tyrants imagined that the human condition could be transformed through the use of science.”[2]  May I add a belief shared by many of the new atheists?

The atheistic response is usually along the line of denying that the atheism was not the true source of the violence.  They attempt to blame the political ideology at the time for the violence.  However, the political ideology of communism and  Marxist economic systems are both grounded in atheism and the belief in the totalitarian statism which seems to go with atheism.

An honest person can already see in the seeds of the new atheist movement the belligerent nature toward believers and the hate of religion that can be a source of violence of the worst kind.  You can see this vindictiveness in many of their blogs, if not in the body of the blog, then in the comments where believers are ridiculed and called about every name in the book.  Richard Dawkins the high priest of the new atheist movement, at a recent Reason Rally, told the crowd to ridicule and mock believers at every opportunity.  What he meant was for his Brown Shirt atheists to find some ill versed Christian and make them look stupid.  Of course, a well versed Christian could do the same to an ill versed atheist.

The New Atheists are no different from their forerunners, they hate religion and religion’s people. They mock Christians for saying that you should love the sinner but hate the sin, exclaiming that it’s impossible.  However, they claim to hate religion, yet love people of faith.  Just more nonsense.

[1] “The Liberal Delusion” by John Marsh.

[2] “Heresies: Against Progress And Other Illusions” By John Gray. Kindle location 553.

 

 

Is Repentance Moral Reform? Acts 2:38

Is Repentance Moral Reform? Acts 2:38

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”Acts 2:38

The question I want us to focus on is, Does “to repent” in Acts 2:38 mean moral reform or something else? I have heard it taught as moral reform or as simply a turning to God. However, there are some problems with both interpretations. First, it would seem unlikely that the Apostle Peter would tell devout Jews that they needed to reform morally or turn to God. In the context of Acts 2:38, repentance or turning would seem to mean turning to Christ or to believing on Christ. In essence, Peter was telling his audience simply to believe in Jesus. This would echo the words of Jesus to His disciples in John 14:1, “You believe in God believe also in me.”

However, the text seems to indicate that a necessary part of this turning to God includes baptism or what we might call a bodily and public expression of this turning or repentance. Baptism then would be viewed as the initiation act that puts a person into Christ where His blood cleanses from sin and where one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit (Rom 6:1-3, Gal 3:26,27).

It is also important to note that Peter’s statement is a commandment not a request. Man left God by breaking a commandment, and he must returns by keeping a commandment. Therefore, he is commanded to believe on Jesus or believe the gospel (1 Thess. 1:8). Adam’s sin began in his heart and was consummated in his outward disobedience. In like manner, man returns to God by believing and acting out his faith in baptism and a life that bears the fruit of repentance (Acts 26:20). This is why Paul uses faith and baptism as synonymous. “For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27 ASV).

We can summarize the teaching of Acts 2:38 by saying that God commands two things: faith in Christ and baptism into Christ. These two acts constitute turning toward God (Acts 3:19). To those who turn to God by belief and baptism, God promises two things: the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It would be fair to ask the question, Does faith and baptism in themselves remit sin? Absolutely not; nothing but the free action of a forgiving God can do that. Faith-baptism simply puts a person into Christ where one has access to the blood of Christ and the forgiveness of sins, both of which are in Christ (Eph 1:7, Rom 6:3).