Lesson 11
MORALITY
AND
GOD’S
PLAN FOR MAN’S NEEDS
So far in these lessons our
discussions have revolved
around intellectual arguments. We have tried to demonstrate that a
person can logically and intelligently believe in God and in the
Bible
as His Word. We have looked at a variety of issues that many people
feel are difficult to handle from the perspective of a believer in
the
Bible as God's Word. We have tried to demonstrate that when there is
a
problem it is either due to bad science, bad theology, or both. In
the
remaining lessons we would like to get down to some demonstrations
that
are far more pragmatic and relevant to daily living. We will deal
with
man’s basic needs and problems and will try to show ways to
successfully live in spite of the problems that come upon us. In
this
lesson we wish to discuss the way in which people make moral
decisions.
How do we as
individuals decide what is right and what is
wrong and how to conduct ourselves in a way that is of maximum
benefit
to us individually and collectively? There are all kinds of extremes
a
person can take in a discussion like this. Richard Dawkins, the most
vocal atheist of our day, denies that good and evil exist (as quoted in lesson
1,
page 3). In such a view all acts are justified individually by the
person making the decision. Your author was an atheist for 20 years
and
this was the basis on which I made moral decisions. I might
rationalize
my moral decisions on the basis of someone like Ayn Rand, but my
moral
life was based upon what I saw as best for me. I would like to
suggest
to you that this is, in fact, the basis of moral decisions for most,
if
not all, people who reject religion as a basis of making moral
decisions. If you really believe that survival of the fittest is the
rule by which all living things survive, then our decisions must
reflect those choices that give us individually the best chance of
survival.
Some advocates of sociobiology might argue that our moral decisions
must be made on the basis of what will propagate our genes in the
population, and not necessarily on individual survival. Social
atheists
might suggest that our moral decisions must be based on what we
perceive as those choices best for the society in which we live. The
fact remains that all of these decision-making processes assume that
the individual has the ability to make foolproof judgments. Even a
casual look at reality should convince us that this is not the case.
THE WILL OF THE
MAJORITY
If people make moral judgments on the basis of what the majority of
the
people in the society feel is right, are they relying on a safe
guide?
Every crooked politician ever elected in a fair election was
selected
by the majority. Clearly the majority has frequently been wrong. It
was
the majority that crucified Jesus Christ. We have laws in this
country
which make it possible to impeach an elected official because the
law
recognizes that the will of the majority is frequently wrong.
RESULTS
Another popular message about moral decisions is that they should be
made on the basis of what the results of the decision will be. Sex
education programs sometimes say to young people "just make sure
nobody
gets hurt." The idea is that we should look at a moral act, consider
its consequences, make proper preparations (such as birth control),
and
(then having made sure that no bad consequences will result) act out
our ethic. The phrase situation ethics describes the mentality of
this
method of making moral decisions. Look at the situation and
determine
your ethic on the basis of what the result of your decision will be.
The fallacy of such reasoning should be immediately
apparent. Who is egotistical enough to believe that they can look at
every possible moral decision that comes along, and know ahead of
time
what the results of that moral decision will be? How many times have
men and women engaged in a sexual relationship believing that no
negative consequences would come from it only to face a sexually
transmitted disease (STD) or unwanted pregnancy? The incidence rate
of
STDs continues to climb because people continue to make bad
decisions.
Science has no capacity to make moral judgments. Albert Einstein
said,
"Religion without science is lame but science without religion is
blind." It is not within science to be able to determine what the
result of its discoveries will be, or how the discovery will be
used.
The Nobel Prize was set up by a scientist who was dismayed that his
discovery of dynamite had been used to harm and kill his fellow man.
The AIDS epidemic is the result of people making a decision about
their
life styles and sexual choices that have been catastrophic to them
and
to many other people. To say that result can be used as a basis of
making moral decisions is naive and totally in contradiction to the
evidence.
PEER VALUES
One of the frequently used phrases in discussing moral problems is
"times are changing." The idea is that science and technology have
changed morality--that sexual freedom is produced by the discovery
and
production of various birth control procedures. We are told that
times
are different today because of the knowledge we have of drugs and of
psychology which no longer makes us dependent on out-of-date
moralities
that do not meet the needs of modern man.
Have times really
changed?
Are the problems of today any different from the problems of Jesus'
day? How old is marijuana? How old is opium? How old is alcohol? How
old is sex? Obviously, these problems as well as hundreds of others
we
could list are not new. Marijuana has been found in ancient ships.
Opium dens are as old as written history. Alcohol and sex are
similarly
problems of all times and all cultures. The forms may change, and
some
drugs may have become more powerful and more available, but the
problems are the same. Jesus dealt with drugs, with alcohol, and
with
sexual promiscuity. Even a casual reading of His life shows that He
was
not naive about the problems men and women face.
Have we solved these problems? Unless you have been living in a cave
for a very long time, totally isolated from the world of reality,
you
know that the answer is clearly "No!" The United States is in a
full-fledged war against drugs. Students Against Destructive
Decisions
(SADD) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and countless other
groups are in a major battle to counter alcohol abuse. Sexual abuse
and
promiscuity fill our news reports and tabloids. To maintain that our
technology has provided any answer to our moral problems is to
ignore
reality.
People may subconsciously
use other ways of dealing with
moral decisions. Conscience may be used, not realizing that
conscience
is controlled by experience and environment. Many people justify
immorality by the frequency with which they engage in it. You hear
people justify the use of a recreational drug, by stating that they
do
not use the drug very often. People will justify gambling or even
sexual misconduct by the number of times that they engage in the
practice. The old saying, "How many times do you have to shoot a man
for him to be dead," surely applies to such logic. As in all of the
standards we have looked at, the logic is faulty to the point of
absurdity.
How many people would stand before a civil magistrate and justify
going
100 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone with one of these
arguments?
"Everyone breaks the speed limit."
"I didn't hit anyone or anything and I got home really fast, so
the
results were fine."
"My friends don't see anything wrong with it."
"This is the first time."
"My conscience is clear."
No thinking person would attempt to justify such a simple thing as
breaking a speed limit on such a basis, but some will live a life
that
is based on moral choices with the same logical absurdities.
Now that we have seen the inadequacies involved in making moral
decisions based on human judgments and reasoning, it is logical to
ask
if there is a better way? The answer is clearly "Yes!" The Bible
gives
a moral system that works! Let us emphasize in this discussion that
we
are not attempting to legislate morality. In other words, we are not
appealing to a legalistic system of "thou shalt nots" that are
designed
to rob men and women of the real joys of life. What we have in the
Bible is a system designed to provide maximum joy, maximum
happiness,
maximum pleasure, maximum satisfaction, and the best of life.
SEX
Sex seems to be a preoccupation of people who
like
to discuss morality. The Bible clearly puts limits on sex. Sex is
first
of all monogamous, reserved for marriage, 
heterosexual,
and singular in nature. Sex before
marriage, adultery, homosexuality and sodomy are a violation of the
biblical moral code. This does not mean that the Bible only
sanctions
sex for the purpose of procreation. Recreational sex is not only
sanctioned in the Bible, but is encouraged. (See Proverbs 5:19; Song
of
Solomon 1; 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.)
Is this system wise? Those who make scientific studies of sexual
activity tell us that clinical studies show that the most satisfying
and meaningful sexual fulfillment is found in relationships where
there
is no competition and where there are only two people involved. The
soap opera mentality that says having multiple partners brings
ultimate
pleasure, simply is not borne out by the facts. Fulfilling sexual
relationships take commitment, time, and a loving relationship that
motivates the partners to meet one another’s needs. In addition to
providing greater joy and satisfaction, the biblical system avoids
STDs
and produces a base for the nurturing and development of children.
From
every aspect the biblical system makes sense.
LIFE
How do we live on this earth? How do we get along? Does the old
evolutionary concept of survival of the fittest work? Is this how
people should interact with others? We have all heard that mentality
translated into the phrase, "Do unto others before they have the
chance
to do it unto you." Many people seem to live that way. Jesus taught
a
completely different system. Christ tells us to love our enemies, to
do
good to all, not to allow ourselves to get angry with our brother or
sister, to go the extra mile, and not to allow our minds to be
filled
with thoughts that will lead us to actions that violate the absolute
standard set before us (see Matthew 5-7).
Let me ask once again that we analyze these teachings in a logical
way.
Will a person murder without hating first? Will a person commit an
adulterous act without mentally dwelling on the thought first? The
best
way to avoid committing an immoral act is to avoid the thinking
process
that leads to the act, and that is what Christ told us to do! What
kind
of a world would it be if everyone turned the other cheek? How would
our lives be changed if everyone did good to those who hate them,
and
if everyone went the second mile?
We do not wish to construct a Pollyanna world that is outside of
reality, but in our relationships, our families, and our social
interactions this kind of a life style is possible and it leads to
the
maximum joy and fulfillment.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
Those who hold to human wisdom and philosophy have no real answer to
the tragedy that inevitably invades our lives on earth. I am the
father
of a mentally retarded, blind son who has muscular dystrophy and
cerebral palsy. I cannot say I am or have ever been happy that this
problem was forced upon me. I do believe that my understanding of
why
God created me can enable me to deal with the situation
intellectually.
The support I have enjoyed of people who try to live the principles
I
have just discussed, has lifted me and enabled me and my son to find
joy and meaning in life that I would never have dreamed possible.
How does a person who rejects the existence of God and follows the
standards of human wisdom and philosophy deal with such a situation?
My
experience has been that euthanasia, abortion, institutionalization,
and in one case, murder and suicide have been the only solutions
that
the followers of such logic have been able to find. In fact, without
the possibility of life after this life, the problems of this life
become of major importance. If we believe that this life is only a
small part of what constitutes our total existence, then the
problems
are greatly lessened. How much will 75 years of pain and frustration
on
the earth mean in the context of eternity? I suggest it will not
mean
much. Our existence on the earth can be so very happy and meaningful
if
we will live according to the design that God has given us.
It is not our purpose or right to legislate morality. What we are
talking about here is the very best way to meet our needs. The Bible
gives us the key to meeting our needs, and the way to do it. The
wisdom
of these teachings and the obvious consequences of not following
them
is a very powerful argument for the inspiration of the Bible. It has
been said that I would rather see a sermon than hear one. Looking at
the fruit of living the way God has told us to as contrasted with
the
lives of those who reject God’s teaching holds a powerful message to
the objective observer. Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know
them.”
Our next subject deals with the Church. Does the Church have
anything
to do with all this, or is it just an institution that is removed
from
reality and promotes things that have no relevance to life and human
struggles? We hope you will continue your study into that lesson
titled
"The Logic of the Church."
© 2009, John N. Clayton
Lesson 4 cover picture: iStockphoto.com/Mike_Kiev
Lesson 11 Questions
Return to the Main
Page
for the
Intermediate Correspondence Course.
12/30/2011