Skip to main content

No Moral Absolutes Means No Human Rights

We have the truth that human rights activists are everywhere who reject the truth that there are moral absolutes. Many of them have their idea of "Judge not and you will not be judged." As for the atheistic human activists, they tend to carry out Richard Dawkins' quote from the River Out of Eden which says that there's no good, no evil but only pitiless indifference. They think that there are no such thing as moral absolutes. So if they believe that there are no moral absolutes then why are they fighting for human rights which requires moral absolutes to determine them? After all, Dawkins just said there is no purpose but only pitiless indifference.

Here's another problem with atheists' appeal to human rights. Why do they appeal to human rights when they claim that there are no moral absolutes and morality is relative? Human rights are determined by moral absolutes that God made. When God made His Ten Commandments and gave the whole Law - He made it as the standard for right and wrong. God's Law was made for our protection. God isn't cruel when He gave His Ten Commandments. He made it so we can enjoy life and if our right to life is violated then we have a standard to demand for justice. The right not to be punished beyond one's offense (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) and the right to a just and fair trial are all rooted upon moral absolutes.

If there were no moral absolutes then what's the standard for determining human rights? It would just end up in altruism and/or appealing to morals only when it's convenient. If there were no moral absolutes then think of this scenario. Let's say that somebody parks in a no parking area and it causes traffic. If there were no moral absolutes or morality is relative then the traffic enforcer has no right to ask the person to move the car away. Why should the offender move his car away or pay the traffic enforcement agency the fine for illegal parking if morality is relative? If you demand respect for relativism then it goes nowhere. For the offender what he did was right and for the traffic enforcer what the offender did was wrong. If we are to respect both opposing views then nobody is right.

So how does having moral absolutes solve the situation? Having moral absolutes dictates both freedoms and restrictions. It tells you what you can do if you want to while giving you a list of don't do this and don't do that. There is nothing wrong with parking one's car but you should park it in a designated area. If we had the moral absolute over moral relativism then the problem is solved. The traffic enforcer operates according to moral absolutes. The offender can't argue his way out of parking his car in the wrong spot because moral absolutes says he should park his car only in parking areas. There's no respect everyone's views there without restraint. The problem can only be remedied when the offender decides to pay the fine to get his car released by the traffic enforcement agency. The offender must realize he's violating other people's right to use the road by parking in a no parking area as well as putting his own safety in jeopardy. Either the offender gives in to the demands or moral absolutes or he can say goodbye to his car.

So how do moral absolutes also provide your human rights in society? Let's get over the Ten Commandments and put them in a civil context. Let's talk about the last six commandments that prohibit murder, stealing, adultery, bearing false witness and coveting. If these rules were nonexistent then you have lost your right to live in a safe place or to complain when you're a victim. If you say there are no moral absolutes then all forms of crime should be legalized. That means you might as well yourself to be murdered or never get justice for any murder victim. You can't complain when somebody steals from you and you can kiss all your money goodbye. You can't complain when your spouse cheats on you and you might as well be friends with the third party. You lose the right to complain when somebody slanders you or even lies in court about you so don't even expect to have any right to sue anyone for libel or perjury. You can't complain if somebody acts on their covetousness to do their sin. Think of how much is lost when there are no moral absolutes.

But thank God for His Law for the people. I can be thankful that God has provided a law against sin. Without it, I wouldn't even know that I'm a sinner. God's Law keeps society safe. With moral absolutes there will be rules to keep society in order. I would feel safe in a society where I can't get away with sin. If I live in a society where I can get away with crime then I can only expect to be lose my right to complain when my rights are violated. God's Law is not a cause of sorrow but joy because it keeps me safe and sound. Unfortunately, most people only want to appeal to moral absolutes only when it's deemed convenient for them.

See also:

Popular posts from this blog

Continue the Reformation Through Expository Preaching

It's not merely enough to protest against Rome. There are many who protest against Rome who are just as heretical as Rome. What's not too surprising is to find some "Baptist" preachers who reject the badly needed art of expository preaching. Why do we need expository preaching? To know why we need it we must first define it.

Defining expository preaching

This is what the book "By the Book: The Whys and Hows of Biblical Preaching" would define expository preaching:
Expository preaching. When the main theme, its main points and further development of the points of the points or sub-points are all derived from the content, context and structural flow of a longer text in Scripture. This is popular when expounding paragraphs, stanzas, and chapters of a book and especially when doing a series of preaching from a book. (p. 45)
Here is the definition from Got Questions on "What is expository preaching?":
Expository preaching involves the exposition, or co…

Continuing the Reformation Also Means Preaching Against Quack Evangelical Pastors

It's so easy to heckle on Roman Catholic priests and similar cultists but hard to acknowledge that Evangelical circles aren't free of wolves in sheep's clothing. What I thought about is how often you may think that a certain pastor is a man of God but he's just as much as a wolf in sheep's clothing as the Roman Catholic priests. Just because a person claims to be a pastor doesn't mean he's a man of God.

Should it be mentioned Jeremiah has condemned irresponsible pastors or shepherds with how they carry their jobs? Read them at Jeremiah 10:21, 12:10, 22:2, 23:1-2 and you'll find out the kind of pastors God hates. Jeremiah 3:15 has God promising to give pastors who will give understanding. The problem is that there are so many pastors who aren't even men of God. They are pastors by profession but they are not pastors in God's eyes. This is a warning to Christians that just because a pastor by profession doesn't mean the person is a man of God.…

The Difference Between Faith Results to Good Works vs. Adding Faith to Good Works

There's a huge argument between the Papists and the Reformers about what authentic faith is. The stand isn't just merely between Papists and the Reformers as it goes as far as Papists, anti-Catholic cults and the true born again Christians (Protestant or not) on what James means by faith without works is dead.

Is James saying that in order to get saved or to stay saved that you must add faith to good works?

Perhaps one reason why Martin Luther once thought of the Book of James as an epistle of straw was because it felt like the author added good works to saving faith. I remembered having a dialogue with a third degree cousin of mine who was a Roman Catholic apologist. He knew I was a former Catholic turned Baptist. I had a conversation with him and he told me that I should examine the Book of James to see good works are required for justification.

The Roman Catholic view as well as the anti-Catholic cultist view tends to use James' writing to justify their heresy. Here'…

What's Wrong with the Ang Dating Daan Movement?

The Ang Dating Daan movement is by the Members Church of God International spearheaded by its pastor (and so-called "prophet") Eliseo Soriano.  While claiming to be an expositor of the Scriptures with his "Itanong Mo Kay Soriano" or "Ask Soriano" In English, this religious group actually isn't Christian as some of the ignorant would want to believe.  Though the group claims the Bible is their only authority (as some cults do) but the problem is that they believe only Eli Soriano may interpret the Scriptures.  This is utter heresy!  Not even a great man in the Scriptures, Charles Spurgeon ever made such a preposterous claim!  This is no better than the "true church" movement by Darwin Fish which is exposed by Pastor Phil Johnson as a heretical movement.  In fact, I'm not going to waste my time debating with ADD members, they are a total waste of my time as every other debate.
Unlike John F. Macarthur of Grace to You that actually encoura…

Plenty of Today's Churches Need a Radical Reformation Against Easy "Christianity"!

Whenever it's the Reformation, it's easy to think about Martin Luther's protest against the Roman Catholic institution. It's easy to think about fighting the Great Whore of Revelation. Here's the question that I'd want to raise, "Do you realize that we're also having churches plagued with easy believism or easy Christianity?" Easy believism is a term that's so easily confused. Some may think that they're easy believists but they reject any notion that a person can get saved and sin all they want. The real easy believists are those who believe that they can be saved and still remain the same. If Rome's doctrine of salvation by works is a sure road to Hell then so is Antinomianism.
It's a common problem today in many churches that they uphold the heresy of easy prayerism. They teach a distorted picture of once saved always saved. Once saved always saved is biblical but we must emphasize on the characteristics of those who are truly …

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

Testimony of Former Iglesia Ni Cristo Member, Now a Born Again Christian

Editor's note: 
First and foremost, I would like to thank the Bereans for this wonderful story of a former Iglesia ni Cristo minister (or pastor), now he has become a Baptist Christian.  It's a sad story that some people have just jumped from one cult to another.  Some members of the Watchtower Society, Charismatic Movement or the Iglesia ni Cristo have left Roman Catholicism but they have never truly come to know the truth of salvation is by faith in Christ alone and that any good works after Christian life is but the grace of God at work in the believer.  Now for this brave testimony that I can really share after many years of searching for one testimony which I hope will further bring more INC members to Jesus Christ.

May I begin with a word of prayer that in the midst of all these trouble, I call upon Jesus Christ the Son of God who the Iglesia ni Cristo deny is indeed God, the only way to salvation, that they trust upon their works and church membership than Him alone.  I…