Right and wrong, truth and untruth, good and evil, just and unjust - these are dichotomies that are firmly rooted in reality and not relegated to relativity and opinion.
The author of an article at Psychology Today entitled "Perception is not Reality" writes:
"Perception is reality." This aphorism is often used to justify a perception that may be objectively unjustifiable or just plain out of touch with reality. It's employed as a cudgel to beat others into accepting someone's preferred so-called reality. At a more philosophical level, this adage creates a sense of relativism (think squishiness) in circumstances that are more likely absolute.
All people have had a sense of right and wrong (although their perceptions are sometimes skewed). If you don't believe it, just break in line ahead of someone at the grocery store or cut someone off in traffic and see if they feel wronged or not.
But where does that sense of right and wrong come from?
If it is a simple case of perception and preferences, then it is just one person's or group's opinion versus another person's or group's opinion. "That may be right for you, but it's not right for me."
If it is a simple case of popular decision, then what is right and wrong changes with the majority vote. That change may even occur with extreme rapidity.
If it is a case of power, then the strongest person/group/nation determines what is right and wrong for everyone until a more powerful person/group/nation takes control and changes those definitions.
If those are the positions held, there is never a consistency of what is considered right or wrong. Literally what is right this month could be wrong next month. There could be no legitimately held opposition to someone's speech or action. It is no more than a disagreement. Punishment over a mere disagreement would be abuse.
Don't confuse right and wrong with legal and illegal. Everyone can cite laws that have been put in place that were ridiculous or blatantly unjust. That point is just another proof. If there was no true right and wrong, there could be no legitimacy in calling an unjust law unjust. It could be merely inconvenient at best.
As C.S. Lewis wrote in "Mere Christianity" when he struggled with this issue, and is so often quoted:
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it just?
So the concept of right and wrong, just and unjust, good and evil, must be external to personal opinion or established law and be applicable to all people at all times.
Chattel slavery thrived globally for centuries. It was made illegal throughout the British Empire in 1834, but it was still quite legal and prolific in the United States at that same time. It wasn't until more than 30 years later that it was abolished in the United States.
In light of that bit of history, was chattel slavery from 1835 to 1865 evil and unjust in the British Empire but good and just in the United States? Or while chattel slavery was legal around the world was it ever right and just at some period of world history, or was it utterly wrong and unjust for all people at all times?
Now consider these current hot-button topics: Abortion - Hamas/Israel Conflict - Ukraine/Russia War - Climate Change - Transgenderism - Communism/Capitalism
With each of these issues, and tons more, there are opposing groups that each hold definitively that their position is right and the other's is wrong. If you have a belief on any of these issues, ask yourself:
"Could there ever be a time, past or future, that the opposing view that I stand against could be the right view?"
If you answered yes, your viewpoint is subjective to changeable opinion and circumstances making the stance you are taking malleable throughout all time. Whichever position you hold is dependent completely and utterly on circumstances of the moment. Because positions will change over time, whether slowly or rapidly, there would be no solid foundation for legitimate condemnation of opposing views. At worst opposing views would be traditional and antiquated, and at best they would be innovative or revolutionary.
If you answered no, then you would be forced to admit that the dichotomies of right and wrong, truth and untruth, good and evil, just and unjust are fixed in reality and not determined by strength, popularity, or any other temporary condition. They are unconditionally and independently objective rather than conditionally and dependently subjective.
____________________________________________________________
Hopefully you see that, yes, there are indeed things that are right or wrong for all people at all times. This would especially included sinful things. As sinners, by default we are not in the right with God. Just as if we steal something we are a thief, or if we murder someone we are a murderer, if we sin we are a sinner.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
But wait, can't we sin against another person or people like stealing from them, physically or emotionally abusing them, or tempting them into sinfulness?
____________________________________________________________
Yes, we would be sinning against them. Sinning against others harms them, absolutely, but ultimately what we are doing is still sinning against God because it is His laws that we are breaking and rebelling against in our interaction with others.
Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God, the second greatest commandment is to love others as ourselves, and that all the laws and prophets hang on those two commandments.
____________________________________________________________
Let's say we are the person that has been sinned against. We have two options of response. One results in sinning in return. That can be through such things as hatred, retaliation, violence, sexual immorality, vengeance, etc. But again, our response is also sinning against God because we are ultimately breaking His laws in mistreating others.
____________________________________________________________
The other response is to forgive the person who sinned against us and not let their sinfulness affect us. Those who are Christians should stay focused on living for God and following His laws. That in no way means that their sinful actions involving us will automatically nullify the effects of their words and actions on our life. But when we forgive them, we are imitating the forgiveness God gives to those who repent and live their lives to follow Christ.
Jesus tells us in His incredible Sermon on the Mount:
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
[Matthew 5:43-48]
____________________________________________________________
If Christians wisely choose this path of forgiving the one who sinned against us, then we have earned the right through displaying God's forgiveness of our sins against Him to that person in hopes of bringing them to Christ by our life's example.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
"Wait a minute!" you might object. "It is possible to forgive someone without believing in or following God!"
Yes. It is. God Himself is the external standard as the source of morality, goodness, and justice. Introducing free-will to mankind to make their own choices, it opened the possibility for immorality, evil, and injustice. Morality and immorality, right and wrong, good and evil, truth and untruth, and justice and injustice are then all actualities. Because they exist, we experience them.
But what's missing in that scenario? The connection with God. Simply because we might experience and express morality, goodness, and justice to some level doesn't mean that we are connected to Him. Even so, we are able to experience and express these things because His existence is the source of their existence.
Connection, or communion, with God only comes through believing that Jesus, the second person of the triune God, became a man, lived a sinless life, died from crucifixion, paid the penalty of sin for all that will believe in Him and follow Him, that He was bodily raised from the dead on the third day in victory over sin and death, who will come again one day to judge the living and the dead rewarding each accordingly for their deeds, and then will eternally separate to heaven the saved and to hell the unsaved based on their acceptance or rejection of Him.
____________________________________________________________
Posts
