We Were in a Discussion 2

We are doing 2 posts back to back to give you a lot to read and ponder as you go through your weekend. We decided to do this because we do get busy and do not have the time to get the posts up in a timely matter.

This past week we were in a discussion over at Meerkat Musing and the reason We got involved was that the owner of that site wondered what our views would be on the topic of democracy vs. God.

Our post was only intended to be a one-off comment and not part of a larger discussion. Here are our words:

In thinking about it I will just post a short response here in the comment section to address the key issues. When it comes to democracy, it is the weakest form of any political governing system in existence today. The reason for saying that is because anyone with any ideology has the capability and ability to persuade the majority to vote in favor of their ideology no matter how liberal or conservative it gets.

Under socialism, totalitarianism, theocracy, and communism that is not possible unless you go to open revolt. Then democracy generally follows the moral rules set out in the Bible whereas those other systems generally follow the morals of a specific individual or group of people. That includes a theocracy that follows a false religion or one of the many bad protestants, cultic or other religions associated with Protestantism.

The problem with the response given in the above article is that it does not account for the presence of evil in the world, its influence, and how many people are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Nothing is untainted by evil unless one follows the one true God and his ways correctly which most people refuse to do.

Unfortunately, the owner of that site decided to create a discussion instead of simply thanking us for providing him his wish. But one good thing came of the discussion and it was the following point

My ideals include following evidence and they include following a humanist moral code that has existed for thousands of years

There are problems with that statement. the first problem comes in with the word ‘evidence’. The author of those words fails to realize that evidence is very vulnerable and it depends on who is describing it as to what that evidence will prove.

We have seen many different archaeologists and other scientists look at the same evidence and come up with 3 to 4 different possibilities. None of which have any hope of being verified in the present.

Then there is the problem of secular scientists declaring something as evidence when there is no ancient confirmation or objective manuscript stating what the evidence should be and should not be.

In other words, the unbelieving scientist is creating their own evidence to support their own theories. That is not logical, rational, or even close to being right.

Finally, what people say is evidence is usually incomplete and archaeologists, anthropologists, and other secular scientists are always saying we need to wait till new technology, methodologies, and so on are created to find more information.

In the meantime what are people supposed to do? Most will die before those new items are invented and any possible new information is uncovered. They will die in their sins and lose out on salvation because they listened to scientists, etc. That is not right, nor is it love or anything healthy.

Evidence is often incomplete, actually, it is almost always incomplete, and too many archaeologists, etc., come to the wrong conclusions based on that incomplete evidence. Do we allow ourselves to be misled and do so wilfully?

That attitude may be fine with unbelievers as they do not want to humble themselves and obey God but for the believer, we cannot do that as it would be sin and allowing evil to destroy the truth and our lives.

God did not say govern by evidence or even live by it. He said to obey Him and his rules and have faith.

Second, the person we were having a discussion with said the following (we are requoting it here as it is a ways back):

they include following a humanist moral code that has existed for thousands of years

As you may have guessed, there are problems with this comment as well. First, the humanist code may have been in existence for thousands of years but it is NOT the first code to exist. The biblical code was.

Next, the biblical code was followed for a long time and still is being followed although on a minority and individual level. Also, the author needs to take into account that the supposed humanist code did not suddenly appear one day and was created by some unbelieving king.

It came from the biblical code and was altered by unbelievers as they strayed further and further away from God and his word. The humanist code is actually a fulfillment of the verse, man loves darkness rather than light.

Their code expresses that love for darkness in all of the permissions it grants to sinful activities. The next mistake found in that statement is the fact that the humanist code is not static nor objective.

It changes from person to person, leader to leader, civilization to civilization. Which humanist code does that person want to abide by? He may say his own and that will expose his true feelings in that he wants to dictate to others how they should live instead of, again, humbly obeying God and his commands.

Then what benefits has that humanist code brought to the world at any time in history? Once the humanist code was established we have seen no end to wars, no end to crime, unfair and unjust legal systems, poor educational systems, bias, and prejudicial treatment and it lets sin and evil destroy nations as well as paradise.

The biblical code brings life, truth, fairness, justice, shows people how to live correctly and what not to do if they want to live in paradise. It stops crime, hatred, sinful behaviors that ruin paradise as well as have people living peacefully with their neighbors and so on.

The only problem with the biblical code is that sinful men use and misuse it for their own personal and sinful gain. if followed correctly, life on earth would be next to paradise but since evil exists do not expect the biblical code to have a lot of impact on those aforementioned issues.

Also, the biblical code tells us to get educated, get wisdom, understanding, as well as obey the laws of the government, not rebel against governments, and more.

In other words, the biblical code stops sin and evil while the humanist code encourages it and helps it to grow. Which society would you rather live in? One that promotes evil, injustice, unfairness, crime, and so on or one that helps people stop those behaviors and allows everyone to live freely and p[eacefully?

The humanist code, while being in existence for thousands of years, has failed all the civilizations it has been used in. Even though it came from the biblical code and many biblical laws are seen in this code, it has not produced the utopia many unbelievers expect to take place at some point in time.

Unfortunately, none of them will live long enough to see it take place. That is because the humanist code cannot create a utopian society. It is too corrupt and sinful to achieve anything remotely close to paradise.

The desire to live under a humanist code only shows one thing- that the unbeliever still does not want Jesus or God in their lives and they do not want to live as humble servants to the one who created them.

We have a lot of work to do still before the Lord comes.