Truth For The World

You spend money on Netflix, fast food, coffee... so why not put a little of your hard-earned cash towards something that will make an eternal difference? Truth For The World needs your help.
Teaching All Nations

A Logical Answer to the Statement: "We Must Never Judge"

"Don’t judge me!" she shouted. "It’s my body, and if I choose to have a thousand abortions, I can." After she calmed down, she told me again "you (Christians) should never judge." She claimed that since we all have different ideas, Christians cannot judge other people. In fact, her exact words were:

Every person has their own belief, and no one has the right to tell another person that they are doing wrong.

While I agree that we all have ideas, and I understand the general sentiment of the statement, I certainly do not agree with the statement. So, I began to consider the heart of her argument, the "nugget of truth" that she thought should penetrate my ideology: "No one has the right to judge whether another person’s actions are wrong." Is that true?

The conclusions that I came to are quite telling. When carried to their logical conclusion, they lead to total anarchy if her conclusions are true. If she is correct in her statement, then there is no objective standard of morality. How do we come to that conclusion? Like this (through a series of syllogisms):

Her thoughts seem to be that:

  • Every action that a person does is an action that is acceptable to God and man.
  • XYZ is an action
  • Therefore, XYZ is acceptable to God and man.

So, she claimed that every person has the right to practice what they want, without anyone judging them. When broken down to a logical conclusion, this means that every action that any person practices is acceptable. Not only that, but her argument seems to be that if a person speaks against any action, the person speaking against the action is in the wrong. Or, to put it plainly:

  • A person is wrong to speak against any action for any reason.
  • I am a person who speaks against an action.
  • Therefore I am wrong.

Her statement then would say something like: “You must be loving and accepting of anyone’s actions, or you will be called unloving and bigoted.”

Since I am a person and I do not accept fill-in-the-blank sinful action, I am termed as unloving and bigoted. So I conclude from her ideology that:

  1. Every action that a person does is acceptable in the eyes of God and Man
  2. I am wrong for speaking against an action
  3. I am unloving and bigoted

When boiled down to the main arguments, this seem to be where her ideology leads. But there is a problem. The problem is that we must figure out what XYZ is, and if there is any action that is actually wrong.

For instance, if every action is approved of God and man, then we must conclude that pedophilia, killing innocent people, and rape are also actions that are approved by God and man. We could therefore insert any of these actions in the place of XYZ:

  • XYZ = Pedophilia
  • XYZ = Killing of innocents
  • XYZ = Rape

Now, to be consistent with her argument, we would have to conclude that pedophilia, killing of innocents, and rape are all acceptable actions to God and man. Therefore, she should argue thus:

  • Every action that a person does is an action that is acceptable to God and man.
  • Pedophilia is an action
  • Therefore, pedophilia is acceptable to God and man.

If she spoke out against pedophilia, we would remind her of her own words and her own logical conclusions:

  • A person is wrong to speak against any action for any reason.
  • I am a person who speaks against pedophilia.
  • Therefore I am wrong.

We would remind her of her own words: “You must be loving and accepting of anyone’s actions,” or you will be called unloving and bigoted. We would then explain that if she is not willing to accept the actions of a pedophile, then she too should be termed as "unloving and bigoted." (We could put “Rape” and “Murder of innocents” in the place of pedophilia here as well.)

Here is the problem with this type of argument: It tries to argue that all actions are acceptable, yet it cannot be consistent with what it knows to be the truth (that not all actions are acceptable). So, those who cannot agree that all actions are acceptable then begin to formulate a “right” and “wrong” (morality) based upon some type of system. This leads to the next set of reasoning based upon this fact: The system that they build their morality on is either from God, or from Man.

Man:

  • If Morality comes only from human thought processes and is to be dictated only by human judgment and reasoning, then all actions are subjective to human interpretation, and are deemed right or wrong by the subjects themselves.
  • Morality comes only from human thought processes and is to be dictated only by human judgment and reasoning.
  • Therefore: All actions are subjective to human interpretation, and are deemed right or wrong by the subjects themselves.

Again:

  • If one subject or group of subjects (humans) deems a certain action to be right, it is right.
  • One subject or group of subjects deems a certain action to be right.
  • Therefore it is right.

The action: Pedophilia

  • If one subject or group of subjects (humans) deems pedophilia to be right, it is therefore right.
  • One subject or group of subjects deem pedophilia to be right.
  • Therefore pedophilia is right.

(Again we could list killing of innocents, rape, etc.)

So in the end analysis, there is truly no right or wrong, because everyone is right, based upon his own desires. That is the problem with “subjective truth”—every subject gets to determine whether his action is right or wrong. Since no one desires to be wrong, he is therefore right. Thus, one cannot be "wrong" to claim that someone else is wrong" since there is no such thing as right or wrong.

God:

On the other hand, if God is the source of morality, He has an objective standard of truth. What is the difference in objective truth and subjective truth?

In subjective truth, the subject gets to determine truth about the object. For instance, I might say “Strawberry ice cream is the best ice cream.” I have stated a subjective truth, because I, the subject, have placed my opinion of truth upon the object.

However, in objective truth, the subject does not determine truth about the object. It can only accept it as truth, or reject it, realizing that their acceptance or rejection does not change the fact.

For example, I might draw a perfect square on the board with four 90 degree angles. I will say, “This is a square.” A person might not like that it is a square; a person might even say that it is a circle. But the object itself is, in truth, a square. Again, if God is the place a person gets his morality from, He has an objective standard of truth.

  • If God deems a certain action to be right, it is therefore right.
  • God deems a certain action to be right.
  • Therefore it is right.

On the other hand:

  • If God deems a certain action to be wrong, it is therefore wrong.
  • God deems a certain action to be wrong.
  • Therefore it is wrong.

Continuing with our previous example:

  • If God deems pedophilia as wrong, it is therefore wrong.
  • God deems pedophilia as wrong.
  • Therefore it is wrong.

God as the standard of Morality determines what is right and what is wrong!

  • If God is the objective standard of morality, then man does not determine what is right or wrong.
  • God is the objective standard of morality.
  • Therefore, man does not determine what is right or wrong.

Applying this reasoning:

  • If God has determined that pedophilia is objectively wrong, then pedophilia is wrong.
  • God has determined that pedophilia is objectively wrong.
  • Therefore pedophilia is wrong.

We continue to reason out that:

  • If God has determined that pedophilia is wrong, but men determine pedophilia is right, both cannot be correct.
  • God has determined that pedophilia is wrong, but men determine pedophilia is right.
  • Therefore, both cannot be correct.

Again:

  • If God is the objective standard of morality, then God is right.
  • God is the objective standard of morality.
  • Therefore, God is right.

Therefore:

  • If God is right, then man is wrong.
  • God is right.
  • Therefore, man is wrong.

So we see that:

  • If God tells me not to accept pedophilia as part of moral good, then I must not accept pedophilia as a part of moral good.
  • God tells me not to accept pedophilia as part of moral good.
  • Therefore I must not accept pedophilia as a part of moral good.

Again:

  • If God tells me not to accept pedophilia as part of moral good, then I must judge that pedophilia is morally evil.
  • God tells me not to accept pedophilia as part of moral good.
  • Therefore, I must judge that pedophilia is morally evil.

Based upon these truths I realize then that:

  • If pedophilia is morally evil, then I must judge those who practice pedophilia as being wrong.
  • Pedophilia is morally evil.
  • Therefore, I must judge those who practice pedophilia as being wrong.

Yet they are not hopeless, because God wants all men to see His Truth:

  • If God tells me to reach out to those who are pedophiles, to try to help them see the Truth (in a non-violent and non-threatening way), then I am to try to reach out to those who are pedophiles to help them see truth.
  • God tells me to reach out to those who are pedophiles, to try to help them see the Truth
  • Therefore I am to try to reach out to those who are pedophiles to help them see the Truth.

So, as we conclude this article, we see that if man is the authority for the morality of this life, then nothing but moral chaos will exist. Also, no one would be able to judge another’s actions as wrong. Her basic ideology of “never judging” would be upheld, and there would be no right or wrong.

If, on the other hand, God is the authority for morality in this life, then there are things that are right and things that are wrong, depending upon Him. If He tells us what is right and wrong, we are therefore to judge actions as right or wrong, based upon God’s moral authority.

Further instruction: Place whatever may be the right or wrong situation (XYZ) in the place of pedophilia, and the syllogism still works.  You could do so with any such situation, whether homosexuality, adultery, fornication, murder, liars, etc. If God has concluded that these actions are wrong, then they are objectively wrong, regardless of what man decides about them.

Comments (1)

  1. George Agyekum:
    Nov 16, 2016 at 01:48 PM

    Very useful, enlightening and inspired word


Add a Comment




Allowed tags: <b><i><br>Add a new comment: