In polls of secular students it was discovered that they, without faith, differed widely on the right or wrong of various historical events, some of which included mass murder. A large percentage found no difficulty with some culture forms like the human sacrifices of the Aztecs and others. That was the culture and that was the way things were managed to fulfill the community sense of right and wrong, or of acceptance with their gods. Human sacrifice was the highest thing they felt could be accomplished. Since one human would not be sufficiently valuable, hundreds might be sacrificed on the same festival occasion. One of the greatest curses we have commonly visited upon ourselves is the belief that values are a private matter, to be determined by an individual for personal self. Society manages this somewhat in the belief that the perception functions in the light of whether or not it violates other human beings, or preferred forms of life. Basically society holds little accounting for any divine preferences for mankind. Any references to God relative to human functioning in society (persons acting as a group in the context of civil government) are usually taken as religiosity and are treated as something of an aberration. In discussions this often leads us up box canyons to unresolved barriers as related to values and directions, of permissiveness and morality.
There is no firm objectivity in the matter of values in a humanistic concept of nature. Objectivity is lost in the individual’s right to choose, so that whatever prevails at the time of experience or declaration is the value to be practiced. Currency holds even if it is at the expense of those who have no recourse, those who pay the ultimate sacrifice if the context requires some natural consequence – which it likely does. This context justifies terrorism, warfare, even cheating, so to be the winner with subjective views prevailing. If they prevail they feel verified because they prevailed. If they do not it is because they have lost the support of the strong or the majority for another plan which may be as bad or worse, possibly better, than the one replaced. I am almost haunted by the remarks of a student I found cheating on an examination, for which he was given a failing grade: My father told me that my future was tied to getting a college degree, and I should get it any way that I could. That’s why I cheated. He felt he needed to fudge other ideals for the earthly father’s goal. This event occurred in a college quite committed to Christian values, with clear value standards shared with students before their registrations. I understood this presentable young man, having gone through a similar experience in my high school Latin class. Miss Henry rightly made me suffer for it in the loss of credit for the examination. There was a higher standard than I had for my conduct. It remains. She was morally right. I learned more Latin taking the class over again, which could have been done without cheating on the first go-around.
Further the society is pushed around by the fluctuations, contradictions and omissions of a standard determined by general support. For example, the culture of homosexual context including same sex marriage, treated as a serious problem by psychiatrists during three quarters of my life, is now to be treated as acceptable with the problem now resting in the psychic condition of the traditionalist. Even further, the drive of the sexual predator on youth is taken as serious violation of the ethics of society, and is punishable by law. It is likely that the drive to pedophilia is in some way related to the drive to same sex experience in adults. The ideal of the love of the older male for the younger male was used by Plato as a high example of love. The issue is not new. The education of the young, omitting the objective value system as vital to it, will produce an unsatisfactory and shifting lifestyle for the populace. Those who study the matter of values wonder about outcomes. Future society will be different than present. The biblical Christian can’t believe that God has changed his mind on a matter related to nature’s meaning. The Christian accepts the concept of human rights for all in common grace so can treat all persons with acceptance – for those who follow the laws of the land. The issue then falls to the concern about spiritual acceptance. The Christian wants to admit to spiritual fellowship all those that God will admit. Does same sex marriage violate genuine friendship and the meaning of biology? Do biological accommodations in sexual conduct suggest that God was in error in his gender creation? Could there be another answer? *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020