A Classification of Morals

I have had another challenge of beliefs, and it has given me another chance to examine them and, if I’m fortunate enough to grasp understanding of this subject in which I am about to delve, to further hone my beliefs toward the truth. I will mention quite frankly; I feel no authority over this subject, and its very nature is contrary to human comprehension. However, though I am careful not to speak what I believe to be truth too hastily lest I prove myself wrong later, I feel it beneficial to explore this in a logical fashion, though I will avoid going too deep into it as it is difficult to understand, and my knowledge of it hardly suffices to write with great confidence in my belief. I believe my last post satisfactorily settled the validity of, and belief in the scripture. It is crucial to this exploration.

The challenge is the nature of good and evil. It is difficult to define evil in a secular sense, but in that sense it may be defined as the absence of good. Good, as I asserted earlier, is a feeble word when an attempt is made to define it in such a sense. If evil is the absence of good, then how can we prove an action is evil? If we lack the means or definition by which we may show such absence, how can we show its deficiency? Logically it is impossible to prove something to be evil, since evil is, in the most secular sense, the absence of good. Men cannot prove non-existence, such as the non-existence of good in an action. To do such would require one to supersede his own consciousness as the limits of knowledge thus giving him an omniscient nature, which we all know to be impossible. Such would make us God himself. The scriptures are the only viable means of proving right and wrong to a degree of confidence satisfactory to me.

Since scripture is the perfect foundation of belief, and perfect measure of belief, we should search for dissidence between the action and the scriptures. Many times you will find the action to be explicitly wrong. But the whole point of my thoughts today is to challenge that. Understand that I have no intention of challenging scripture, but man’s mindset toward it. Suppose we instead ask the question “Is this right?” We seem to search the scripture to prove something wrong, but it would seem more fitting to prove something right. I, as a Christian, want to be more than “not wrong.” I would like to be right. Maybe we should ask ourselves, instead of “Is this sin?”, “Will this glorify God?” I believe we, as Christians, should be known for what we think is right, not what we think is wrong; what we love, and not what we hate; who we are, and not who we aren't. We cannot show love to those in need of God’s love if we condemn the world, or isolate ourselves from it, or imitate it. We must define ourselves as doers of what is right, and not those so hasty and eager to condemn that which is wrong. Not even Christ came to condemn, but to save and give righteousness.