When a culture tries to rid itself of the notion of God, it finds something more disturbing than authority. Attempting to remove divine authority from our lives actually creates moral anarchy among us.
In the Bible, the devil is depicted as a fallen angel (2 Pet. 2:4) who tried to do the same thing.
- Consumed by pride (Ezek. 28:17), he wanted to take God’s throne for himself (Isa. 14:13).
- He is known for having the audacity of questioning and even challenging God’s methods (Job 1:9-11; 2:4-5).
- When he tempted the first couple of the Bible, he deceived them by playing to a desire shared with him – to know what God knows (Gen. 3:5).
If they know what God knows, they don’t have to rely on him anymore for this coveted knowledge. More than merely the apprehension of information, they wanted to craft the very definition of knowledge. They wanted the authority to discern what was right and what was wrong. If they could obtain this power, they would pridefully wield the ability to take God’s place. They can redraft the sacred textbook and procure a desired state of fluid theology.
Adam and Eve chose to believe a lie over the truth. The falsity was more palatable. The devil’s deceit was indeed more convenient. This couple preferred a deity of their own making versus the Maker himself. They tried to rewrite what he said and fundamentally remake who he is. They wanted to replace God.
This line of thinking did not dissipate with Eden’s eviction. The desire to make God play by our ever-changing rules still lures us today. We throw out the truth and replace it with our opinions.
Our culture is currently experiencing moral anarchy because we have attempted to remove the possibility of divine authority.
Our subconscious reveals our double-standards concerning doctrine. We don’t want to be told what to believe, by God or anyone else, but we think that our beliefs should be eagerly accepted and celebrated by all. How can we coexist in a world when our opinions concerning God are so vast in scope?
The campaign to coexist religiously urges people to avoid any sense of staunch doctrinal loyalty. The problem is that many religions do call for unwavering allegiance. While I am the first to admit that many of history’s darkest moments came under the influence of those thinking they were doing God’s work, we cannot throw out religious devotion due to some extremists’ religious distortion.
Truth can never be determined by a vote or a committee.
The essence of truth makes its very nature absolute. Truth must also be timeless and universal. Any doctrine worth believing must be able to be regarded as true by any person in any location at any time, or else it is simply not the truth. If one belief is acceptable for you but not for me, it is a blatant falsehood. One or both of us is undoubtedly incorrect.
If I think God is pleased with our society and you think he is disgusted, can we both be correct? If I am a staunch believer that God intervenes throughout history and you believe that he is the ancient watchmaker who set the cogs and wheels in motion but then turned it loose to let it be, can we be talking about the same God? If I think God empathizes with my greatest sorrow and you think he is too lofty to depress himself with whiners like me, don’t you see that at least one of us is terribly, terribly wrong?
This conflict complicates our discovery for the answer to the question concerning the character of God. It reveals the fact that if we rely on each other’s opinions concerning the divine, we only possess mere personal sentiments with which to disagree. Opinions devoid of any apparent authority will continue to enable religious conflicts that have plagued history.
Many people follow the Chutes and Ladders God. We reckon that God depends on our ethical integrity to determine how he should best deal with us.
While we all claim to have a standard of right and wrong, that justification can only come from God. If God exists, and I believe He does, then He is the only one with the right and responsibility to determine what justice is.