It's the heart vs the Bible

[TitanTiger 21,241]

This is quite an insightful article on the chasm between secular "values" and those rooted in eternal standards.

It's the heart versus the Bible

Dennis Prager

March 16, 2004

I recently interviewed a 26-year-old Swedish student about her views on life. I asked her if she believed in God or in any religion.

"No, that's silly," she replied.

"Then how do you know what is right and wrong?" I asked.

"My heart tells me," she responded.

In a nutshell, that's the major reason for the great divide within America and between America and much of Europe. The majority of people use their heart -- stirred by their eyes -- to determine what is right and wrong. A minority uses their mind and/or the Bible to make that determination.

Pick almost any issue and these opposing ways of determining right and wrong become apparent.

Here are three examples.

Same-sex marriage: The heart favors it. You have to have a hard heart not to be moved when you see many of the loving same-sex couples who want to commit their lives to one another in marriage. The eye sees the couples; the heart is moved to redefine marriage.

Animal rights: The heart favors them. It is the rare person, for example, whose heart is not moved by the sight of an animal used for medical research. The eye sees the cuddly animal; the heart then equates animal and human life.

Abortion: How can you look at a sad 18-year-old who had unprotected sex and not be moved? What kind of heartless person is going to tell her she shouldn't have an abortion and should give birth?

The eyes and the heart form an extraordinarily powerful force. They can only be overcome when formulating policies by a mind and a value system that are stronger than the heart-eye duo.

With the decline of Judeo-Christian religions, the heart, shaped by what the eye sees (hence the power of television), has become the source of people's moral decisions.

This is a potentially fatal problem for our civilization. As beautiful as the heart might be, it is neither intellectually nor morally profound.

It is therefore frightening that hundreds of millions of people find no problem in acknowledging that their heart is the source of their values. Their heart knows better than thousands of years of accumulated wisdom; better than religions shaped by most of the finest thinkers of our civilization (and, to the believer, by God); and better than the book that has guided our society -- from the Founders of our uniquely successful society to the foes of slavery to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and most of the leaders of the struggle for racial equality.

This elevation of one's heart is well beyond self-confidence -- it is self-deification.

One of the first things you learn in Judaism and Christianity is that the eyes and heart are usually terrible guides to the good and the holy. " . . . (D)o not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after" (Numbers 15:39); "the heart is deceitful above all things . . . " (Jeremiah 17:9).

Supporters of same-sex marriage see the loving gay couple, and therefore do not interest themselves in the effects of changing marriage and family on the children they do not see. And since they venerate their hearts, the biblical ideal of male-female love, marriage and family is of no significance to them.

Animal rights supporters' hearts are deeply moved by the animals they see experimented on, not by the millions of people they do not see who will suffer and die if we stop such experiments...

...For 25 years I have been asking high school seniors across America if they would save their dog or a stranger first if both were drowning. The majority has nearly always voted against the person. Why? Because, they say with no self-doubt, they love their dog, not the stranger. An entire generation has been raised with no reference to any moral code above their heart's feelings. They do not know, and would not care if they did know, that the Bible teaches that human beings, not animals, are created in God's image.

So, too, those who cannot call any abortion immoral are moved by what they see -- the forlorn woman who wants an abortion, not by the human fetus they do not see. That is why abortion rights groups are so opposed to showing photos of fetuses that have been aborted -- such pictures might move the eye and the heart of viewers to judge the morality of many abortions differently..

...Meanwhile, the combination of mind, Judeo-Christian values and heart has produced over centuries the unique success known as America. Reliance on the heart will destroy this painstaking achievement in a generation.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisp...p20040316.shtml

[AURainman 6]

Amen.....

I will not force my religion on anyone, but a philosophy based on what "feels right" is nothing but a joke. Sadly, that is the state of America today. (Oddly enough, its the state of most religious people as well).

[TitanTiger 21,241]

The Big Lie is that there is such a thing as a place of neutrality on this. Morals and ethics, and the laws that flow from them, come from somewhere. They are rooted in some standard. Either that standard is absolute, immutable, and eternal, or it's shifting, changing, and subject to the whims of popular feeling. Pull up the anchor and the boat drifts.

[sevenDs 0]

While I understand and agree that following one's heart may not always be the best route, what in the new testament has allowed Christians (myself included) to avoid some of the teachings of the old testament?

I ask becuase of a humorous and fictitious piece about Dr. Laura which asks:

"d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?"

Complete article

Not trying to ruffle feathers, just looking for input and sharing the humor.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

Well, there are actually several things in the New Testament that allow for that. The central event in the NT that changes how the OT laws are understood is Christ's life, atoning death, and resurrection. With one fell swoop, Jesus did not abrogate, but fulfilled all the old laws of ceremonial cleanliness (sometimes referred to as the "holiness codes") and sacrificies. Even Jesus said so when He said, "I came not to end the Law, but to fulfill it."

Paul goes on to say in Galatians 3:24 that the Law, "was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we may be justified by faith..." The phrase "put in charge" actually is a word in the Greek that referred to a tutor that used to walk children to and from school to make sure they stayed safe. It was a temporary thing to guide us and instill certain word pictures about God in us until the embodiment of that came in Jesus Christ. There are also numerous references to how Jesus is now the High Priest and the atoning sacrifice so we don't observe those laws anymore in Hebrews.

The point being, the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ. However, the moral law still stands. Laws regarding our conduct, our sexuality, murder, stealing, lying, and so on are still in effect. Christ lived those out perfectly for us as an example to follow. And He reaffimed the moral law repeatedly, as do the other NT writers.

This is a very long subject that I'm only scratching the surface of, but I hope this brings a little clarity to the situation.

[DKW 86 7,899]

While I understand and agree that following one's heart may not always be the best route, what in the new testament has allowed Christians (myself included) to avoid some of the teachings of the old testament? 

I ask becuase of a humorous and fictitious piece about Dr. Laura which asks:

"d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?"

They make horrible workers....

They are annoying as heck, always saying heh?

You have to listen to them say they think that they are as good as Americans.

yada yada yada

[WarTim 3,524]

Well, there are actually several things in the New Testament that allow for that. The central event in the NT that changes how the OT laws are understood is Christ's life, atoning death, and resurrection. With one fell swoop, Jesus did not abrogate, but fulfilled all the old laws of ceremonial cleanliness (sometimes referred to as the "holiness codes") and sacrificies. Even Jesus said so when He said, "I came not to end the Law, but to fulfill it."

Paul goes on to say in Galatians 3:24 that the Law, "was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we may be justified by faith..." The phrase "put in charge" actually is a word in the Greek that referred to a tutor that used to walk children to and from school to make sure they stayed safe. It was a temporary thing to guide us and instill certain word pictures about God in us until the embodiment of that came in Jesus Christ. There are also numerous references to how Jesus is now the High Priest and the atoning sacrifice so we don't observe those laws anymore in Hebrews.

The point being, the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ. However, the moral law still stands. Laws regarding our conduct, our sexuality, murder, stealing, lying, and so on are still in effect. Christ lived those out perfectly for us as an example to follow. And He reaffimed the moral law repeatedly, as do the other NT writers.

This is a very long subject that I'm only scratching the surface of, but I hope this brings a little clarity to the situation.

VERY VERY good answer. JESUS does, indeed, change everything.

[AURainman 6]

Well, there are actually several things in the New Testament that allow for that.  The central event in the NT that changes how the OT laws are understood is Christ's life, atoning death, and resurrection.  With one fell swoop, Jesus did not abrogate, but fulfilled all the old laws of ceremonial cleanliness  (sometimes referred to as the "holiness codes") and sacrificies.  Even Jesus said so when He said, "I came not to end the Law, but to fulfill it." 

Paul goes on to say in Galatians 3:24 that the Law, "was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we may be justified by faith..."  The phrase "put in charge" actually is a word in the Greek that referred to a tutor that used to walk children to and from school to make sure they stayed safe.  It was a temporary thing to guide us and instill certain word pictures about God in us until the embodiment of that came in Jesus Christ.  There are also numerous references to how Jesus is now the High Priest and the atoning sacrifice so we don't observe those laws anymore in Hebrews.

The point being, the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ.  However, the moral law still stands.  Laws regarding our conduct, our sexuality, murder, stealing, lying, and so on are still in effect.  Christ lived those out perfectly for us as an example to follow.  And He reaffimed the moral law repeatedly, as do the other NT writers. 

This is a very long subject that I'm only scratching the surface of, but I hope this brings a little clarity to the situation.

VERY VERY good answer. JESUS does, indeed, change everything.

Finally, something WarTim and I agree on.