Most of you know this is a little dated and much discussion has been made over the issue. I offer this re-post in order to bring to memory that human life has great value and as my little article goes on to show, Atheism may have a feeling about it, but cannot in truth condemn it. Those who have not lost their moorings in objective moral truth can condemn such actions and can value human life equally for all humanity, not just an elite.
In the wake of this massacre of the innocents a rage has arisen to lash out at anything and anyone that might be culpable. The immediate response? Its to place a safety net around ourselves, a shield to distance ourselves from the fear grips all of us, anger burns within that such a tragedy, no, atrocity occurred while our children attend school. Small town USA, not New York or Chicago or Los Angeles were big city crime can include some very large numbers, but New Town, population a little over 1900 people. A fairly affluent community, middle incomers with around 100K income.
What has been the response? Ban guns, ban assault rifles, ban big rifle clips, ban weapons that can easily be made automatic-firing. The NRA is partly responsible say some; “It’s those gun nuts that put weapons like this in the hands of loonies that murder”. Some even looked so far as genetics to try and find the “type” of person that could do such a thing, they say “lets find out who they are!” While the elected officials scramble to find some solution that would have enough horsepower to carry them away from falling victim again to this kind of insane
murder/suicide, no simple answers appear to work. A country branded in their minds with secularism cannot discover the truth that bond men together and place value upon all human life. A Pluralistic society pretends to tolerate those differences within people, but because they are moving away from the Christian foundations that made pluralism remotely do-able all we find is hatred and violence arising because the pragmatic thing to do is remove the problem people. We don’t know what a ‘killer’ looks like because he looks like everyone.
But before we get on the gun ban wagon, there’s another headline.
Just when you thought getting rid of guns would solve the problem we find its no problem to kill children with a knife. 22 children killed, another 28 elsewhere. Bombs take more in another kind of violence in another part of the world, huffing glue takes its thousands in South America; just where we are to turn seems like a spin to hit the pinata while we are in pitch darkness, not knowing even if there is a pinata to hit.
Just what is the Christian Apologist to say to all of this? I read on the internet an Atheist saying “This is proof there is no God, I rest my case”. But little did the Atheist finish typing that out, the glaring inconsistency of his own morality crippled any hope he had of making his case. For no sooner than he finished judging God, he parked his philosophy and dared anyone to prove it invalid. Well, some Christian Apologist did just that. With just a few sentences the Apologist answered that he must agree that God is a moral law giver in order for God to be culpable. In short, The Atheist denied that there was any objective moral law that could actually once-and-for-all label this atrocity “morally wrong”. To the Atheist, he chose to call this crime against children ‘wrong’ because he ‘thought so’. What he meant was that for him this atrocity was morally wrong, but could not base that decision in any morality outside of himself. He had to allow in his mind the relativism that permits a diametrically opposed morality so he could stay consistent. But in doing so, his consistency paves the way for im-moral monsters.
Now to the Atheist this seems very astute, but underneath it contains the very license to commit such crimes. Why? Because the only difference between this Atheist and the Murderer of New Town is one of opinion. It was the Atheist’s opinion that this atrocity was wrong, but for the murderer it was not, it was a solution to his problems. Do you see, when the Atheist opted to make morality a matter of personal choice he forged a link between his ideology and the non-condemnation of murderous actions; the link is simply how his a-moral opinion of the matter could not demand moral restraint of the murderers actions. Where is the restraint? We see that in the Atheist mindset It’s no where to be found, where’s the anger and rage? It’s just an emotion that has no more validity than the emotion of the shooter while killing. The Atheist validated the killers morality because the Atheist lifted up personal opinion of right and wrong and placed it into the hands of autonomous human beings, he took it out of the context of God’s will for men into the arena of personal choice and thereby had no power to veto the killer who simply opted to act upon his own morals that were right in his own eyes.
Now, any one not duped into the Atheist amoral thinking says “NO, this is wrong all the time every time”. He appeals to a morality not self-discovered but transcendent, outside of himself that he imagines that is imposed upon every other human being. This kind of Morality is Absolute and is given by God and imposed upon the consciences of all men everywhere. We know that ethically right and wrong is worked out differently in various cultures, but, we know that murder is always wrong, theft is always wrong, lies and deception are wrong. When we speak of citizen to citizen human relation, and one man dealing fairly with another man, these Moral Absolutes are assumed by everyone.
If you steal from an Atheist its still theft even if his amoral philosophy leaves the loophole for you to exploit him through his personally-chosen-morality. While your personal morality may justify you stealing from him, it is fortunate that the world at-large has not believed the Atheist amoral philosophy. Otherwise he ( the thief) may sit in court and hear the judge say “what is right for him is his own personal choice and you (the atheist) have no say in the matter, not you or God or the state, therefore he (the thief) may keep what he possesses.”. It would not take seconds before civil order would collapse into anarchy. As ridiculous as this analogy is, a real truth emerges; human beings cannot function on moral relativism and societies that attempt to do so plunge themselves into mindless permissions of the wildest and most insane treatment of human beings.
When someone decides that God is culpable for the evil that has occurred, take a hard look at the people who committed those acts. Did they do what God’s commands have said? Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt no murder, thou shalt not bear false witness? You will suddenly see that they did exactly what God has forbidden them to do. Someone will say OK, but why didn’t God intervene? I mean those were just children; multiplied millions of testimonies will attest to the fact that God has intervened in multitudes of evil events. The last chapter on this terrible event has not been written and how God brings this out for good for his people can only be answered by God himself. But to judge God or pretend he does not exist because evil occurred begs the question “how do you know evil unless you believe in a good that is outside of yourself and outside everyone else?” The standard of Good cannot be located in any sinful human being. There is only One human being where God’s goodness and God’s judgment meet, that is Jesus Christ. If you create your own morality, you cannot impose that morality on anyone else. Because Jesus Christ is God and has come in the flesh, he alone imposes his morality on the whole world according to his standard. All other pretenders, and that’s exactly what they are, will be judged according to his moral standard; a moral standard that is in the minds and hearts of everyone in the whole world. Pretending God doesn’t exist or pretending your own personal morality is as good as anyone else s…well, that’s put to the test all over the world and it comes up as a horrifying end note to the pretense.
The Christian has an answer to evil, not a complete explanation for all the events that occurred, but an answer that can take the victims forward one day at a time into hope and healing. The Atheist, he cannot even offer a morality that absolutely condemns such an atrocity, let alone offer a solution built on moral relativism that is not fully self-destructive to the community at-large. Let God be glorified in restoring these families, may God heal and help everyone of them and those affected by this atrocity. May Jesus Christ be seen as the true life and hope that this world desperately needs. In Jesus Christ is forgiveness and the offer of eternal life where deliverance from this present evil world awaits. The Atheist offers meaninglessness which is a breeding ground for monsters; the Christian offers their Lord and Savior who is the hope of the afflicted.