Depends on what YOU mean by woke… 

It really did on the day!

Those who thought that being woke was simply to be someone who rose up against racism and abuses of power in society usually voted “Yes!”. Jesus was certainly against racism, saying that he had come for all people, just as he sent his followers to spread the good news of his life, death and resurrection to all people, to the ends of the earth. 

He also opposed the ruling religious class for their spiritual hypocrisy and the way they were unaccepting of other racial groups. 

Those who voted “No!” had some idea that Jesus believed, for example, in the creation of the world by God, marriage being between a man and a woman, and immorality being wrong. They felt that the current meaning of “woke” as being progressive would not tolerate such an attitude. 

What do you think?

Depends on how you define “love”

That word has about as broad a use in society as the word “Christian”!

The scope goes from the cheap “made with love” label of a mechanically manufactured biscuit, to the sublime relationship between some couples of self-giving kindness and faithfulness. In between are the rest of us with our use, or misuse, of the word…

In the past, “to make love” related to having sex, with or without the pure love component.

When “love” is really sexual immorality, combined with only impure “lust”, then could we call it false “love”?

If a short, or even longer term relationship is spoken about in the terms of love, when it really is only lust, then that would seem to be using someone for one’s own fun. The other person doesn’t matter. It’s all about me. We normally call that selfish and manipulating behaviour. 

A universal law maker? 

If we accept there is universal right and wrong, good and evil, we then have to acknowledge there must be a moral law maker, such as God.

However, if we consider ourselves to be just an insignificant part of a vast, random and purposeless universe, why should we feel strongly about what is right and wrong? To be consistent, Secular Atheism should hold this view. 

Personally, I believe there is a universal right and wrong. I base that on the Bible, the book passed down accurately through the centuries. That topic deserves a full Post for those who may be sceptical of my statement!

The Ten Commandments are a good start to universal right and wrong. I read each as “You will be happy if  you …”

The “Golden Rule” of Jesus works well too.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 7:12 (NIV) (http://www.laridian.com)

Where do you get your right and wrong from?

We decide such challenges by our beliefs and worldview 

It involves something like, “Not just where you get to, but how you get there.” Also, “Not just what you get, but how you get it.” It includes ethics and morality. Can there be morally wrong actions, for morally right outcomes?

It’s an interesting old saying, apparently famously used by Machiavelli.

This has led to the expression of a ‘Machiavellian personality’, where a person uses whatever compromised ‘means’ to get to their desired ‘end’ or goal. At that end of the spectrum, it used to be thought of as a negative character trait, but maybe not nowadays. Hence the topic!

Knowingly, or not, this seems to be used more and more these days for justifying a hard push to get what is wanted. Maybe that’s related to more people having the worldview of an atheist, or a secularist, a none, or an agnostic? 

Wanting, above all, to please the pure and holy God of the Bible

I have to say that since I want to please the God of the Bible, I should be sure to only use methods pleasing to him to get what I want. That end should also be something that is in line with what is pleasing to him.

Call me out as a hypocrite if needed, or at least let us talk about it…