As we saw last time with the homosexual activist and Colorado State Senator Pat Steadman (D), that leads to situations where Biblical morality is being translated in many minds as "discrimination" and "prejudice" equivalent to racism that leads to "hate" and denial of "rights" to equality for, e.g., homosexuals desiring to create "civil unions" equivalent to marriage in all but name or, now, outright homosexualisation of marriage.
Those are pretty serious accusations, and have to be answered.
This starts with God as the foundation of morality and our sin challenge; thus, the significance of the gospel.
Chad Gross of Truthbomb Apologetics gives a useful video presentation, in the form of a teaching sermon in his local congregation (one that uses a helpful short video projection by Peter Kreeft):
(Notice, the introductory case, of a distant relative who is a radical relativist and apparent nihilist -- which Plato long ago warned is a consequence of the rise of materialism in the community. Think about the consequences of such "might and manipulation make 'right' . . . " The example of the student term paper in which he reacted to an unfair grade shows a key defect of radical relativism: it is very easy to say, but impossible to live.)
As Gross outlines his argument:
Let us think about these issues, and about where our civilisation has reached, when in the name of "science" many are willing to argue that there is no objective basis for right and wrong.
- Two Types of Relativism [--> on truth and on morality]
- What Makes a Good Argument?
- The Moral Argument
- Every law has a law giver.
- There is a Moral Law
- Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver
- "Cultures have different values so how can moral values be universal?"
- "Difficult problems in morality prove that there is no universal Moral Law."
- "Some values conflict."
- "Morality is relative to time and culture."
- How Does the Moral Argument Directly Relate to the Gospel?
Well worth thinking about. END
F/N 1: Kreeft has a nice outline of twenty arguments that cumulatively point to God, here. (The real power of such arguments often lies in identifying what one commits oneself to in denying them. Cumulatively, it is a pretty stiff price [e.g. cf here], which is part of why ever so many atheists today like to suggest that atheism "really" is nothing but the absence of belief in God [with the presumption that there is not enough/any evidence, so such can safely be dismissed]. The trick to that is that atheistical beliefs are parts of worldviews, where every worldview faces a duty of care to provide grounding. In other words, the shift the burden of "proof" tactic is a ducking of the responsibilities that any serious-minded person must face.)
F/N 2: Kreeft's short talk is here: