A rationalization for sin

by Stan Mitchell

One of the silliest statements people make about moral actions is that you really don’t know if an activity is good or evil until you actually take part in it.

Thus when a Christian expresses concern for a movie that contains mountains of profanity or depicts promiscuity with approval, the movie’s apologist will muster up a wise look and ask, “Well, did you see it? How can you know it was morally wrong unless you saw it?”

When I was younger, this was the (supposedly) clinching argument for experimenting with drugs. “Well, have you taken it? How would you know if it was harmful unless you experienced it?”

As Yogi Berra, former Yankee catcher once said: ” You can observe a lot by watching.”

Yes you can. You don’t have to drink yourself under the table to know that alcoholism is hard on families. Just observe.

You don’t have to allow your mouth to pour out profanity to know that it degrades both those who speak and those who hear. Just observe.

The Wise Man of Proverbs speaks of walking by the field of a sluggard one day and describes a farm that was run down and decrepit.

“Then I saw and considered it,” he notes, “I looked and received instruction” (Proverbs 24:30-34, ESV).

And how can we know that a filth-infested movie is filth infested? There are reviews in newspapers and online. There is also that rating. Rarely — well, never– does such a movie’s redeeming qualities (some social commentary presumably) make up for the filth contained in it.

You will notice that automobile safety experts put dummies, not humans, in cars to test the cars’ safety. That’s because only dummies would climb into those experimental vehicles when they do crash-testing.

2 thoughts on “A rationalization for sin

Share your thoughts: