It's the heart versus the Bible

townhall.com ^ | 3/16/04 | Dennis Prager

[kattracks]

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.
Likewise, the hearts of the people who support PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are so moved by the plight of slaughtered chickens that the organization has a campaign titled "Holocaust on your plate," which equates our slaughtering of chickens with the Nazi slaughtering of Jews.

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.

It is undeniable that many people have used their minds and many have used the Bible in ways that have led to evil. And some of these people have been truly heartless. But not one of the great cruelties of the 20th century -- the Gulag, Auschwitz, Cambodia, North Korea, Mao's Cultural Revolution -- came from those who took their values from the Bible. And the great evil of the 21st century, though religion-based, doesn't come from the Bible either.

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.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact Dennis Prager | Read Prager's biography

[DannyTN]

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Note that Gen 2:24 wife is singular. Paul also wrote in the New Testament that each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

That is what God intended. That the Bible takes note of the hardness of man's heart and then instructs him on how to live if he does take multiple wives or divorces or etc, does not mean that the Bible condones such acts.

For you to take those verses out of context and imply that they mean anything close to what you said they mean, is slander against the Word of God.

[BSunday]

Psalm 137 is a lament offered by a captive Jew who was carried away into a foreign land (Babylon). He honestly confronts God with his bitter disappointment at his and his nation's captivity, and longs for Jerusalem. He ends his angry song by stating his hope that Babylon would same day go through the same torment that they had inflicted on the Jews.

This is an angry prayer offered up to God, not a command FROM God. God never endorses the sentiment.

Outstanding exegesis. Couldn't have put it better myself.

[cupcakes]

Psst, I doubt Dennis Prager thinks you need only Christianity to be moral--he's a Jew(a practicing one to boot). Perhaps you should take your own advice in regards to research?

[DannyTN]

The heart can be deceptive but it is also in our heart that we know the difference between right and wrong and it is there that God put knowledge of Himself.

What is important in keeping the heart pure is knowledge of God's word. We are instructed to hide the Word in our heart that we might not sin against Thee.

The Word is critical to keeping our perspective straight and our heart pure.

It's not that we shouldn't have compassion towards same-sex couples. It's that we should see that isn't what God designed, that God has something much better in mind namely opposite-sex couples. That the perversion of homosexuality if left unchecked tends to forment other perversions like child abuse. When we see from God's perspective it becomes clear why this shouldn't be allowed.

Same thing with animal rights, when we see that God specifically says he gave the animals to us for food and that man is to dominate the earth. When we see that God did not create man and animals equal, then we can see that eating animals or using them to help man is not wrong.

Abortion: It's not wrong to feel compassion towards a teenager trapped with an unwanted pregnancy. But it is wrong to not feel anything for the sanctity of the life of the unborn child. It is wrong not to have taught the teenager to avoid that pregancy, and to save themselves to enjoy a pure marriage the way it was meant to be.

[cupcakes]

BTW, the problem with heart is that while you may somehow end up in the same place as the Bible believing Christians regarding some moral issues, there are many whose hearts will tell them something different. In those cases how will it be that your heart on moral issues is more right then there's? Who will you be to judge those whose hearts dictate otherwise regarding those matters? What authority do you have?

[DannyTN]

I guess the point is that it shouldn't be "the heart vs the Bible" it should be "the heart filled with the Bible". Only then is there no conflict.

[qam1]

Even if ordered too, most of our soldiers would refuse to "dasheth babies heads on rocks" The verse in question is not about a specific city or country.

As I am sure they would refuse, Just like I am sure even if ordered they wouldn't kill all the men and non-virgins and keep the virgins for themselves like in Numbers 31. They would be using their hearts and mind not the Bible as a guide since when ever the "Heroes" of the Bible conquered a land they raped, pillaged and committed genocide upon the poor inhabitants.

Are you trying to convince yourself or just trying to turn people away from God?

Neither I am just pointed out the hypocrisy of self righteous Religious people.

But, You really should be asking Dennis Prager that question.

Attacking people who don't believe like he does in this way, Scapegoating is a true sign of someone who has doubts about himself.

As for driving people away from God, Do you really think a hate filled, vile article like this blaming all the world's problems on people that don't believe in their God in a way they find acceptable is really going to get you any converts?

Articles and people who feel like this do more to drive people away from God than any Atheist ever could.

And just like the Democrats that employ the same tactics, They will never learn and continue to do so. Which is why both Philosophies are in rapid decline.

[steve-b]

Not spin, historical analysis. The rise of secularism is what separates Western Civilization from the barbarism of certain other cultures I need hardly name.

[Moby Grape]

Jesus said (paraphrase): "For this purpose a man shall leave his parents, and likewise a WOMAN, and they shall become ONE."

Jesus did not say "Bruce will leave his parents and join with William".

[Moby Grape]

You are wrong...dead wrong...DEAD wrong....(and you haven't won a race lately either)

I suppose C.S. Lewis, the Cambridge professor and great author was lead by emotion....

[RonHolzwarth]

re: "There has never been and will never be a true ecumenical Bible since different faith communities view the Word Of God and doctrines according to their own received understanding."
---
That is so true! All this "translation" stuff falls right out the window for Jewish people, who look to their Rabbi to explain the various possible interpretations of the original Hebrew text.

I have just finished a Judaism class with a Hebrew speaking Rabbi, and I was quite amazed to learn that a LOT of the Torah (especially) can be interpreted in several different ways. It is NOT as though there is ONLY ONE correct translation at all, since the language is so different!

The Torah was written without vowels - and many of the words contained within it, can become other words, thus totally skewing the meaning!

In fact, Jewish people also have the Talmud, which explains the Torah (first 5 books of Old Testament) and it is composed of TWO AND A HALF MILLION WORDS! It is the LONGEST book ever written, and it is ONLY commentary, on the FIRST FIVE BOOKS of the Bible!!!

The Lord has given us a guidebook, but we must also use our minds to sort right from wrong.

See: http://www.hti.umich.edu/r/rsv/

That's one of my favorite websites, an online switchable Bible!

[RonHolzwarth]

WHOOPS!
switchable = searchable

[RonHolzwarth]

Matthew Chapter 27:
[5] ,,,he went and hanged himself.
Luke Chapter 10:
[37] ,,,,"Go and do likewise."

[Outer Limits]

The Revised Standard Version is based on the KJ

,p .The History of the Revised Standard Version ,p . It may seem a bit confusing. The Revised Version was the English Version of the Greek Text which was used by Westcott and Hort and came out in 1881. Westcott & Hort produced both a) their version of the Greek New Testament as well as b) their version of that same text in English Text.

The Revised Version was designed to replace the King James, but it soon ran into trouble. One of its main deficiencies are the many differences between the RSV and the King James Version.

There were hundreds of changes made in the RSV, which did not correspond either to the Textus Receptus (Greek) or to the King James Version.

[Source for this statement: 1. The Revision Revised by John William Burgon (Dean Burgon)/560 Excellent pages and 2. Which Version by Philip Munro]. We offer both books for sale.

The American version of the RSV became the ASV, the 1901 American Standard Version. This effort was largely headed by Philip Schaff, who was President of Union Theological Seminary. [The ASV essentially is the RSV with a very few minor cosmetic changes. Its descendant today is the NASB].

In anycase, the history of the Revised Version does not end with the Original RV which was produced in 1881.

The Revised Version of Westcott & Hort apparently had not made enough changes. It was not liberal enough. Consequently, it was revised and became today's RSV.

There was a translation committee appointed to the task. Those who undertook this revision were 9 men who "improved" the Revised Version with their translation committee. These men worked to issue their "better" translation, yet they rejected the message of the Bible and the message of Salvation through the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This translation committee issued the entire Revised Standard Version in 1952 (Though the New Testament was published in the U.S. in 1946). These were the 9 translators (We have also posted their main affiliation):

Walter Russel Bowie - Union Theological Seminary Millar Burrows - Yale University Henry J. Cadbury - Harvard University Clarence T. Craig - Oberlin Graduate School of Theology Edgar J. Godspeed - University of Chicago Frederick C. Grant - Union Theological Seminary James Moffat - Union Theological Seminary (Moffat died in 1944) Luther A. Weigle - Yale Divinity School (Weigle was its dean) Abdel Ross Wentz - Lutheran Theological Seminary

There is no doubt that these scholars gave themselves good publicity by publishing the RSV which was based on the Corrupt texts of Westcott & Hort. However, by traditional Christian standards of Biblical Christianity, these translators did not believe in the message of the Bible or the need to personally accept Jesus Christ. These men are not considered Christians.

You may note one of the great influences on the translation committee is Union Theological Seminary. This was one of the first Seminaries to openly question and attack the Divinity of Jesus, as a result of the corruption of so-called German

For more on Bible versions:

www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/modern_versions.htm

[Skooz]

The rise of secularism is what separates Western Civilization from the barbarism of certain other cultures I need hardly name.

Wrong. The Christian tradition is what separates Western Civilization from the barbarism of certain other cultures.

[redangus]

I agree. As a biologist it is apparent to me that the prime directive of every living thing is the continuation of the species through procreation. Anything that advances that endevour should be considered normal anything that does not would therefore be abnormal. To the best of my knowledge two men can have sex as often as they want and they will never produce a child, ditto for two women. However if a man and a woman have intercourse there is an excellent chance of recreating the species. Therefore based strictly on science homsexual sex is abnormal and heterosexual sex is normal. Most cultural have understood this over the years and have instituted taboos against same sex relations. Only the enlightened western world of the present and the decadent societies of ancient Rome and Greece have gone consistently against nature in this regard.

[philetus]

I think you were argueing self rightousness with someone else.
I didn't read all of Prager's article. Just enough to see where he was going. I can't disagree with the self rightous part.

I was commenting on your interpretation of the verses.

[tdadams]

Virtually all of the abolitionist societies that sprung up in the mid-18th century were evangelical Christians who saw the abolition of slavery as a mandate from God.

Well, tell me by what rationale they came to believe that abolition was a mandate from God? The Bible condones slavery, do you disagree?

So, if they somehow came up with a creative interpretation that led them to believe the Bible says exactly the opposite of what it really says, are they not then the ones who are following their heart and not the Bible?

I know there must be some painful cognitive dissonance living in an age where slavery is universally condemned in the west, yet adhering to a Bible that says it's OK. I realize it's tempting to paint a noble face on your fellow Christians and say it was the Bible leading them to be against slavery, but I'm afraid that's not the case. It was their heart and conscience, in contravention from the words of the Bible.

I'm having trouble understanding how the case is being made that abolitionists were both adhering to the Bible, and against slavery. An anti-slavery stance is a bit difficult to reconcile with a Bible that clearly supports it.

[NutCrackerBoy]

This has gotten real tiresome real fast. If your point is that the Old Testament contains some freaky stuff, so what else is new? Your post belittles thousands of years of serious moral inquiry and study. The fact remains, slavery was opposed by Christians on a moral basis. We are glad that they did. Yes?

[Skooz]

The Bible condones slavery, do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. The Bible recognises slavery as something people did, but never condones it. Not once. This is similar to God's recognition that married people will divorce. He allowed provision for divorce, though the Bible states plainly that He hates divorce.

I know there must be some painful cognitive dissonance living in an age where slavery is universally condemned in the west, yet adhering to a Bible that says it's OK.

The Bible does not say that slavery is OK. Just because you want desperately to believe something does not make it so.

An anti-slavery stance is a bit difficult to reconcile with a Bible that clearly supports it.

Utter nonsense!! I defy you to find one New Testament verse that purports to support any form of slavery. Don't waste your time. You can't.

The New Testament teaches love for other people, and the dignity of each individual who is so precious that God's own Son would die a horrible death for their salvation. It teaches a form of egalitarionism which states emphatically that no one is more noble or precious in God's sight than anyone else. That viewpoint stands in direct conflict with that of slavery. It is impossible to understand Scripture and support the institution of slavery at the same time.

I realize it's tempting to paint a noble face on your fellow Christians and say it was the Bible leading them to be against slavery, but I'm afraid that's not the case.

History annihilates that supposition.