Right as defined by use of an exclamation is used to indicate one’s agreement with a suggestion or to acknowledge a statement or order.

When did this become the common use definition of right? “If I agree then you are right.”

As an adjective right means morally good, justified, acceptable; true or correct as a fact.

The problem the world has with the adjective definition is that it demands a moral absolute and that takes away the individuals authority to define what is good, just and acceptable.

The moral absolute releases the right to be right to a higher authority. If you are unwilling to surrender right to a higher authority then your righteousness is nothing more than an exclamation, it carries no weight without an audience of agreement. If you cannot surrender to a higher authority right becomes a screaming match.

“But I do not believe in a higher power!”

That doesn’t make you right.

Righteousness is a noun meaning the quality of being morally right or justifiable. These two qualities both throw us back into the arena of right and submission to a higher authority. We have added another interesting word into the mix, justifiable. It means defensible which is a legal term. Now we have moved “right” into the legal arena.

This is where those refusing to surrender to a higher power have their strongest objection.

“Who are you to judge me?”

I don’t, but it begs me to ask those people how they plan on dealing with a cruel and violent world that opposes your opinion of right with a gun, a bomb and a sword? Obviously they have a different opinion of right and are willing to kill you if you do not surrender to them. Isn’t that surrendering to a higher power?

So my opinion is that I would rather surrender to the high power who says “I love you” than to the one that says “I kill you”!

Conclusions were drawn by a dictionary, not a bible.

Isaiah 41:28 For I beheld, and there was no man; even among them, and there was no counsellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer a word.

Silence is the most difficult of answers to understand. It leaves you with a nagging feeling that something is going on that you are not prepared to handle. That is natural. As much as you would like to think you understand human nature, circumstances for which you have no knowledge plays as much a part in the minds of those opposing you as anything. It is the X factor.

It is hard to place yourself in someone else’s position, to understand what they are thinking and planning, if you have not shared in their life. It was an ancient wise man that would give his son to his enemy to be raised as a son. The only way that enmity could be dissolved between the two worlds was to send a trusted son to live among them. In that way his son could speak to his father about the hearts of a people he did not understand.

I’ve been thinking about men who say that if they were God they would do things differently. I understand that, but would their reign yield better results? These men do not think things out to the end. Most of them do their vanity exercise in the hopes of destroying everyone they hate. Doing that makes more enemies and leads to distrust among those who are not destroyed. He would end up with more enemies and eventually alone.

A king without subjects is a land owner.

So realistically is there a better way to build trust and loyalty among men than what God has done?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.