“Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.  Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.  Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.  In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”--Ephesians 6:11-18


You may be aware of the full armor of God (above scripture) but did you ever stop to think about “the belt of truth” (i.e. what it represents and why it is listed first)?  The belt of truth keeps us from giving in/being taken captive to the world’s beliefs.  It holds the rest of the armor up; without it you are exposed and vulnerable to not just an attack, but to a spiritual death blow. Satan knows the easiest way to get us to act the way he wants is to get us to think the way he wants.  If he can trick people into taking off the belt of truth (e.g. believe that truth is not absolute and just relative to the individual), then it won’t be hard for those same people to be deceived into believing God’s Word is not inerrant, and therefore, gratifying the desires of the flesh is not absolutely/necessarily wrong.  Satan has convinced many that the belt of truth is “too constricting."  Many Christians have listened to Satan’s lies and have loosened the belt; consequently, this has led to chinks in many Christian’s armor.  Worse though, some have completely removed the belt by conforming to Satan’s relativistic (e.g. “there is no absolute truth”, or “morality and everything is relative”) “pattern of this world" (Romans 12:2).  

“Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.”--Colossians 2:8 

Churches have deprived their congregations from a balanced diet of TRUTH for some time now.  This negligence has allowed the empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense of our time (pluralism, and relativism) to metastasize. This mind cancer is in stage 4 now; it is spreading fast and is threatening our churches, our culture, and our nation. The empty philosophy of relativism has decayed the morals of our culture.  It has led to the distortion of God’s Word and the U.S. Constitution which has resulted in rampant corruption of our leaders (in business and government), and a self-indulgent culture (our emotional feelings and body’s pleasures are paramount). Sexual immorality is so pervasive today that what all sane individuals once knew was deplorable, is now not only tolerated, it is cheered and encouraged!  And let us not forget about the murdering of innocent unborn children for the sake of selfish convenience.  

“Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’
Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’
Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’

But, conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when we must take [and talk about] a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take [and talk about] it because it is right.”—Dr.  Martin Luther King Jr. *Words in brackets [ ] were added to accentuate the next point.

Many Christians (including pastors) ignore, hide, and sometimes even deny the evil around us and with it the need for repentance; all in an effort to remain relevant in a godless culture (i.e. out of fear of becoming irrelevant and voiceless in this culture).  These Christians have lost their saltiness (Matthew 5:13) through their complacency and refusal to speak out against evil; and if they do speak out against evil, they take the safe route and speak out against abstract evil (e.g. social injustice) that very few if any will take issue with.  They avoid the hard-hitting issues that most of their congregation needs clarity on (abortion, pornography, and homosexuality) out of fear of who/how many they might offend. The result of this is a godless and decadent culture that is becoming more aggressive and persistent in their attacks on followers of Christ. Worse though, many “Christians” are now joining in the attacks on followers of Christ who are not conforming to the pattern of this world.  This self-indulgent culture used to be more discreet in their attacks on Christianity, but with their new-found “Christian” allies, they are now brazen in their harassment, with no shame in violating the Constitution, or in many cases, their local laws in the process. 

In the last decade homosexual advocates have gone from seeking tolerance to fascism and totalitarianism, and from wishing Christians would allow them to come out of the closet to wanting to force Christians in the closet.  When they find out-of-the-closet Christians who do not affirm their lifestyle, they use tactics that resemble the mafia to punish them through intimidation, slander, and economic ruin.  The message to Christians is clear:  “Affirm us, stay in the closet, or else!”  The gay community and their liberal allies are not even trying to hide their intentions anymore—they want to scrub all remnants of Classic Christianity from this masterpiece we call America.  They’ll say they have no problem with Christianity.  But the fact is the only Christianity they don’t have a problem with is their version of Christianity—a Christianity that removes all distinction between male and female, and a Christianity that views homosexual unions in a way that is just as legitimate as heterosexual ones.  

It is both ironic and shameful that we live in a culture with such disdain toward Christ and the Bible while over seventy five percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians.  How is this possible?  Why do so many "Christians" have such animosity toward other Christians and their adherence to biblical orthodoxy? 

How we got here:

“Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of YOUR MIND. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.”—Romans 12:2


For too long now, pastors have spent a lot of their time delivering messages of grace and hope (which are important), but those messages were not balanced with sermons that call out the evils of our time, or sermons that "destroy speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5).  As a result, many Christians bought into the "empty philosophies from human thinking" and removed the belt of truth.  Now a mind that denies absolute TRUTH is like a compass that can't point north; it's broken and useless for providing meaningful direction and guidance.  Therefore, rather than be transformed by the renewing of their mind (by accepting and seeking what is TRUE through the Word of God), many Christians disabled their mind and with it the ability to "discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God"(Romans 12:2).  But this didn’t stop them from forming opinions about right and wrong (i.e. trying to interpret God's moral will) from their feelings and emotions instead of a renewed mind that accepts and seeks TRUTH.  

In short, nonsense that comes from human thinking, and their heart's desires (which is"deceitful and desperately wicked"--Jeremiah 17:9), has shaped many Christian’s political ideology; their political ideology then shaped their theology.  Instead of humbling themselves and examining their political ideology (i.e. opinions of how the world should work) in light of God's Word, Christians have elevated their political ideology and demoted their theology (view of God, His Word, and His will).  In other words, many Christians turned their political ideology into an idol of sorts and turned their theology into its slave.  As Christians, our political ideology should be shaped by our theology, not the other way around.  But too many Christians seem more worried about standing with their neighbor on the right side of political history than they are about standing with their neighbor on the right side of eternity.  So this is why we have such a large community of “Christians” (without the belt of truth) who have been taken captive by the world’s beliefs, and as a result have such animosity toward Christians (with the belt of truth) who refuse to conform to the pattern of this world.


“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  They will turn their ears away from THE TRUTH and turn aside to myths.”—2 Timothy 4:3-4


If there is going to be a spiritual revival in this country it has to start at the pulpit with courageous pastors committed to THE WHOLE TRUTH (of God's Word, and moral will)  rather than half-truth, ear-tickling sermons that appeal to emotions.  For those of us who have the belt of truth buckled around our waste, “let us not become weary in doing good, for in due season we will reap”(Galatians 6:9).  Let us continue seeking, serving, and fighting for Jesus—His kingdom, His moral will, and for those who call themselves believers but have been taken captive by the world’s beliefs.  

Have you ever experienced a time when you felt disconnected from God or unable to feel your faith? The truth is we all have. In the two part audio series linked below Ravi Zacharias sheds light on some of the factors (both external and internal) that contribute to this state of affairs and suggests some ways we can reconnect with God.

In particular, pay careful attention to part two of the series when Ravi discusses the importance of...

(1) God’s word
(2) Our moods and emotions
(3) Obedience 
(4) Friendship
(5) The church
          a. Community
          b. Worship

I wanted the first blog following our last (debate with an atheist) to be a follow-up and summary of the debate.  But, considering how many news headlines have to do with Indiana’s 'religious freedom bill' I thought some clarity is needed on the subject.

Major areas of focus:

--SLIPPERY SLOPE HYPOCRISY

--NO SPECIAL TREATMENT

--WE DON’T CELEBRATE SIN

-- APPROPRIATE vs. INAPPROPRIATE DISCRIMINATION

-- CUTTING OFF THE VINE FOR THE SAKE OF THE FRUIT


SLIPPERY SLOPE HYPOCRISY

I have debated many homosexual advocates over the past year on the issue of defining and redefining marriage into anything we want.  I argue, if we extend the fence that surrounds and protects marriage to include same-sex partners, what is to stop the same social engineering experimenters from extending it further to appease the next “what about us” shouts (close relatives, multiple wives, minors, animals, etc)?  The pat answer I get is: “that’s a slippery slope fallacy.”  These same homosexual advocates are up in arms over Indiana’s religious freedom bill, not because there was some language in the bill singling out homosexuals, but ironically because they believe “IT WILL LEAD TO” businesses refusing service to homosexuals just for being gay.  I guess slippery slope fallacies only apply when Christians are worried about the implications of a new law.

Many defenders of the bill have rightly pointed out that nowhere in the bill does it mention the gay community, and yet the gay community is still finding a way to make it about them.  But let’s be real.  It is about the gay community.  Why?  Because, the gay community broke their word and our brothers and sisters in Christ are rushing to legally protect themselves.  How did they break their word?  I’ll get to that, but I want to address some other things first.


NO SPECIAL TREATMENT

Despite the “pride” of the gay community, there is nothing special about their sin.  The same way homosexuality doesn't deserve special attention in the form of harassment and ridicule, it doesn't deserve special treatment either.  Sexual immorality is sexual immorality—PERIOD.   Most Christians have coworkers, acquaintances, and even friends, who are promiscuous, adulterers, or porn addicts, or all of the above.  Despite their sexual immorality, we work with them, laugh with them, hang out with them, and when we communicate with them, it is with dignity and respect. 


WE DON’T CELEBRATE SIN

Even though Christians can associate with those enthralled by sexual immorality, there is one thing we should not do as Christians:  celebrate their sexual immorality.  It’s one thing to be kind and cordial to a person who is ensnared in sin, it’s quite another to celebrate their sin.  If a promiscuous friend wanted to throw a party because he had sex with his 100th partner, it would not be appropriate for a Christian to participate in the celebration.  If a coworker wanted to throw a party to celebrate his 10th mistress without his wife finding out, it would not be appropriate for a Christian to participate in the celebration.  If a friend wanted to celebrate his 200th day in a row of watching porn, it would not be appropriate for a Christian to participate in the celebration.  I hope you are seeing the pattern here.  Let’s continue this line of reasoning.  As I said earlier, homosexuality doesn't deserve special treatment; therefore, when a homosexual wants to have a ceremony to celebrate and commit his life to his sexual immorality, it would not be appropriate for a Christian to participate.  While ALL the examples of immorality listed above fall under sexual immorality, some might demand attention, but only one DEMANDS APPROVAL.  

Many Christians fought and still fight for gays to be able to “come out of the closet” without fear of persecution, or ridicule and to be accepted as fellow members of our American society.  Despite the inappropriate and insensitive tirades gays experienced decades ago (many times from Christians), the fact is, an overwhelming majority of Christians today accept homosexuals as our fellow men and women made in the image of God, but who (like all of us) are in need of a Savior.  While many gays might have disagreed with Christians (on the idea that they needed a Savior), they assured us (in the Christian community) that their “freedom to marry” would not infringe on our religious freedom.  They would ask rhetorically, “How will gay marriage affect YOU?”  In short, they duped too many Christians to believe that they really just wanted to “get married” and they assured us that same-sex marriage would not infringe on our religious freedom.  Erick Erickson pointed out two years ago, “gay marriage is incompatible with religious freedom.”  The truth of his article is ringing louder and louder today. 



APPROPRIATE vs. INAPPROPRIATE DISCRIMINATION

The right of a business owner to "discriminate" today is often argued as if the "discrimination" issue is a dichotomy--either business owners cannot discriminate against anyone for any reason, or business owners can discriminate against anyone for any reason. If we take both views to their logical conclusion, we can see the absurdity that follows.  If any business owner can discriminate against anyone for any reason, that means business owners can deny service to black people just for being black.  I think most of us would agree that is a moral regression, not a moral improvement.  If, however, no business owner can discriminate against anyone or anything for any reason at all, that means business owners are effectively “slaves” to the customer.  Like many false dichotomies, the solution is found somewhere in-between both extremes.  A proper framework is necessary to 1) objectively distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate discrimination, and 2) protect the civil rights of customers while protecting the rights of conscience of business owners.

The framework:  The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..."  This phrase in the Declaration of Independence is the basis for civil rights; more specifically, “all men (PEOPLE) are created equal (i.e. bear the image of God and it is this "image" that all humans share that makes us all equal).” Thus, civil rights apply to PERSONHOOD; therefore, discrimination based on the personhood of an individual would be a civil rights violation.
Example: "Get out of my store! I don't serve YOU PEOPLE (black, homosexual, etc.)."

What our civil rights do NOT imply is "all ACTIONS or CAUSES are equal, that all ACTIONS and CAUSES are endowed by their Creator." Therefore, civil rights do NOT apply to ACTIONS/CAUSES.  Causes, actions, services, and ceremonies reflect ideas—ideas that many will not agree with. All causes, actions, services, and ceremonies are NOT equal! So, if the discrimination is based on a service, ceremony, cause, message or action that violates the business owner’s conscience then that is a legitimate discrimination because causes and actions are NOT civil rights.
Example: "I would love to sell you cupcakes and pastries for your birthday party, but I cannot provide a cake (or other products/services) for your same-sex wedding ceremony." Translation: "As my fellow man/woman made in the image of God, I would love to serve you; however, I don't want to participate in desacralizing that which I consider sacred--marriage."

The discrimination in the first example was against the personhood of the individual; thus, a civil rights violation. The discrimination in the second example, however, was against the ceremony and NOT the PERSON--notice the owner was willing to serve the PERSON with their products and services as long as the service requested is not having the owner participate in any way shape or form to desacralize that which the owner believes is sacred.

Homosexual advocates either don't understand this distinction or they are purposefully distorting and conflating the two to make it look like the latter is a civil rights violation so that their coercion can continue undetected.  



CUTTING OFF THE VINE FOR THE SAKE OF THE FRUIT

Lastly, consider the irony of those who are fighting for their “civil rights” to not be violated.  “’Freedom of religion’ be damned if it infringes on my ‘rights’ (to have what I want where I want it)!”  The civil rights homosexuals claim will be violated in the religious freedom bill derive from the very religion they don’t want “free.” In other words, without the freedom, and more importantly, the influence of the very religion homosexual advocates want suppressed (Christianity), there is no basis for “civil rights.”  In short, to suppress the Christian religion for the sake of civil rights is like cutting off the vine for the sake of the fruit.

Through a mutual friend Project 315 had the pleasure of meeting Dave Luttbeg. Dave is an atheist willing to defend what he believes to be true in the public square. Our introduction over breakfast resulted in a very fun interaction over the legitimacies (or lack thereof) of our respective worldviews. Dave has graciously agreed to a debate against (and hosted by) Project 315. The following parameters and initial topic (understanding the debate may stretch to other topics) were agreed upon by both Dave and Project 315...

 
The topic will be – Does the existence of objective moral values and duties point to a Creator?

 (1)    Project 315 will open the debate by responding to the blog topic first.

 (2)    Dave will respond second.

 (3)     Once a response has been posted the opposing side will have five days to respond.

 (4)    In the event a response is not posted within 5 days the side having posted most recently has the floor again for a second consecutive post.

 (5)    If there is no response after a second consecutive post within 5 days the debate will be declared finished.

 (6)    Two additional ways for the debate to be declared finished

 a.       Both sides agree it is over

 b.      We understand that sometimes logical fallacies are committed inadvertently but if one side continually uses them with reckless abandon the entire discussion may need to be aborted because it will make the discussion too cumbersome to advance.

No “winner” will be declared; it will be up to those following the debate to decide for themselves. 

Update 11-16-15*  If you have talked about ISIS, the attacks in Paris, the attempted massacre at the draw Muhammad event in Texas, the threats to Pam Geller, the Chattanooga shooting (whose motive is admittedly being hidden by FBI Director James Comey for the sake of "not smearing people", i.e., tarnishing the name of Islam), the beheadings, or other terrorist attacks from Muslims, you probably have encountered someone (who isn’t even a Muslim) who will vehemently defend Islam by either dismissing the violent perpetrators as people who “aren’t true Muslims” or try to drag Christianity down with it (e.g. “yeah but what about the Crusades?”).  If you ask them if they have read the Koran, the answer is almost always “no."  If you ask them if they know the difference between Muhammad in Mecca and Muhammad in Medina, the answer is almost always “no."  Ask them if they know what Sharia Law is, and the answer is almost always “well, not ALL of it."  So why does so much vehemence accompany so much ignorance?

The Islamophiliac who vehemently defends Islam (with very little to no knowledge of Islam) is usually (if not always) assuming from the outset a moral equivalence between ALL religions.  This stems from the rejection of objective truth. Since relativists believe all truth and morality is relative (not objective), they usually believe all religions that make objective truth and morality claims are equally false. They don't say this EXPLICITLY but they say it IMPLICITLY when they say things like, "Your religion is true FOR YOU. Other religions are true FOR THEM. Therefore, all religions are equally true TO THE INDIVIDUAL."  It is their patronizing way of rejecting any objective truth claim by flipping it to a SUBJECTIVE truth claim.  They get away with this most of the time unchallenged because many people (who are not trained in logic or philosophy) don't recognize this when it happens. 

Relativists go on to say things like, “All religions have their fanatics who don’t follow its proper teachings.”  This is true, but the assumption is that since some (heretics) have killed in the name of Christ—not based on anything Jesus Christ did or taught (prescribed)--then all people who kill in the name of their religion must be going against what their religion actually teaches. 

To the relativist, Christianity cannot be more true in any sense (including morally) than any other religion, and that is why you see this bizarre, almost Twilight Zone, effort from relativists to excuse and even lift up Islam so that everyone else sees all religions (including Islam) the way they do—equivocally. Despite the huge disproportion of brutal acts of violence and abhorrent brutality in this age (and throughout its entire history) from those doing it in the name of ISLAM, there is still this committed effort from relativists to defend Islam.  It seems the reason for this commitment (from so many in the West) is a combination of naïveté, and understanding the implications that acknowledging a moral disparity between the teachings of Muhammad (Islam), and the teachings of Christ (Christianity) will have.

To clarify, if it can be demonstrated that the teachings of Muhammad  (not Muslims—take note of the distinction) condone and prescribe the evil actions of ISIS (“Islamic” State) and other “Islamic” terrorists, then a clear moral distinction can and must be made, at least between the teachings of Muhammad (Islam) and the teachings of Christ (Christianity). This is why you see the demonization (e.g. "Islamophobe") of anyone who investigates the causal connection between Islam (the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah) and the brutal acts of terror we hear about in the news today.  The stakes are huge for relativists.  If Islam is examined and it is demonstrably true that the teachings of Muhammad (Islam) are more like fascism and Naziism than the altruistic and peaceful teachings of Christ and His apostles (Christianity), then a cataclysmic paradigm shift should happen, especially in academia, as relativism (the most prominent worldview espoused today in academia) will be tossed in the ash heap of history alongside other failed philosophical theories. 

To be clear, we don’t judge any religion MERELY by those committing violence in its name.  We judge a religion by looking into its teachings (prescriptions for conduct) and see if those committing violence are following their religion’s instructions in proper context.  This is where the difference between the person who commits acts of violence in the name of Christ and the person who commits acts of violence in the name of Muhammad is glaringly obvious.  But it requires a little bit of homework—homework that most are too lazy or uninterested in doing.   Don't be like the lazy fools who eat whatever is spoon-fed to them from useful idiots.  Do your homework!  Click here for debates, commentaries, and quotes from the Quran (with an emphasis on CONTEXT) that show that Muslims who perpetuate violence, oppression and persecution toward infidels are in fact adherents to the teachings of Muhammad (i.e. Islam) and not heretics (like the relativists want us to believe).  The infidels, therefore, who constantly defend this "religion" that continually produces such a disproportionate amount of violence, oppression, persecution (see Sharia Law--the inextricably bound law of Islam), and bloodshed wherever its adherents are found, are doing so for at least one of the following reasons:

1.  Out of ignorance—they are just parroting platitudes (e.g., "no religion condones the killing of innocence"). 

2.  They lack the humility to even consider that they COULD BE WRONG (i.e. they are wise in their own eyes and their pride blinds them from reality). 

3.  They are more interested in defending positions that affirm their worldview that allow them to be their own god (by relativizing truth and morality to their own preference) than actually arriving at the truth. 

4.  Out of fear—they are afraid of offending Muslims, so they defend Islam at all costs.  By doing this they think that Muslims will somehow respect them now and return that respect in the future.

This is why, to the relativist, all the evidence that contradicts their philosophical position is either ignored or relativized/curve fit to complement their position (postmodern relativism) that they have already CONCLUDED is the right one.  This is called circular reasoning and it can create all sorts of insanity like what we are seeing today from those who naïvely defend Islam as “peaceful” despite all the lack of peace in countries dominated by Islam, and so many attacks happening in the West by those doing it in the name of Islam.  I normally don't agree with anything Bill Maher says, but when it comes to Islam he makes a good point: 

"When there is this many bad apples, there is something wrong with the orchard." 


*2-6-15 Note*  Although this was originally written the first week of January 2015, President Obama followed through with the moral equivalence rhetoric (described above) at the National Prayer Breakfast (over 3 weeks later) saying, "during the Crusades and the Inquisition people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."  This may be confusing considering Obama is supposed to be a "Christian".  Whether or not Obama is truly a Christian is a topic for another day so I don't want to go there.  The important question regarding Christian relativists is:  Why would a Christian attempt to bring down the name and history of Christianity just to equate another religion as legitimate as theirs?  The answer is because they don't view relativism through the lens of Christianity; on the contrary, they view/interpret their Christianity through the lens of relativism.  

Jesus said, "I am THE way and THE truth and THE life.  No one comes to the Father except through me."--John 14:6  Notice this is an objective truth claim by Christ.  In other words, Jesus was NOT a relativist.  

 Jesus did NOT say, "I am A way and A truth and A life.  Anyone can come to the Father through many ways other than me."  This is why a Christian relativist is an oxymoron. Tragically, there are many out there, like Obama, claiming the name of Christ while relativizing THE truth.

​
*11-16-15 Note*  Just days after the Paris attack on Friday the 13th, candidate for Minnesota State Senate Dan Kimmel tweeted:  "ISIS isn't necessarily evil.  It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community.  Violence is not the answer though."  He ended his campaign a day after the tweet as even those who are not just "right wingers" can still identify the most obvious forms of evil when it's in their face.  Kimmel was just regurgitating what he was taught in college--relativism (i.e. that there is no such thing as objective evil).  To all the relativists, like Kimmel, who are still guarding that philosophy, how's that worldview connecting with reality these days?

Ozymandias

BY PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY

I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Mere Christianity

C.S. Lewis

"If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this."

Isaiah 40:8

New King James Version (NKJV)

“The grass withers, the flower fades,

But the word of our God stands forever.”

One would think proving the obvious would be the easiest of tasks.   But our universities have obscured the obvious so much over the past few decades with postmodern relativism that even the most basic axioms of rational discourse need to be reestablished, especially when trying to discuss (in the objective sense) the most fundamental questions of life--ORIGIN, MEANING, MORALITY, and DESTINY.  

The self-defeating statement of, "there is no absolute truth" is so entrenched in the minds of those who have been educated in our postmodern universities that one needs to take the time to untangle the mess before any conversation can advance. 

Just as the scientific method has a way of testing the legitimacy of a hypothesis (in the natural world) through experimentation and observation, the truth of any propositional statement can be tested by taking the statement to its logical conclusion (i.e. testing it).  If what follows is incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction--with no way of reconciling the contradictions with more information  (i.e. upon deeper reflection)--then we have good reason to reject the legitimacy of the statement.  

 
I will provide two examples below that demonstrate unequivocally that absolute truth exists and the more adamant one is in denying it, the more egg they get on their face.  One was a formal debate in front of a live audience between a Christian apologist and a professor, and the other is a casual conversation during lunch between a Christian philosopher, and a professor.


1) Greg Koukl, a Christian apologist, debated Dr. Marv Meyer over the issue of absolute truth.  The title of the debate was, “Is Truth True?”  Greg Koukl defended the resolve “Objective truth exists and can be known,” while Dr. Marv Meyer took the opposite.
 
Dr. Meyer tried to argue against Koukl’s view and in favor of his own.  What Dr. Meyer didn’t notice was that with each argument for THE TRUTH of his view, he was actually sawing off the branch he was sitting on.  Koukl pointed this out to the audience.  He mentioned that Dr. Meyer was forced by the nature of debate itself to make use of the very thing he was denying in the debate, dooming his effort to failure from the outset.  Just by showing up, Dr. Meyer had implicitly affirmed the resolve Koukl was defending, effectively conceding the debate to him from the beginning.

The audience would vote on who won the debate.  Koukl pointed out to the audience that every vote cast for Dr. Meyer as the winner of the debate meant the voter had been persuaded that Dr. Meyer’s view was (objectively) true and Koukl’s was (objectively) false. Therefore, every vote for Dr. Meyer was really a vote for Koukl.


The audience laughed, but the point wasn’t lost on them. When the final tally came in, Dr. Meyer got only one vote.  This wasn’t because Koukl used better rhetoric. It was because the view Dr. Meyer was defending was obviously false.

Consider the irony of anyone who, out of one side of their mouth, denies absolute truth, and then out of the other side of their mouth says, “You are (absolutely) WRONG.” When someone says you are “wrong” they are implying that their description of reality (how we interpret math, logic, science, and our experience) is closer to absolute truth than you. Anytime you say to someone "you are wrong" you are affirming some absolute truth exists and the person who is "wrong" is further from it than you. And if relativists don't believe any absolute truth exists then why do they continue wasting their time disagreeing with anyone?

The major flaw in the reasoning of the relativist is they are using what we don't know to interpret the obvious ("since we don't know x, how can we know ANYTHING absolutely?"). In short, they disregard the obvious for the sake of the mysterious.  What if we did this in all areas of life?  We would then disregard all the mathematical truth that has been discovered (trigonometry, calculus, etc.) because of all the unsolved (mysterious) problems of math that we are not absolutely sure how to answer.  We don't do that because we see the absurdity that follows.

So how can we be so sure about ANYTHING with so much uncertainty? We have all taken multiple choice tests and have been faced with questions that we did not know the answer to.  But there were usually some answers that were obviously false, and by eliminating them you were that much closer to the right answer.  As Sherlock Holmes says, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." You cannot have a married bachelor--that is impossible. That is an absolute truth because its antithesis is IMPOSSIBLE. You start with the basics (mathematical truths such as 2+2=4, logical contradictions that must be ABSOLUTELY false). Once you have demonstrated that some truth (math and logic) is absolute, you know that absolute truth exists and some things are closer to it than others.

The bottom line is: we don’t disregard the obvious for the sake of the mysterious--we interpret the unclear (what we don’t know absolutely) from the clear (what we do know absolutely).

Lastly, the reason we establish absolute truth on level one of our logical chart is because as much as you can try to help someone see that absolute truth exists, if the relativist refuses to acknowledge the obvious (there is absolute truth) then it will be impossible to reason with them further.  Talking about God, the Bible, and life's fundamental questions (origin, meaning, morality, and destiny) is calculus level stuff meant for those who are not calling into question everything we know about the most basic laws of mathematics. If someone doesn't accept the most basic laws of math as true, how will they understand the complexity of calculus? Similarly, if someone denies the most basic axiom of thought and reason (the laws of logic are objectively true), how can you reason with them on matters as deep as God?

Those who don't accept the law of non-contradiction as absolute are stating implicitly that they have no problems with contradictions.  No matter how much logic and reason you use, those who deny absolute truth (and with it the law of non-contradiction) can shamelessly contradict themselves with reckless abandon. Additionally, they will inevitably pull the relativism escape hatch whenever the light of truth becomes too much for them to bear.  And just like that, the conversation will dissolve into meaninglessness. It is simply impossible to have a meaningful and coherent discussion with someone that considers contradictions just as viable and useful in conversation as logic and reason (i.e. the person who makes an absolute claim that there are no absolutes).

Some atheists claim “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." I disagree.  I believe a more accurate statement is, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually short-sighted atheist."  Postmodern relativism, on the other hand, has made it possible to be a comfortable, intellectually BANKRUPT atheist.  Why are they comfortable in such intellectual bankruptcy?  Some people are more interested in legitimizing a worldview that allows them to be their own god than actually arriving at the truth.

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.  Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed."--John 3:19-20

An excerpt from The Brothers Karamazov...

"By the way, a Bulgarian I met lately in Moscow," Ivan went on, seeming not to hear his brother's words, "told me about the crimes committed by Turks and Circassians in all parts of Bulgaria through fear of a general rising of the Slavs. They burn villages, murder, outrage women and children, they nail their prisoners by the ears to the fences, leave them so till morning, and in the morning they hang them--all sorts of things you can't imagine. People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it. These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children, too; cutting the unborn child from the mother’s womb, and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mothers' eyes. Doing it before the mothers' eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They've planned a diversion: they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby's face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby's face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn't it? By the way, Turks are particularly fond of sweet things, they say."

"Brother, what are you driving at?" asked Alyosha.

"I think if the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness."

Dostoyevsky captures the essence of evil perfectly.  Most us of are left feeling ill after reading a selection like this. Francis Schaeffer referred to this internal turmoil as “moral motions” (see Romans 2:15). In a world seemingly defiled with evil, the Christian can easily find himself/herself questioning the goodness of God while others may even question his very existence. When confronted with real, palpable evil – rape, murder, torture, etc. – asking why God would cause these sorts of things to happen or angrily denying God’s existence is altogether understandable.

As ambassadors of God’s kingdom, how do we flesh this out? Is God the author of evil? Should we be questioning the validity of our faith in the face of war, famine, disease and suffering? The quick answer is no, but with a topic so emotionally charged, a one word response will not suffice. In order to effectively tackle the problem of evil, we must first come to an understanding of what evil is.

The first thing that needs to be understood is that evil is something. That is, evil is real. In other words, evil is a matter of objective fact and not merely personal opinion (more on this later). The second thing that needs to be understood is that evil is not some “thing.” I know this sounds like a bit of double-speak but an important distinction needs to be made here. Evil is not a blackish-grey blob floating around the universe that we must carefully avoid. No, evil is a relational property (as evidenced by the fact all questions about evil are either raised about a person or by a person). A good example of this can be made through the use of a piece of steel. If the piece of steel is a scalpel being wielded by a surgeon to remove a tumor, the “relationship” between the steel and the person with the tumor can be declared good. If, however, the piece of steel is a knife in the hands of a criminal being plunged into the belly of his/her victim, the “relationship” between the piece of steel and the victim can rightfully be declared evil. 

Why is this distinction important? If evil is a description of the “relationship” between two or more things (more specifically two or more caused/created things), God cannot be its cause, author or creator. The astute among us may already have the follow up question ringing in their head; “Okay, maybe he didn’t cause it, but why would a loving God allow so much evil?”

The rejoinder to this question, made popular by Alvin Plantinga, is known as the free will defense. In reading through all of God’s “omni’s” it’s easy to get caught up in the idea that God can do anything. The truth is God cannot do just anything. God cannot do that which is logically impossible. He can’t make a square-circle, He can’t make a rock so big He can’t lift it, and He can’t contradict Himself (praise God!). God also can’t create freedom without choice. God didn’t want robots that blindly follow Him. Rather, He wanted people who freely choose to love and follow Him. We can all understand the importance of choice concerning a loving relationship. What makes love authentic is being loved according to another’s volition rather than through coercion. My relationship with my wife is special because she chooses to love me. She was never forced or told to do so. To put it simply; God is responsible for the fact freedom and we are responsible for our acts of freedom.

There is one objection to the free will defense that holds a bit of rhetorical force that I would like to address before moving on. Some might respond to our freedom of choice by asking why God couldn’t have created a world with less evil. That is, why not keep freedom of choice intact but eliminate things like cancer and poverty? There are three things not being considered by a person who sincerely asks this question:

1-      We don’t know that God hasn’t done so already

2-      We don’t fully understand linkages – the resulting effects of God intervening

3-      We don’t know that we would be satisfied with the limits imposed on evil. Consider Aristotle’s tallest man problem. Imagine a person who couldn’t stand the idea of there being a tallest man. In order ease his mental anguish this person decides to eliminate (kill) the tallest man. What then after he has eliminated the tallest man? The previously second tallest man is now the tallest man and we are back to where we started! The point is, the idea of eliminating some evil sends you into an infinite regress. We would get to the point of denying God’s goodness because of paper cuts (oh, the humanity!).

Understanding that God didn’t cause evil and why He allowed it might be good enough for the believer but many non-believers (atheists more specifically) remain unstirred. For many non-believers, talk over whether God allowed evil or caused evil is a waste of time; the idea of a loving God and evil coexisting is incompatible – like Super Man and kryptonite.  When looked at carefully, it isn’t difficult to see how truly shallow this objection is.

Any discussion of evil (more specifically moral evil) under the atheistic worldview ultimately degenerates to nothing more than empty words. If there is no God to objectively ground morals in, all that we are left with is moral relativism – right or wrong/good or evil is purely subjective (only personal opinion). The value of maternal love of a human mother towards her child is as arbitrary and morally neutral as when a salt water crocodile eats her young. A slave owner is no more right or wrong than a researcher who dedicates his/her life to curing cancer.

It defies reason to even attempt to reconcile moral choice with a worldview that negates the very notion of free choice altogether (the two are not logically compatible). As Hume said, “No matter how hard one tries, you cannot get moral agents from a process of scientific materialistic reductionism. It simply does not work. Morality does not come from empirically verifiable scientific statements alone. At several points of the delicate formula we will always have to make the leap into the realm of moral reasoning; but if there is no absolute basis from which to make the leap, if there is no transcendent foundational scope to human life, then there is no platform from whence the leap can be made.”

I am not suggesting atheist can’t be moral. In fact, I believe they can. The problem isn’t immorality; to be immoral one would have to presume knowledge of right or wrong. Atheism cannot plausibly have any such knowledge. Atheism is not immoral; it is amoral, which is downright terrifying!

One last point to address before I wrap this thing up – natural evil (earthquakes, volcanos, etc.). First, I think it’s important to point out there is nothing inherently evil about one continental plate slipping under another, nor about the earth’s trembling as a result. These natural events are morally neutral. Something “bad” only results when humans get caught in such events. Much like the case with moral evil, the non-believer (atheist) finds himself/herself in a precarious position when complaining about natural evil.

If an atheist suggests a tidal wave sweeping over an island ought not to have carried children out to sea he is acknowledging that this might be troubling for the islanders but is ignoring the great boon for the marine life surrounding the island. The atheist is quietly proclaiming there is a way things should be, a view only plausible for the believer.

The following five points might help the believer understand why God has chosen to allow natural evil:

1-      The earth’s processes that cause many of these events are crucial to our survivability on this planet (rent The Privileged Planet on DVD for a better understanding of this)

2-      God does not cause people to be in the times and places where the natural events take place

3-      It is very plausible that only in a world suffused with natural evil would great numbers of people freely come to know God and find eternal life

4-      Although God has intervened in His creation before (performed miracles to handle/prevent some form of evil), He is the Master painter of this canvas we call the universe. Miracles are like radiant colors that add much beauty to a painting with just a light touch.  Too much lustrous color can ruin the whole painting.  God is the Master Designer/Artist and He knows the perfect amount and scope of miracles that will reflect the most beauty of His creation.

5-      Compassion is a virtue that God desires us all to have.  How could we develop the virtue of compassion without the existence of suffering?

Armed with all this information, how should we respond when someone we know is suffering from some sort of moral or natural evil? How quick should we be to answer with the proper philosophical or theological retort? The appropriate time is when they are ready to hear it; after having the chance to grieve and process all the pain (both emotional and physical). I have experienced this first hand. Six years ago I went through a very difficult life changing event and while in the throes of all the emotional anguish I was given many of the standard Christian responses, most of which rang hollow. There was however one response that I will never forget. Upon hearing the news, my brother, who was living in Escondido at the time, (I was in Chula Vista) drove down that night to visit. He arrived at the house late, walked in my room, laid down next me and shared in my pain. Two grown men crying together; so unexpected, so taboo yet so appropriate.