At work, the other day, I had a discussion with a coworker, which centered around a discussion of The DaVinci Code. We discuss metaphysical or spiritual aspects of life quite often, but I engaged fully, this time – because he was not quite sympathetic to the specific claims made in The DaVinci Code, but sort of asking questions about themes in it – namely, Mary Magdalene’s supposed “marriage” to Jesus, and etc. That didn’t take long, as I explained the history of those claims, and who had made them – but that got me thinking – “what does he really think about the Bible?”

So, I asked him – “What do you think – is the Bible what it claims to be?” His answer, predictably, was to ask “in what way” – because, really, I wasn’t very specific. Have I ever mentioned that I don’t do apologetics in the real world very often? It’s my own shortcoming, and a result of the insular lifestyle I tend to lead. Well, anyway, I began to explain that the Bible claims to be the actual words of God, to man. His response was that it likely wasn’t the whole truth, but maybe part of the truth.

Well, my immediate response was to ask, in effect, that if it isn’t *the* truth, then what is? Is it found in the Mormons, or in Islam? Where? His response was, (also in effect), that truth was found in an individual person. Which, (also predictably), led me to ask – so, if truth is found in each individual, doesn’t truth always change?

What followed was, to me, an odd exchange. His point seemed, to me, to be that all morals are relative, and that what is true to one person is not true to another – and that the “belief” that it is true is what directs morality. My responses followed the pattern that if this is the case, then what Hitler did, or Hussein did, can be credibly justified by their belief that it is right. That was one aspect of the conversation. The other aspect was an attempt, on both parts, to explain exactly what we meant, when we said what we did. I don’t know if I understood him rightly, but by the end, he agreed with me that there is a concept of moral truth that over-arches what we believe to be true – but I don’t know if that was what he thought to begin with, or if it changed his mind. It’s hard to tell. I conceded that some moral decisions are situation dependent (such as killing someone – murder versus self-defense, or war), but that the basic principle remains the same.

It was a good exchange, but not anywhere near the “cut-and-dried” exchanges I’ve had in the past. He agrees that there is a spiritual world, that the physical came into being as the result of a non-physical force, and that there will be an eventual heaven and hell. However, it seems to me that he doesn’t think that the Christian way is what it says it is – the only way to an actual eternal existence in Heaven. We disagreed about the existence of an original or natural sin – but following a consistent moral code is very important to him. I enjoyed the discussion – as well as prior discussions we’ve had about the insufficiency of the limited-to-the-physical atheist/materialist viewpoint; but I’m not quite sure how I’d expand on this from here. Acer is what I’ll call him, since he uses that pseudonym online – and I had a lot of fun talking with him. (He may even read this – he knows about my blog :D) I’m not sure, exactly, what he really thinks, though. I’m not precisely worried about offending him by talking about Christianity – but I don’t want to badger him, either, or try to “win an argument”. That’s not the point. I’m a bit belligerent by nature, and I don’t want to be considered a bully. I also don’t want to lose the grip on the conversation by being too timid, either. I care about him, and I want to make sure he’s on the right track – not to become improperly judgemental and accusing. Speak the truth, in love…

It was interesting, and a bit scary – but I’m not quite sure how to handle it from here. Keep in mind – this is a friend from work, who reads this blog occasionally – so if you have comments, keep this in mind. (and Acer… if I messed anything up in our conversation, or I didn’t understand anything well enough – let me know!)

Thanks,

This is not only in bad taste – incredibly bad taste – but irredeemably caustic.

Take a few looks at it.

A hilarious atheistic satire highlighting the futility of prayer had to be scrapped late Tuesday night when twelve West Virginia miners miraculously failed to suffocate to death as expected.

A satire? His “original” satire was about how futile it is to pray to a God. It was to mock the faith of the victim’s families. To use real, just announced deaths as a cheap shot in favor, supposedly, of his viewpoint.

His satire, he says, “failed” – because the people were announced alive. So, of course, he posts the satire of the satire anyway – because now it applies again. They died, and God didn’t save them, yadda yadda.

It’s reprehensible.

It gets worse.

TRA said the discovery of twelve corpses would have been particularly funny to those who read his original piece, which was going to predict a “miracle” similar to the one credited for the survival of nine men from a flooded mine in Quecreek, Pennsylvania in 2002.

Funny? FUNNY? That isn’t even morbidly funny. That’s just ham-fisted gallows mockery.

TRA took solace in the fact that one dead body was found, but said it wasn’t enough to save the parody. “Maybe if five or six of them had died, I could have done a bit about how the survivors’ families were gloating about the selective ‘miracle’ that spared only the rigtheous,” he said. “But it wasn’t to be.”

“Nearly a whole hour wasted,” TRA said. “Is there no God?”

What an unadulterated, swilling stream of drivel-mouthed bile. I wouldn’t countenance that sort of comment on anyone. Anyone at all. It’s sick, it’s morally repugnant, and it’s an absolutely reprehensible thing to say.

You, sir, (and I use that term loosely) have truly “earned” your “award”. I refuse to call it “misguided”, or anything of the sort. It’s simply repugnant, and a discredit to anyone calling themselves an atheist. I can respect a person, regardless of their beliefs – I can’t, however, respect someone making a morally abhorrent comment like that.

What possesses people to heap scorn on an already painful situation?

I don’t think I’ve mentioned it on my blog yet, but I bought a motorcycle. It’s silver and black, and needs some work. That’s just background, however. I went to Slidell to purchase some parts for my bike not too long ago – just prior to Christmas. Afterwards, since we hadn’t yet finished our Christmas shopping, we decided to go by North Shore Square Mall, also in Slidell, to finish our shopping up. On our way in, we encountered a man up on a step stool, asking questions, and offering a dollar for a correct answer. This approach is directly out of Ray Comfort’s “Way of the Master”, and I recognized it almost immediately, and wanted to watch, so we stopped there for a bit.

He finished the last 1 dollar question, and progressed to the 20 dollar question, which uses the Ten Commandments, and demonstrates that everyone is a sinner, and needs God to overcome their sin. The speaker was really very good, and did this very well. His name was Mike.

While he was beginning this final portion, I overheard a janitor, who I had been watching, say into his radio that there was a “disturbance” outside the mall entrance. Now, I had been watching him for a few minutes, and he didn’t have anyone complain to him that I saw, and the group watching was not disturbed. There were a couple people who disagreed, but all they had to do was leave. They stayed right there to listen, regardless.

One in particular, a young man, we overheard saying “this guy is preaching, let’s leave”. Right after that, though, a security guard walked out, and said that “noone is allowed to have a forum on the premises”, and that he would have to stop, or do his presentation on an individual basis only. Well, I jumped in at that point, and asked if it was mall policy to discourage public speech. The security guard told us he was a churchgoer, but that this was, indeed, mall policy. Several others voiced dissent at this point – including the young man who had just said he was leaving. he said, I believe, “this is America – he can say whatever he wants to”. The security guard’s reply was simply that this was private property, and this was the mall’s policy, and reiterated that they were free to continue on an individual basis.

So, while I continued to talk to the guard, the evangelist asked whoever was willing to continue the discussion on an individual basis to follow him. A group of 13-15 people followed. Silently rejoicing, I kept talking to the security guard, and asked where I could file a complaint, and told him that I would no longer be shopping at the mall due to this policy. He told me where to go, and was really very nice. I went to the customer service kiosk, was responded to with courtesy (if a bit of frost, due to my reason for visiting), filled out my complaint form, saying i was no longer intending to shop there, due to their policy, explaining what I had seen the janitor do, and left.

It was a bit odd, and I made a snap decision, but I don’t think I could have done anything in good conscience. As a visitor to a shopping complex, the only means you have to show your displeasure are complaint forms and refusing to buy from them, in my estimation. So, that’s what we did. In fact, though, it turned out nicely. I went to the outlet mall, closer to home, spent less than I would have otherwise to finish my Christmas shopping, and had a good time.

The point wasn’t the shopping, or my displeasure, though, really. To be honest, I was trying to focus the attention on me to give the evangelist less distraction. The other was just the means to do so. The security guard escorted me to the kiosk, and stayed there after I left, and the evangelist was still talking with his group of people – they were all smiling as he explained what he had to say. I hope God was able to use him, and that He may have used me in a small way.

I do intend to keep my promise to cease shopping at North Shore Square Mall, in Slidell, however. I dislike that policy, and won’t support a business (or group of businesses) which espouses it. So, that’s the story. I told my wife I would post it, and I told the mall I would, too.

So, there you go. I’m no longer shopping there.

We all like to think that as we start a New Year, everything will be different. We make resolutions, we resolve, in effect, to be “new men”. I think, however, that as we resolve to do things, that if we refuse to set, at the center of these wanted changes, a truly efficacious agent of change, we will fail – and fail miserably.

Let me explain. We make resolutions, right? What is to keep us resolved to carry through with them? Self-discipline? I can’t speak for everyone, but my measure of self-discipline is pitifully small, and not up to the task of keeping me resolved to the type of things we routinely set as goals for ourselves. Not on my own, at least. What else could keep us resolved? Fear of failure? Embarrassment? What else?

Here’s my solution, and see if this makes sense.

This morning, we studied Ephesians 4:17-24, which, in my Bible, is entitled “The New Man”. I think it may have some lessons for us in how to become, in reality, the “New Man” we are supposed to be as followers of Christ.

It reads:

So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

What does that have to tell us about becoming, in truth, a New Man?

Verses 17-19 explains what we should not do. The example used is the “Gentile” – not the physical racial groups known as “Gentiles” (or Non-Jews, which are the vast majority of the people of the world), but the spiritual Gentiles – those who are excluded (alienated in the NKJV) from the life of God, as verse 18 says. In other words, we are to take as examples those who have chosen the path antithetical to our own – and to do otherwise.

First, Paul says very clearly that this is not his message. He says he affirms “together with the Lord”. This is clearly an apostolic (on his authority as an apostle) command, and is directly from God.

Second, it is a directive to REFRAIN from doing the things which following – and, if you are already doing them, to stop. “No longer” is what he says. Interesting, that. That tells me that he is fully aware that all of us, to some degree, are embroiled in the way this other lifestyle does things. He is fully cognizant of this, and directly confronting it.

Thirdly, he explains what lies *behind* this process. The mind. Their minds are futile (devoid of truth and appropriateness – used as “vanity” in 2 Peter 2:18) in their endeavors, because they are missing the knowledge that is critical to supply what is lacking in the pursuits that Solomon calls “Vanity” – meaning, and purpose. A knowledge of God.

“Their understanding is darkened” – “darkened” is the word skotoo, which is a metaphor for a blinded mind.

“alienated from the life of God” – alienated is the word apallotrioo, which means ” to be shut out from one’s fellowship and intimacy”. Life? This is the same word Christ uses when He promises a life more abundant. That sort of life. The very life of God. How unimaginably heartbreaking – not only that there are those who are apart from that life – but that we choose to imitate them!

“the ignorance in them” – ignorance refers especially to ignorance of divine things, or moral blindness. So, they (and we who choose to imitate them) are not only intellectually blind, but morally so!

“hardness of their hearts” – the word means to become “calloused”, to have their perceptions blunted – to be stubborn or obdurant – to become obtuse. In other words – to become dull, and unused to discerning things clearly.

So, the passage goes on to say, that callous leads to a lack of sensitivity – a lack of discernment – which leads to a wanton slide into the practice of sin. Sound familiar, Christians? Or non-Christians, for that matter.

A lack of perception leads to a lack of moral discernment, and a lack of moral discernment leads to increasingly sinful behavior.

But, the passage says – we did learn Christ in this way! We didn’t! We know better. It is a willful ignorance, and a willful slide into this morass.

Paul goes on to tell us that we have been taught the truth – and that truth teaches us that we are to lay aside our former selves, which are being corrupted, and we are to be *renewed* in our minds. We are to put on *new* selves, in the likeness of God (sound familiar? A life of God, mentioned earlier?) which were created in righteousness, in holiness, and in truth.

This is what we are to do.

Romans 12, which was our Sunday School text today, says something very similar.

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

New Year’s Resolutions? How about a New Man Resolution, to go with it? Be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Of my mind. Of your neighbor’s mind.

So, on that note: Here are my resolutions.

1. I resolve, with the help and sufferance of God, to spend time, daily, in the Study of the Word, and in prayer before Him.

2. I resolve, with the help and sufferance of God, to use my gifts in His service, following His plan to strengthen His Church.

3. I resolve, with the help and sufferance of God, to strive to become the spiritual head of my newly-formed family, and to take seriously the role which God has placed before me.

4. I resolve, with the help and sufferance of God, to place the Glory of God in the place it deserves – the primary place – and to make this the aim of all my endeavors.

5. I resolve, with the help and sufferance of God, to stop neglecting my talents for music, design, and writing, but to use them to the best of my ability for the duration of this year.

That’s it – those are my resolutions for this year. I covet your prayers, your advice, and your accountability.

I watched “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” yesterday.

It was visually exquisite. It was very faithful to the spirit of the book (with one exception I’ll explain later). It was, in a word, a movie which actually made me tear up, due to the sheer power of presentation – which, I’ll say, was due to three things.

1. The absolutely breathtaking visual presentation.

2. The casting genius, and acting skills of the characters.

Most importantly:

3. The story.

As far as #1 goes, this was what made the movie work. No doubt, and no argument allowed. Narnia was…. impossible, incredible, and just like you imagined it as a child. Exactly like it. Whoever came up with the visual “look” for Narnia.. was a genius. The effects were superb, and Aslan was… Aslan. Down to the eyes. It was magnificent.

As for #2: Peter looked exactly like Peter should. Edmund looked just like I’d always imagined Edmund – even down to the bratty older brother looks he gave Lucy. Perfect. Susan was, indeed, Susan the Gentle. Lucy… the most adorable little girl I’ve seen on film since Drew Barrymore in ET.

The acting was great. The white witch was almost perfect… except she was blond. Plus the whole “ninja queen” thing at the end. C’mon. Oh well. Aslan ate her. hah.

Liam as the voice of Aslan … awesome. The dwarf? Picture perfect. The minotaur? Great. The centaurs? Rockin. The fauns? Holy crap, they were great.

The giants! Sweet!

#3? The story, was… C.S. Lewis. Fantasy by a professor of medieval literature is, and SHOULD be good. It is, and always will be, one of the hallmarks of children’s fantasy.

How did they screw up? They departed from the story. Every part of it that was Lewis’ shone through with the brilliance of a master’s work. If you realize a master’s work, it will be masterful. The departures looked forced, they didn’t make as much sense as sticking with the story would have, and the character departures were jarring. Even if I hadn’t read the books over 3-4 dozen times, I’d still say the same. Peter was Peter… until they made him a wuss. Then, he was someone else for a while – and it showed. Edmund was spot-on. Susan was a bit less gentle then she should have been, and a bit more bossy. Lucy… was spot-on. The two older children were messed with, and they should not have been, to fit cultural “norms”. The book is about gentle young women, and strong young men, and how those two are what make Men and Women.

Anyway. The movie, despite the departures, is EXCELLENT. I recommend it very highly. I really wish they hadn’t changed parts, the same as I wished it with LOTR. Despite that, it’s incredible. Peter’s charge will bring tears of joy to your eyes, you young men. Don’t be ashamed. That sort of thing is what young men are made for. A glorious charge, a righteous fight – these are the things men are built to do. We love them. Well we should.

Aslan’s roar… a thing of beauty. There’s too many great things to count. A few things which mar it, but overall, it’s awesome.

Watch it. Peter isn’t as strong as he should be – but he’s still the High King he should be, once the battle starts. Edmund is still the hero, attacking the Witch. It’s not quite – the BBC version was closer to the book. This version, however, is simply a masterpiece, (visually) if not quite as story-perfect. The BBC version’s effects are quite dated. This is Narnia, and nothing else has ever looked anything close.

Aslan is on the move. Long live Aslan.

In response on this post, I was told that arguing for an objective morality was contrary to a recognizance of faith, as faith – in essence, that a logical argument for the existence of objective morality was an attempt to “prove” faith.

The quotes are as follows:

Razor,

Faith, by definition, exists apart from logical proofs. Foundationalsim assumes a preset of basic beliefs – your initial post serves to legitimze this approach by postulating the existene of basic beliefs. Does that not seem circular to you?

I am certainly NOT suggesting that logical exercises are not useful – in most cases they are. However, reducing matters of faith to logical precepts removes the mystery aspect of faith, suggesting somehow that the wonder and mystery of our God can be defined and detailed to the nth degree by our keen human intellect.

I mean no offense, but it smacks of arrogance to me, and brings forth a sickening feeling in my innermost being that usually comes when attempts are made to somehow intellectually legitimize faith through logical science. Faith requires no such legitimization, which is really antithetical to faith, in the strictest sense.

What I find helpful is using logical devices to construct a systematic theology. However, a systematic theology assumes that a foundation of faith already exists – it does not serve to provide logical foundations to faith.

Well, today’s sermon at church was about faith, but only partially. In that sermon, we were given a quote from Charles Spurgeon, which I’m going to use for this post. See, according to Spurgeon, faith consists of three things:

What is faith? It is made up of three things—knowledge, belief, and trust.

Knowledge, chiefly, is what concerns me today. “Faith begins with knowledge“, says Spurgeon. When we have faith, we must know what we have faith in. I cannot stress enough that we cannot have a blind faith. A faith which does not even know what it is faithful for, what it is faithful to, why it is even faithful at all… this is not a faith worth recognizing. So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. This is what faith requires. Knowledge.

Now, let me hasten to say that this knowledge must not be perfect. it must only be sufficient. This knowledge is NOT, contrary to my brother’s assertion, the proof of faith – it is simply the portion of faith which requires us to know what we are having faith in.

Now, this knowledge does not constitute the entirety of faith. We must then “believe that these things are true“. As Spurgeon says: “Believe these truths as you believe any other statements; for the difference between common faith and saving faith lies mainly in the subjects upon which it is exercised. Believe the witness of God just as you believe the testimony of your own father or friend. “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.“”

Catch that part I bolded? The difference is NOT the amount of faith – it is the object of that faith. Saving faith is differentiated by what you believe in.

“So far you have made an advance toward faith; only one more ingredient is needed to complete it, which is trust. …The Puritans were accustomed to explain faith by the word “recumbency.” It meant leaning upon a thing. Lean with all your weight upon Christ. It would be a better illustration still if I said, fall at full length, and lie on the Rock of Ages. Cast yourself upon Jesus; rest in Him; commit yourself to Him.”

He continues the lesson with this:

“Faith is not a blind thing; for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure. It is not an unpractical, dreamy thing; for faith trusts, and stakes its destiny upon the truth of revelation. That is one way of describing what faith is.
Let me try again. Faith is believing that Christ is what He is said to be, and that He will do what He has promised to do, and then to expect this of Him.”

Faith does not require proof. Faith does require knowledge. It does require belief of veracity, although it does not require proof of veracity. It does require trust, although it does not require proof of trustworthiness.

Apologetics is an activity which is concerned with clearing away the obstacles to a true understanding of what God teaches, who He is, and what is really, actually true. This is the goal, the object, of apologetics. It is not to somehow “prove” the existence of God – or even of principles. It is an outline of the body of knowledge which, if taken all together, will give you a healthy, Biblical knowledge of the Holy, and what it entails. That is, at bottom, the purpose of apologetics. Not to prove, but to clear away obstructions. Not to argue minutae, but to unblock the way. Not to engage in debate for the sake of debate, but to define clearly the path which must be traveled.

Sometimes, that process is quite involved. It may have to start hundreds of allegorical miles away from even the beginning of that path. Sometimes, it may start with a log dropped right at the entrance to that narrow way. Regardless, the mission is clear. Remove all impedances, wherever possible, to a knowledge of the Holy.

Remember – the first step is knowledge, true knowledge, of what you are to have faith in. Only then can you believe that the object of your faith is true.

(All quotes from Charles Spurgeon may be found at Spurgeon.org, where they are hosting his small book, “All of Grace“.)

A response to this set of questions:

1) Can you prove that objective moral facts exists?

2) Can you prove that you are able to properly apprehend these facts through some source?

3) Can you prove that this source is the true source of all objective moral facts?

Simple Model:

• Objective moral fact claims exist;
• One set of moral fact claims is true;
• Objective moral facts exist.

• These facts can be properly apprehended;
• These facts have a source;
• This source is the source of all objective moral facts.

(Conditional)

• The source itself is the means to properly understand these objective moral facts.

Expanded Model:

Objective moral fact claims exist.

• All claims to knowledge of moral facts are qualitative objects;
• Qualitative objects exist;
• Objective Moral fact claims exist.

One set of claims is true, so objective moral facts exist.

• One set of objective moral truth claims is in accordance with reality;
• To be in accordance with reality is to be factual;
• One set of objective moral facts exist.

These facts can be properly apprehended

Facts are apprehensible;

• If a fact is objective, it is intelligible;
• If an objective fact is intelligible, it is apprehensible;
• Objective facts are apprehensible.

Facts are properly apprehensible;

• Objective facts are intelligible;
• Intelligible facts are apprehensible;
• If a fact is apprehended, it is apprehended properly.

(Note: This is axiomatic. You either understand, or you do not. You either apprehend the fact, or you do not. A word which means “understood” leaves no room for “incompletely” understood. It is, or it is not. )

• Objective facts are properly apprehensible.

Objective facts can be properly apprehended.

These facts have a source.

• An objective moral fact would be communicated via information;
• Information must have a source;
• Objective moral facts have a source.

This source is the true source of all objective moral facts.

• If all objective moral facts are contained in a set, this set is objective moral fact;
• If objective moral fact is supplied, it is supplied as a set;
• The set cannot contain any moral non-facts;
• If it is supplied as a set, it has either one source, or multiple sources which agree in all respects.
• To be factual is to be true;
• This source is the true source of all objective moral fact.

Bonus Arguments:

This source is also the means by which objective moral facts are properly understood.

• The source must communicate these facts to others, if others are to know them;
• Understanding is predicated upon knowledge;
• The source is thus the means for proper understanding of these facts.

< < Further Discussion Here >>

In the comments to my previous post, I was challenged by Hookflash, who will be quoted from this point on, and annotated as “H“.

H: Even if there are “objective” moral facts, your apprehension of them is subjective (and, thus, prone to error).

The proper response is:

Despite the fact that objective moral facts exist, your apprehension of them is subject to error, and prone to be misinterpreted subjectively, despite their objective status.

From such misapprehensions arise sin – aka “violations of the objective moral standards”.

H: This is why, if you were to ask 10 moral realists to outline their supposedly “objective” moral standards, you’d probably wind up with 10 different standards. 😉

First, that claim lacks specificity. The subject is not “moral realism” – it is “moral objectivism”. What is “real” is another way of saying “what is true”. However, it is not a common conception to all “objective” moral standards, nor are all “objective” moral standards similar, let alone identical.

Thus, by using a non-universal as your universal, you are committing a fallacy of composition. Someone who considers Objectivism to be true, despite the term “Objectivism”, is not akin to a Christian objective moralist, who holds that all truth, all morality, is derived from the person of God. An Objectivist believes that all truth is derived from human reason, and that the primary goal of human morality is to advance self-interest, and self-happiness.

Thus, your statement is no longer universally applicable, as the two are incompatible. By stating something already known as if it is something that is not, you are committing a Fallacy of Exclusion.

We *know* moral realists are not all alike. However, as this is a Christian apologetics blog, assume, always, that I am talking about Christian Objectivism – especially due to my argument above. In Christian Objectivism, the only correct morality is the morality given from God. Misapplications, subjective, or otherwise, are by default, inherently wrong. Truth claims contrary to those given by God are also inherently wrong, and thus, subjective. You are also committing a Broad Definition fallacy, because you are stating what is already said to be excluded from valid truth, as if it is legitimate truth within the system criticized.

Christianity, within it’s basic, necessary premises, says that anything contrary to God’s statements is untrue, regardless of ‘alternate” subjective interpretations. There is one truth, and one truth only. If we are wrong – we are only that – wrong. Only God’s statement on the issue is right.

Whether a hypothetical 10 “moral realists” contradict each other is inconclusive, at best, and irrelevant, at worst. In a logical winnowing of the truth/morality claims, only one is legitimately correct. Plurality has no basis in logical argument.

True/False, not Both.

H: Furthermore, the source one chooses as the basis of their “objective” morality (e.g., the Bible, or the Koran) is chosen subjectively — i.e., you make a decision which is, like all decisions, subjective.

This comes down to your conception of reality, and of the efficacy of logical thought. If things are knowable, and truth can be distinguished from untruth, then the choice is anything but subjective. It is once again, objective. Only one religion can be true, or no religion is true at all. Those are your choices.

Jesus cannot be both God and not-God. This is a logical violation. Christianity, by that simple logical proof, excludes all inclusion in pluralistic thought. Jesus’ claim to deity defies logical inclusion with any religion which denies His deity.

A cannot be both A, and Not-A.

So, we now have Christianity, and every other religion. Islam, for example, thinks Him to be a prophet, but decidedly not God. it cannot be true, while Christianity is also true. The converse is also logically necessary.

Atheism is also incompatible, as a truth claim, with Christianity. A philosophy which states “there is no god” cannot co-exist, pluralistically, with a religion which claims that there is not only a God – but that a specific historical, verifiable person in history was, in fact, God.

It also cannot co-exist with weak atheism, or agnosticism, which says “I have not enough evidence to believe in a God.”

It runs directly into Christianity’s Romans 1:20, which states:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Once again, incompatible.

The choice is made logically, whether you consciously realize it, or not. things are subject to others things until you run out of subjects, yes. To a point. However, Reason is derived from objective principles governing it (logic) – or Reason ceases to be trustworthy. Truth claims are winnowed by logic, and logic by the actual veracity (truth) of logic’s premises.

If you choose which Truth is “correct” the same way you choose which breakfast cereal to buy – you take the process of arriving at, and coming to an understanding of, Truth far too lightly. You don’t “choose” what is true. You arrive at the doorstep of truth via reason, and logic. Reason takes you only so far. Truth is truth, no matter what you choose to consider as true. There is no “Atheism is True for you, but Christianity is True for me”. If A =/= C, (they are by definition antithetical) then A = T and C = T is, by definition, and by logical proof – false. Thus, there can be only one “T” – and only one thing can be correct.

The same thing applies for every claim to truth which differs. There is NO “this truth is correct, and so is this truth – despite the fact that the two “truths” contradict each other. Either one is true, or neither are true. Those are your only options.

Let’s put it another way. If nothing is objectively true – all of the logical proofs above would be meaningless. I could say “A =/= C – yet A = T and C = T are both correct – and this is true for me.” I would be absolutely correct – because there is no objective, absolute, outside-of-myself truth. Unless there is an objective standard to say “No, inequal statements BOTH equaling a third statement is absolutely impossible.” This is not paradox, but impossibility, unless we have an explanation which negates A =/= C. There is no such negation, and there is such a standard (the laws of logic) which says that the above is, indeed, the truth. Contradictory statements just can’t. This is immutable. Absolute. Objective.

Objective Morality holds to the same principle. Morality is a standard defined outside of the person whose behavior being measured against the standard. Morality is NOT a standard defined by the person whose behavior is being measured against the standard. This is subjective morality.

Subjective morality denies “standards” altogether. A standard is a measurement by which the measured are measured BY. The measured do not maintain the standard – or they could move it whenever they wished, willy-nilly. it ceases, at that point, to be a standard. It is then a “personal goal” – which can be adjusted whenever the person in question sees fit.

He is now the only person judged by that standard – and a judge cannot judge himself. In law, a judge would have to recuse himself for a case involving his own personal interests. Do you honestly think moral law is any different? Or do you think a judge should judge himself?

H: You can then stamp your feet and declare vehemently that your source is the objective one, and everyone else is wrong, but the fact remains that you’re using moral standards which are, at bottom, subjectively chosen.

The choice of which objective moral standard which I believe to be logically (and actually) true is not the issue. The issue is whether the standard chosen is itself objective or subjective. That is the question, not whether the choice of which objective standard to choose is subjective. Of course it’s subjective. However, the principles by which we arrive at that choice are objective – unless we are wrong. In which case we’re wrong. However, we are objectively wrong, not subjectively so. Only one objective truth claim is objectively true. If all objective truth claims are compared, only one will be actually true. Several may be logically true – as in, logically valid – but only one will be actually true. The principles of logic are objectively true. Therefore, by objective principles, we choose which objective truth claim has the best claim to be, in fact, true.

The fact that we make a choice may be subjective – but, the process of making it will be objectively valid, or objectively invalid. True, or false. This is objective. With two antithetical truth claims there is either one true claim, or none. Both cannot be true.

H: In short, “objective” morality solves nothing, especially when its supposed objectivity is based entirely on a subjectively-motivated assertion (whether made by a group or an individual).

Does Objective Truth exist? If not, why should I believe you when you say it doesn’t? In that case, my claim that it does is just as valid as yours, since I subjectively defined it myself.

If so, then there is such a thing as a truth undefined by man, and true regardless of what any man thinks, as to it’s truthfulness. Truth may be Atheism, Christianity, or neither. but what we think about it doesn’t have any affect on whether it is, in fact, true.

Thus, either you, or I, or neither are correct. There is no highway option.

The standard is objective. Whether I choose to believe it to be true or not does not affect it’s actual truth one iota. It is either true, or it is not, regardless of my choice to believe it is.

You are mistaking a subjective action for a standard. You are changing subjects, and proclaiming that the Scarecrow hereby defeats the Tinman – when the fight was between the Lion and the Tinman to start with. I could quibble with you about whether the choice actually IS subjective or not – but it’s still irrelevant. it isn’t about the choice. It’s about whether the standard by which morality is defined is mutable, or immutable. Subjective, or Objective.

When and how we choose to believe which is correct has nothing to do with the properties of the standard itself. Unless you deny Objective Truth. In which case I no longer recognize the validity of your claim, state my claim to be lord and master of humankind, and decree that all my subjects shall henceforth be referred to as “Elvis”. Oh, and I’m right. Because I say so.

And there ARE beezelflobbits on Jupiter – and their name is Sam. Just Sam. I’m right then, too.

Subjective morality, just like subjective truth, is self-contradicting. It’s still fun to be 2 years old again sometimes, though.

“That isn’t your toy!”

“MINE!”

“No, it isn’t.”

“MINE!”

2 year olds are inveterate subjectivists. Everything, regardless of the *objective* truth of their claim – is subjectively theirs. They say so, after all.

A logical form modeled by a two-year old doesn’t hold much appeal to me, however.

UPDATE: Joe posted on the same basic subject today.

I’ve posted about Subjectivism before. I’m happy with the post, but it didn’t cover all of the aspects of Subjectivism that I wanted to cover, and I’ve had an epiphany of sorts.

If: Subjectivism is the belief that the individual conscience determines the morality of the decision;
Then: The individual conscience is determined to be more important, or more valid, than objective moral truth, or its standards.

Contrasted with:

If: The Biblical Account is true;
Then: God’s Word is Objective Truth.

So, we have two antithetical statements.

If:God’s Word is Objective Truth,
Then: Jesus Christ is Objective Truth, per John 1:1.

If: Jesus Christ is Objective Truth;
Then: God the Father is Objective Truth, as Jesus stated that His Father who sent Him was true.

If: Father and Son are Truth;
Then: the Spirit will also be truth, as is shown in John 14:17

Thus; God, in all three Persons, is True.

If: Moral Wrong is called Sin by God
Then: God is telling the truth.

If: Sin is deliberate disobedience to the known will of God;
Then: Sin is morally wrong, as it violates the standards God has set forth.

(Which are dictated by God’s nature, not arbitrarily created. God is not subject to these standards – His very self is implicit in these standards.)

If: Violation of these standards is objectively sinful;
Then: Violation of these standards is a transgression not just of standards, but of God’s very self.

If: The act of violation stems from a personal choice;
Then: The act of violation is an act of subjective moral choice

If: The act is a subjective moral choice;
Then: The individual is, in essence, saying that their individual moral choice is of more importance, or more valid, than God’s very self.

If: Subjectivism is the act of proclaiming one’s own choice as more important, or more valid, than God’s very self

Furthermore…

If: Pride is an excessively high opinion of oneself;

Then: Subjectivism is Pride

If: Pride is the beginning of all sin (Vulgate, non-Protestant Apocryphal book)
Then: Subjectivism is the beginning of all sin.

If: Subjectivism is the beginning of all sin;
Then: since Money is the root of all evil, Subjectivism is the root of all evil.

Thus; Subjectivism is the Root of all Evil.

Slightly tongue-in-cheek… but, really. To be more serious – Subjectivism is simply Pride. It is a Pride in one’s own decisions, that supercedes your respect for Objective Truth – thus, God.

It’s inherently sinful. As we broke down what sin is – it is thus inherently morally wrong to follow a so-called system of Subjective Morality.

What a post to wake up to.

I am going to pose a question and ask you to think for a minute or two before answering. Stop for a moment before you continue reading this article and answer this simple question. Who is the worst sinner you know? Chances are that you know hundreds of people. Perhaps a thousand. Think of all those people and ponder which one is the worst sinner of all.

I’ll wait.

Who is it you saw? Do you know who you should have seen?

Who do you know better than anyone else? Whose heart is laid before you in its entirety, so that you cannot escape the evil bubbling just beneath the surface and the far greater evil buried deep within? When I stop and think about the greatest sinner I know, I really have no choice but to admit that it is me. I am the greatest sinner I know. It feels good to say it. Good but humbling. I am the greatest sinner I know. I may not sin as much as the guy next door, but I see only a few of his evil deeds, so he cannot be the worst winner I know. I see every single one of mine. All day long, in everything I do and in every word I say, I see my own propensity towards evil.

Don’t you agree? If you are truly honest with yourself – if you think, truly think, on the subject – you cannot do anything else.

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. ~ 1 Timothy 1:15-16

Thank you Tim. I needed to read that this morning.

So – go read the whole thing.