Tag Archives: truth

An atheist found one absolute moral law. Guess which politically correct one it is?

Atheists often have in-house debates over morality.  Some try to pretend that there really could be objective morality under atheism (e.g., Christopher Hitchens, for all his poor reasoning, was anti-abortion).  Others are more consistent with their worldview — well, they try to be until someone does something bad to them — and insist that there are no universal morals.  They are pure moral relativists, acknowledging that we’ve (allegedly) evolved to “think” there are morals, but that these are really just personal preferences.

One of the latter group has had a change of heart.  Sort of.  Via Professor Larry Moran squares the circle:

Professor Larry Moran has recently created something which he has previously declared to be impossible: a moral absolute. Readers might be wondering: what is Professor Moran’s moral absolute all about? Is it about the inherent wrongfulness of killing the innocent, or taking away people’s freedom, or oppressing the poor, or violating a commitment one has given? Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong! Here’s Professor Moran’s new moral absolute, in all its resplendent glory:

“It is totally wrong, all the time, to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preferences… There is NEVER a time when an enlightened society should tolerate, let alone legalize, bigotry.”

The reason why I was surprised to read this statement on Professor Moran’s blog is that he has previously denied the existence of moral absolutes. Here are a few examples of statements he has made on the subject of morality, and on how we can know that something is true . . .

How fitting that he picked our society’s most politically protected sins to declare off-limits for criticism! He is a Romans 1 poster boy. He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness by denying that God exists, then “gives approval to those who practice” exhibit A in God’s list of sins that suppression of truth leads to.

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Romans 1:26-28 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

You can’t make up things like this.  2,000 years ago the Holy Spirit inspired Romans 1, and here it perfectly describes this atheist.  He suppresses the truth by saying there is no God and no moral laws, then he makes up one moral law that goes against God’s first example of where suppression of the truth leads.

Atheists simply can’t live consistently with their worldview.  I hope God makes Moran and others spiritually alive so they can repent and believe.  There is a better way to live than by using the talents God gave you to shake your fist at him 24×7.

Why is the primary lie of the gay lobby so effective?

Because they combine it with some truth.

First, the lie:

Agree with us and it will cost you nothing while helping others.

What’s not to like?  Well, lots, if you give it a little thought.

It will make you more popular with the world, because you’ll be perceived as loving and tolerant instead of hateful, but it denies the truth in many ways.  Their agenda has and will continue to cost people their personal liberties, religious freedom and parental rights — and those are design features, not bugs.

And it doesn’t even help those it claims to.  Gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men. Violence is higher in LGBTQ relationships.  Even gay leaders wouldn’t want gays around their teenage sons, because they know how predatory that culture can be.  People can and do change sexual preferences.  They are not “born that way,” and even if they were it wouldn’t justify the behavior any more than being born lustful, greedy, angry, etc. justifies those sins.

And of course, that lie explicitly denies the word of the one true God.  To teach the opposite is hate, not love. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind.

Then why do so many people believe the lie?  Because it is packaged with some true messages.  Satan is evil, but he isn’t stupid.  Jesus rightly called him the father of lies, but that doesn’t mean Satan won’t gladly tell some of the truth to help sell the lies.  People have known for millennia that homosexual behavior was wrong.  God specifically says that you have to suppress the truth in unrighteousness to deny his existence, and one of the ways that rebellion manifests itself in in homosexual behavior.**

See how their truth and lies combination works:

Lie: Agree with us and it will cost you nothing while helping others.

Truth: Disagree with us and we will hurt you.  We will relentlessly mock you in government schools, the media and entertainment.  Like the blind men of Sodom, we will persist no matter what until everyone affirms us.  Not just tolerates, but actively affirms.  Silence will be interpreted as disapproval, and it will cost you your job, business, reputation or even your freedom.  We will not quit until all churches must “marry” same-sex couples and hire actively LGBTQ people.  It will be illegal to quote many parts of the Bible.  It will usher in legalized polygamy, polyamory, pedophilia and more [click any of those links to see how they are already being normalized].  We pretended that we were against those but we never really cared.  We favor anything that rebels against God.  But don’t feel too threatened.  We’ll help you convince others that the Bible doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is a sin, that it doesn’t harm people, etc.

Here’s just one recent example: LGBT Activist Declares: ‘We Need to Start Making Their Lives a Living Hell’

It’s time that the LGBT community forms a new organization that targets homophobes, bigots, religious zealots, religious fanatics, and all other assholes who are against equality, and human and civil rights for all people.
By targeting these bigots, and publishing every little detail of their sex lives, or personal lives, taking pictures through their windows, and getting the pics out on the internet, showing every little thing that they do, including how they wipe their asses when in the bathroom, or for that matter if they’re wiping their asses in the kitchen — we’ve got to catch it on camera.
The time to just sit back and take it, are over with for the LGBT community. We need to get rid of bigots like these homophobic religious assholes, and if it means exposing every little thing about them, then that’s what we need to do.
We need to start making their lives a living hell by constant observation and publishing pics and articles every time they fart, or spit, or even look cross-eyed. It’s obvious these bigots only understand one thing, and that is persecution, discrimination and bigotry.
Here come the LGBT bigots, gonna prey on the religious zealots, fanatics, and bigots who think their shit don’t stink, and think they can control everyone else’s life.

Can’t you just feel the love and tolerance?  That’s just one of the countless things the mainstream media will never tell you.  If they did, do you think it just might change the support for “same-sex marriage?”

That’s their combined message, and that is why so many people conveniently believe the lie.  Don’t give in.  Or if you have given in, come back to the truth and help others do the same.  If you really love God and your neighbor you’ll speak the truth.  In the next post I’ll explain an easy but provocative way to do it.

P.S. Their agenda is propped up by all sorts of other lies as well, such as Matthew Shepard’s murder, tipping hoaxes, birthday party snub hoaxes, etc.


* The three general types of pro-gay theology people:

  1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians)
  2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
  3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

** Romans 1:18–20, 26-28 (ESV) 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Parts of the Pachyderm

A favorite updated for your reading pleasure.  If you haven’t encountered the “parts of the elephant” argument yet, you probably will.  Even some people who claim the name of Christ use it to bolster their “all paths lead to God” mistake.



Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason has an excellent piece called the Trouble with the Elephant.

The ancient fable of the blind men and the elephant is often used to illustrate the fact that every faith represents just one part of the larger truth about God. However, the attempt is doomed before it gets started.

In the story, multiple blind men feel different parts of an elephant and describe it in different ways.  Someone who is not blind then points out the truth to them.

The typical application of the story is that religious pluralism is true – i.e., we’re worshiping the same God in different ways.

A good question to ask anyone who repeats this parable is, “Where do you fit into the story?”  If he is one of the blind men, then why would he have anything to offer you?  If he claims to be the person with sight, then what are his qualifications that he understands this world and you don’t?

Note that the blind men are describing different parts of the elephant, but it is still an elephant.  But if one religion says God is personal and another says He is impersonal, then they can’t both be right.  You can’t be an elephant and not an elephant.  I wrote more on the irreconcilable differences in the essential truth claims of religions in Religious Pluralism is Intellectually Bankrupt.

In a sense, the whole story is self refuting.  While the principle message is that we can only know a certain piece about God, the message itself claims to have the big picture.

It also has a rather odd premise: The “real” religion would be to follow every religion.  That way you’d have the whole elephant.

The only way the parable would work is if the elephant described itself to the blind people – sort of the way the God reveals himself to us in the Bible.  As Koukl says:

If everyone truly is blind, then no one can know if he or anyone else is mistaken.  Only someone who knows the whole truth can identify another on the fringes of it.  In this story, only the king can do that–no one else.

The most ironic turn of all is that the parable of the six blind men and the elephant, to a great degree, is an accurate picture of reality.  It’s just been misapplied.

We are like blind men, fumbling around in the world searching for answers to life’s deepest questions.  From time to time, we seem to stumble upon some things that are true, but we’re often confused and mistaken, just as the blind men were.

How do I know this?  Because the King has spoken.  He is above, instructing us, advising us of our mistakes, and correcting our error.  The real question is:  Will we listen?

Remember that if the elephant illustration is true, then Christianity is false.  The Bible teaches 100+ times that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  This is an argument that no Christian should use.

Sincerely held beliefs can be sincerely wrong

If you have ever flown internationally you are probably familiar with the little toiletry bags that most airlines provide with mini-toothbrushes, earplugs, etc.  Once on a flight from Europe the bag had a small container of shaving cream that looked remarkably similar to a tube of toothpaste.  Unfortunately, I was half-awake and didn’t notice this until I started brushing (“This toothpaste sure is creamy . . . huh? . . . ack/spit/ack/spit!”).

Many in our culture would concede that your view on what is in a physical container can be wrong, but they are quick to say that as long as religious beliefs are sincere that they are true for you.  But sincerity of belief has nothing to do with truth, whether it is religious or not.  If you sincerely claim that God spoke to you, for example, that claim is either true or false.  It may be true that you think God spoke to you but whether He really did or not is in the category of objective truths, not subjective.

Truth is that which corresponds to reality, whether the views in question are spiritual or not.

Even the belief that God hasn’t adequately revealed himself to us is a truth claim that must be defended.  The Bible is not subtle about claiming to speak for God (only ~3,000 specific quotes, plus other statements that the whole book turned out as He desired).  That isn’t what makes it true, but it is a clear and consistent theme that must be true or false.

Religious views aren’t just personal.  People who fly airplanes into buildings for the purposes of destroying life and property to advance their religious agenda are obviously quite sincere in their beliefs.  The question is whether their beliefs are accurate reflections of the one true God (Hint: They aren’t).

Despite what many poorly informed Christians claim, Christianity is a religion based on history and truth claims — namely that a real person named Jesus was God in flesh and that He lived, died on a Roman cross for our sins and was resurrected on the 3rd day.  I urge you to check “minimal facts” about Christianity, which are things that even non-Christian historians are in virtually unanimous agreement upon and that give great evidence for foundational Christian beliefs.

In my airplane experience I sincerely believed that the shaving cream was toothpaste, but I was sincerely wrong.  No amount of sincerity was going to change the composition of what was in the tube.  Religious views are the same. No amount of sincerity will result in your beliefs creating the traits of the one true God.  Therefore, you should follow the facts where they lead and make every effort to know the truth about God.

The pottery does not get to create the potter.  In fact, the potter hates it when the pottery makes up fake potters.

Eternity is a mighty long time.  Don’t mess it up by holding the irrational belief that you get to create your own god.  If you want to know about the real God – and you should – then read the Bible.  A lot.

Give credit where it is due

Warning: Apparently self-serving post coming up.  But hey, I think it is good advice so I’m sharing it anyway.

There is a term for taking credit for someone else’s accomplishments: Stealing.

Always make sure that your employees get every bit of credit that they deserve for their accomplishments and ideas.  You may be tempted to take credit yourself, but giving them their due will motivate them and increase their trust in you.  You will still get the overall credit for your group’s accomplishments.  Oh, and it has the added benefit of being true.

I have one employee who can still tell you every last detail about a supervisor who stole one of his ideas ten years ago.  And I just heard about a Director who is notorious for stealing credit that others deserved.  He deprived people of their just recognition and hurt his credibility.  I’m sure you have stories of your own.

So what do you do or what will you do when you are in that situation?

I recently had a case where this came into play.  I sent an email about a new process and my supervisor wrote back noting that it was a good idea.  I immediately wrote back thanking him for the feedback but pointed out that the idea belonged to one of my employees.  I cc’d the employee.  (I hadn’t mentioned the employee in the original email because the recipients were unlikely to be happy with the process change and I preferred that they blame me instead of my employee.)

So aside from the truth-in-reporting aspect here, what is the net effect?  While my supervisor no longer credits me with the original idea, he was quick to credit me for being transparent and a good manager.  The employee was recognized by the CFO and he realizes that he’ll get credit for all his work and that he can trust me.  He was very happy.

It’s win-win, and it is really simple: Just be intentional and habitual about giving praise and credit when it is earned.

The truth and “the truth”

I always enjoyed this bit from The Simpsons with Phil Hartman playing Lionel Hutz, Real Estate Agent and how it played on the concept of truth.

Lionel Hutz: Marge, I had a lot of calls about you.  Customers love your no-pressure approach.

Marge: Well, like we say, “The right house for the right person.”

LH: Listen, it’s time I let you in on a little secret, Marge.  The right house is the house that’s for sale.  The right person is anyone.

M: But all I did was tell the truth.

LH: Of course you did!  But there’s the truth [shakes head ominously side-to-side] and the truth [nods head up and down with big smile].  Let me show you. [Shows pictures of houses]

M: It’s awfully small

LH: I’d say it’s awfully . . . cozy.

M: That’s dilapidated.

LH: Rustic!

M: That house is on fire.

LH: Motivated seller!

Here’s the dictionary.com definition of truth:

1 .  the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

In egghead philosophical circles those definitions are referred to as the correspondence view of truth.  It is also the definition that five-year olds intuitively know.  And it is the real version.  The problem is that some highly intelligent people try to mangle the concept of truth to mean all sorts of other things.  Some people mock those who hold to the correspondence view as if we are ignorant or old-fashioned. 

But I’m quite confident that the correspondence view of truth will always be demonstrably accurate compared to other views.  Here’s why: If you want to convince me that your view of how truth works you’ll unwittingly use the correspondence view to do so.  You’ll try to tell me that your version of how truth works is what corresponds to reality, and you will prove my point every time. 

Truth matters, and those who try to distort the plain definitions of it usually have ulterior motives.  As noted in a highly recommend and  more detailed perspective by J.P. Moreland:

Postmodernism denies the correspondence theory, claiming that truth is simply a contingent creation of language which expresses customs, emotions, and values embedded in a community’s linguistic practices. For the postmodernist, if one claims to have the truth in the correspondence sense, this assertion is a power move that victimizes those judged not to have the truth.

But note how the Postmodern must go on to prove that his definition of truth corresponds to reality.

I completely agree with Moreland’s closing:

For some time I have been convinced that postmodernism is rooted in pervasive confusions, and I have tried to point out what some of these are. I am also convinced that postmodernism is an irresponsible, cowardly abrogation of the duties that constitute a disciple’s calling to be a Christian intellectual and teacher.

. . .

Faced with such opposition and the pressure it brings, postmodernism is a form of intellectual pacifism that, at the end of the day, recommends backgammon while the barbarians are at the gate. It is the easy, cowardly way out that removes the pressure to engage alternative conceptual schemes, to be different, to risk ridicule, to take a stand outside the gate. But it is precisely as disciples of Christ, even more, as officers in His army, that the pacifist way out is simply not an option. However comforting it may be, postmodernism is the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired, the ideology that undermines its own claims to allegiance. And it is an immoral, coward’s way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyrs’ blood.

Postmoderns will admire you for seeking the truth, but they will mock and revile you for claiming you found it.  They are proud that you can’t know things, though that is just a smokescreen for lying, cowardice or laziness.

Also see There is no truth except these five things, which highlights how postmoderns continually make truth claims while denying they do so.

“Christian pluralism” – self-refuting, oxymoronic and arrogant

I was searching for the quote at the bottom about Islam and came across this post.  I decided that since I’d been analyzing the many problems with false teachers in the church that this would be good to re-post with a brief update.  This is more subtle than usual for me (heh) but I think it is still meaningful. 

Be sure to read the comment thread if you have time.  It is a classic.  Though you may want to take your Dramamine first as you watch the theological Liberals spin around.


pluralism.jpgThere is good pluralism (“Numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society”) and bad pluralism (“All religions are true and equally valid paths to God”).  I have already written on the bad kind in Religious pluralism is intellectually bankrupt

Erudite Redneck did a piece on the bad kind of pluralism that led to an interesting comment thread (by “interesting” I mean pointless and bizarre).  I think he was quoting some group but it wasn’t clear.  Here are selected portions:

While we have accepted the Path of Jesus as our Path, we do not deny the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity.

We affirm that the Path of Jesus is found wherever love of God, neighbor, and self are practiced together. Whether or not the path bears the name of Jesus, such paths bear the identity of Christ.

We confess that we have stepped away from Christ’s Path whenever we . . . have claimed Christianity is the only way, even as we claim it to be our way.

I knew these views self-refuting and oxymoronic, but the more I thought about it I realized they were arrogant as well.  Here’s why:

Self-refuting: They claim that other paths to God are valid, but they specifically exclude Christians who think Jesus is the only way.  But if all these paths are valid, why isn’t orthodox Christianity?  And if orthodox Christianity is valid, then these other paths are not.  Also, the definitions of “God” in these religions are mutually exclusive. 

Pluralists simply don’t understand or apply the logical law of non-contradiction: You can’t have a personal God (Christianity) and an impersonal God (Islam) at the same time, or be saved by faith in Christ alone (Christianity) and by good deeds (everybody else), die once and face judgment (Christianity and Islam) and be reincarnated (Hinduism), Jesus dies on a cross (Christianity) and Jesus does not die on a cross (Islam), etc.

Oxymoronic: The Bible claims at least 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  It only needs to say it once for it to be true, of course, but the theme is so strong that you have to work mighty hard to miss it.  Pluralistic Christianity is an oxymoron.  Christians originally called themselves The Way (see the Book of Acts), not A Way

Have these people even read the Bible, and especially the Old Testament?  With their reasoning you could cut out a couple Commandments (“You shall have no other gods before me” and “You shall not make for yourself an idol”).

Arrogant: While couched in inclusive language, it is actually a rather prideful position.  They say that regardless of whom other religions say they are worshiping (say, Allah) that they are really worshiping Jesus.  But do pluralistic Muslims pat us on the head and say, “Go ahead and worship Jesus.  That’s OK, because we know you are really following Allah.”  Of course not. 

Ergun Mehmet Caner, a Christian scholar (and former Muslim) claims it is blasphemy to say Jehovah and Allah are the same God, and also said:

I have never met one intelligent Muslim who ever said that Allah of the Koran and Jehovah of the Bible are the same God.

One commenter thought it was haughty to claim that Jesus was the only way and that it denied others their humanity and religious beliefs.  Those claims have it backwards, of course.  It isn’t haughty to properly quote the Bible.  And I respect people’s religious beliefs even if I disagree with them.  And I appreciate their humanity enough to say that we can’t both be right.  But the theological Liberals patronize people of other faiths and pretend that they are really worshiping the same God.  How completely arrogant.

In addition to being self-refuting, oxymoronic and arrogant, Christian pluralism is also hypocritical.  If they really believed what they taught they would send out Reverse Missionaries on the Great De-Commission.  If all these religions are equally valid paths to Jesus then missionary efforts should encourage people to avoid persecution and just worship according to local customs (Islam, Hinduism, Baal, etc.).

The pluralists’ inconsistency betrays the fact they probably don’t believe what they are saying.  It is just an easy way for them to stay popular with the world and avoid the hard and risky work of evangelism.