Posts Tagged ‘crimes’

If we were made in God’s image, that would mean that we have some of his creative attributes. If that is true, what is man able to create? Watch the amazing video below to find out. It is truly out of this world.

As a side note to my atheist friends, do you think it is possible that this could ever happen by chance?

Related Posts:

Relativism – Is there such a thing as absolute truth?

April Fools Day Mr Atheist – Is this you?

Advertisements

For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (Romans 8:13)

If you have been speaking to people about the truth of the gospel, one of the most common arguments that you will normally hear are things such as ‘thats your truth’ or ‘whats true for you is true for you and whats true for me is true for me’.

Click picture below to make the text larger if you cannot read it2008-01-25-43

In (John 18:38), Pilate asked the question is “What is truth?” when the Truth (John 14:16) was standing right in front of him.

One of the reasons why people do not like to admit that there is such a thing as absolute truth is because if, for example, the bible is true,  then they will have to admit that they will have to stand before a holy God on judgment day to give an account. So what they do instead is make up their own reality and their own god. Their god just goes around loving and forgiving everyone but has no sense of ultimate justice and just let lawbreakers off the hook.

rman1934l

One of the arguments that I normally use is if you have a person who jumps off a tall building believing that he can fly. His belief will not save him no matter how hard he believes because the law of gravity (absolute truth) will kick in. In the same way, it doesnt matter what a person believes. What matters is what is actually true.

I saw this article on the CARM website. It does not try to prove that christianity is true (I have done a series on this previously) but it does talk about the foolishness of relativism.

Relativism is perhaps the easiest of all positions to refute. When someone states that all truth is relative or that there are no absolute truths, then it is a simple matter of demonstrating the illogic of their position. These short replies to their statements are just what you need.

Following are some statements made by those in relativism. Find one that fits, copy and paste the reply into a window and see what they say.

  1. “All truth is relative”
    • If all truth is relative, then the statement “All truth is relative” would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that “All truth is relative” is false.
  2. “There are no absolute truths”
    • The statement “There are no absolute truths” is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and “There are no absolute truths” is false.
    • If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you – including relativism.
  3. “What is true for you is not true for me”
    • If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
    • If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. If you say yes, then relativism is false.
    • If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
    • If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
    • If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory and can’t be true.
    • If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn’t true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.
    • If you say that what is true for me is neither really true or false, then relativism isn’t true since it states that all views are equally valid and by not being, at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.
    • If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false.
    • If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.
    • If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true – even if it is only for me.
    • If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.
  4. “No one can know anything for sure”
    • If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure which is self defeating.
  5. “That is your reality, not mine”
    • Is my reality really real or not? If it is, then my reality states that relativism is false. If my reality is not true, then relativism isn’t true either since it states that my reality is true.
    • If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time — especially since reality is that which is true?
  6. “We all perceive what we want”
    • If we all perceive what we want, then how do you know that statement is true since I can want to perceive that your statement is false?
    • If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive?
    • If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived? Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it.
  7. “You may not use logic to refute relativism”
    • Why may I not use logic to refute relativism? Do you have a logical reason for your statement? If not, then you aren’t being logical. If you do, then you are using logic to refute logic and that can’t happen.
    • Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used?
    • If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth since you must assume relativism is absolutely true to be able to refute logic.
    • If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.
  8. “We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality”
    • If our perceptions of reality are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?
    • Is truth self contradictory? If it were, then truth wouldn’t be true because it would be self refuting. If something is self refuting, then it isn’t true.
    • If that is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same reality, then am I believing something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true? How then could they be the same reality?
    • If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted. If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid.
    • If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error. If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true.
  9. “Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting”
    • On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic? Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position? If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it?
    • To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought.

 

Taken from Stand to Reason

Gregory Koukl

Do you think that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?

I talked in the past about the difficulty in clarifying our communication of the need for salvation. Frankly, to a lot of people the message of Christianity is not going to be palatable, but at least we can make it clear. It will not be the kind of thing they will be happy with. Yet, at the same time, there are things we can do that make it clearer and not inappropriately put stumbling blocks in people’s way.

This is why I’ve often said that the Gospel is offensive enough all by itself. Don’t add any more offense to it. But we should not take out the offense that is inherent to the Gospel, either. This is why we are not pluralists even though there is pressure to be pluralists or at least inclusivistic with the Gospel. At the same time, we don’t want to communicate the exclusivity of Christ in such a way as to confound those people who are listening.

Christians often say, “if you believe in Jesus you go to Heaven; if you don’t believe in Jesus you go to Hell”. Is that true? Well, it is true, but it doesn’t communicate a sense of the true circumstance. It’s not coherent to most people because it just seems bizarre why what one person thought about some guy who died 2000 years ago has anything to do with their eternal destiny. Whether they believe in him or not seems irrelevant to anything that might happen after we die. So we have often not been careful to communicate the sense of things.

We need to be clear so that someone rejects the real message and not some incoherent mess that some Christian has handed him that they can’t make sense of. So, I don’t say, “if you believe in Jesus you go to Heaven, and if you don’t believe you go to Hell,” because this is misleading. I’d rather try to explain it more accurately.

Many of you are familiar with the conversation I had with a fellow at Barnes and Noble in which he asked me a question. I was giving a talk there as part of the book on relativism that Dr. Frank Beckwith and I co-authored, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Since I was talking about it in the bookstore, he came up afterwards and started asking questions about Jesus. Instead of unloading this slogan on him, I asked him this question. Do you think that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished? He said, “Yes.” I said, “Good, so do I.” Second question, “Have you ever committed any moral crimes?” Pause. Then he said, “Yes, I guess I have.” You know what I said to him? “So have I.”

This just took 30 seconds, right? Then I reflected back to him, “Look where we’ve come so far. We both believe that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished. And we both believe we’ve committed moral crimes. You know what I call that? Bad news.” And it is bad news.

Most people are concerned with doing what is right. That was one of the first things he told me. “I’m Jewish. I believe in morality. I believe in God. Why do I have to believe in your Jesus?” Here is a man who has some level of commitment to the moral life. The problem is, he knows that that commitment does not guarantee that he is going to live a fully moral life and he’s aware of his own moral crimes. And so am I. Now what? That is the issue? We are guilty. That is the bad news.

This is why it is so important to get the bad news before the good news. The bad news gives meaning to the good news. I was able to talk about the fact that now we both admit we have a problem, but that there is a solution that God has ordained. Since He is the one who is offended, He is the one who can call the shots on how to fix the problem. The answer is through His Son Jesus, who provides mercy because he took the rap for our crimes. We got off. He went to jail. A modern metaphor to put it in perspective.

There at least is the sense of things about Jesus being the only way. I hear it even asked on TV. The question is often asked honestly, but I think most of the time it is asked for an inflammatory effect. The person who is asking the question is wording it very carefully because he knows precisely how the faithful evangelical Christian will respond. He is counting on it so that the Christian says something that sounds to the rest of the people to be bizarre. Therefore, they can discount what the Christian says.

I don’t want you to sound bizarre when you answer the question I am about to offer. I want you to sound sensible. Here is the question. Do you think I am going to Hell? Now the only person who asks that is a person who thinks you think they’re going to Hell. Ninety per cent of the time they would ask it because they think you are nuts and they want other people to think you are nuts, too. They want to get you to say in public that people who disagree with you are going to Hell so that you will look silly and they will look good. How do you deal with that?

The problem, of course, is, first of all, it’s probably true they are going to Hell. Secondly, it doesn’t communicate the sense of things and so it is misleading. The people who ask this are generally not criminals. It’s going to be some nice guy who is basically good and sincere. You are in a tough spot. You are on the defensive already, you want to answer truthfully, but you know by giving a truthful answer you are going to play into his hands.

Jesus faced this frequently. He always got out of it, and I’m going to give you a way to get out. Answer the question truthfully and don’t sound like an idiot. It doesn’t mean everyone is going to believe you, fall at your feet, and want to receive Christ, but at least you will be able to give a proper and appropriate answer to those who ask you to make a defense for the hope that is within you (2 Peter 3:15). The answer is simply this.

When somebody says, “Do you think I am going to Hell?” and you think they are, you say something like, “Well, I believe in justice, do you?” “Yes.” “What is justice but that people who are guilty get punished in an appropriate way to their guilt? I believe that people who are guilty pay for their crimes unless they have been pardoned.”

This is very straightforward language. It fits entirely with our culture. It is terminology that has meaning immediately. It is also terminology that the person you are talking with not only is familiar with but they agree with the concept. We both believe the same thing here: justice. If you have committed any moral crimes, if you have done anything wrong, I think you will be punished for them unless you receive pardon. The punishment for moral crimes is Hell.

You are saying yes, I think you are going to Hell unless you receive Jesus. But you are putting it in terms that are making more sense to that individual. In fact, he has already affirmed the underlying concept, as well he should, because he believes in it.

Most people believe in justice. It is built in. It is part of their moral intuition, the image of God in man that is being expressed. They clamor for justice. There is a place for mercy, and pardon. We both agree. From God’s perspective, if you have committed any moral crimes, then you are going to be punished for them. You’ll only receive God’s punishment if you are guilty of something. Are you guilty of anything? What is so controversial about that? Don’t want to be punished? God has a means for a pardon. That is the whole point of our conversation. I don’t want to be punished either. I want to experience a pardon.

See how that works? That’s part of the tactical elements of communicating the knowledge truthfully.