Brian Williams – Did he really do anything wrong?

(Letter to editor),

It is most unfortunate that Brian Williams “fell from grace” in the television news business like he did. The unfortunate aspect is the humiliation he is experiencing at this moment because of his unwise engagement in false news reporting. That Brian Williams needs to pay a price goes without saying, but the humiliation is tough for anyone to handle.

To the atheistic model of morality, though, Brian Williams did nothing wrong! It was not long ago that someone wrote, “Claiming that there is any standard that is objective and transcendent of man, set forth by God, is plain and simply a lie.” To an atheist (or secularist), what is a lie? For that matter, to an atheist, what is truth? If there is such a thing as truth, then on what is it based? Is it man’s opinion, perspective?

If truth is based on facts, and there is no objective truth, then the facts are subjected to an interpretation. Subjective truth, therefore, is nothing but one man’s opinion, or perspective. Thus, Brian Williams did nothing wrong from the vantage point of the atheistic moral code.

Yet, atheists can’t live like that because of the obvious moral chaos it produces. In order to live by an objective truth they deny even exists, they “steal” Christianity’s standard of morality, and complain about and against those who try to promote it!

#atheism, #brian-williams, #morality, #standards

Delusional Jeffs

In the January 24th paper is an article on the life of a community with its religious leader, Warren Jeffs, incarcerated for immoral practices with young girls. Unfortunately, many in the religious community are still deceived that Jeffs speaks for God. “To his followers, roughly estimated to be about 6,000, he is a prophet who speaks for God and can do no wrong.” Because many find their spiritual guidance from a delusional religious man, the religious community is also delusional.

Moreover, there is no foundational difference between a delusional Jeffs and a woman in New Jersey “who put her newborn baby in the middle of a road and set the child on fire” (Herald-Review, 1.18.2015, p. A-3). Moral codes that have an origin in the thinking of man spawn such actions. Of course, a moral code that has its origin in a man like Jeffs is not really all that much different than a moral code put forth by atheists, agnostics, and skeptics (AAS).

Anything that has its origin in man, by the very nature of the case, is a subjective opinion. Thus, one opinion differing from another opinion on the very same topic of discussion allows for both to be right. For instance, one atheist believes there is a universal code of respect for human dignity, but another atheist rejects this out of hand by saying there is no dignity to be given an animal. According to moral codes that have an origin in man – both are right!

This is further illustrated with the following remark: “Claiming there is any standard that is objective and transcendent of man, set forth by God, is plain and simply a lie.”

If there is no objective standard, then standards are subjective. If standards are subjective, then the opinion which belongs to one person is just as right as that which belongs to another – though they are on opposite ends of the same topic (this also applies to actions). One thinks it is wrong to lie, while another thinks it is perfectly acceptable. This is why atheism, in its truest form, produces moral chaos and is devoid of moral substance. Atheists, however, must steal the moral foundation coming from God because they can hardly live with their own!

#atheists, #delusional, #letter-to-editor, #mattoon-journal-gazette, #morality, #mormons, #warren-jeffs


“Praise the LORD! Blessed is the man who fears the LORD, Who delights greatly in His commandments” (Psalm 112:1, NKJV). **** “But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases” (Psalm 115:3, NKJV).

We will hear, on occasion, what some call “ethical behavior,” and how some person failed to measure up to the standard expected. We also hear some make judgments concerning what they consider to be “morally wrong.” With the use of both these terms some of us are left in the dark concerning what standard is used to make such an evaluation.

When one gives thought to ethics it is implied there is a standard by which one can measure both good and bad actions. A long time ago there was a problem posed to a great thinker that has since become a problem for some to handle. It goes like this: do the gods demand what is right because something is right already, or are the commands that come from the gods rights because they said so. This problem is known as the Euthyphro Dilemma. The significance of this issue is in relation to God’s existence and objective moral wrong. Is God really needed in order for one to know there is an objective moral right and wrong?

For some it has been a difficult riddle to solve. Here is why it is thought to be a problem: if something is right already, then God is not needed to determine anything that is moral. Thus, if stealing is wrong already, then why is there a need for God who merely affirms what is already wrong? On the other hand, if God merely declares something right (by fiat), then He is really no better than man doing the same. In other words, it is arbitrary, similar to Stalin or Hitler doing the same because of a position of authority.

For Christians this is not as much a hurdle as one might initially think. The very essence of what is good (or right) comes from the nature of God—it does not come from man’s judgment of such. Man lies continually, but the nature of God is such that He cannot lie (Titus 1:2). To compare, then, man’s arbitrary judgment with God is to not compare comparable beings. Man is limited in the space in which he lives and he is limited in that which his mind can think. God is unlimited and infinite. More than that, though, man is selfish, conniving, and does not know where he is going. God is loving, giving, and has “already arrived.” The very standard of right can’t be known without God. All man can do is simply think that he knows. All thoughts and actions contrary to God’s standard are bad, wrong, and also evil. RT


#god, #moral-dilemma, #morality

What an atheist did answer, then me (7)

QUESTION: Without God, where do you get your morality from?

ATHEIST: From experience and effect. I observe what I do which hurts others, and attempt to learn how to avoid repeating that effect in future scenarios. Admittedly, a continuous work in process.

CHRISTIAN: An atheist has no moral code except his own. His moral code is of no more value than that which belongs to another, another that might be directly opposite his own. This brings about moral chaos.

#chaos, #morality, #objective-standards, #subjectivity

Morality, and some did not like what I said

A while back a person responded to my “letter to the editor” in the Mattoon, IL newspaper (Journal Gazette) by saying: “In essence, you assert that one must accept absolutes in order to critique said absolutes. Thereby, it becomes easy to discern which position possesses the audacity of asserting complete knowledge.” The reason for this remark was because I declared that an atheist has no moral absolutes and, thus, can’t judge things to be wrong except on the basis of one’s desired thinking.

An atheist, however, does judge some things to be wrong. When you hear of that value judgment rendered by the atheist, be sure to ask on what basis the he thinks something to be wrong (or right). Is it one’s own personal perspective, is it the perspective that belongs to another, is it the perspective that belongs to a group, or is it some moral standard that is obligatory to the whole of man?

Once an answer is given, then follow that question up with a question like this: since you have identified the standard, why is that I (or another) should follow that standard? It will be at this point that atheism’s moral bankruptcy will become apparent because the foundation for that moral judgment rests on nothing. This is not to say that atheist can’t be moral (for many are), but it is to say that their moral basis is a moral code that originates with the selfish nature of man (or even self).

In the brevity of the letter to editor, the objector tried to include the Euthyphro Dilemma, but was unable (or unwilling) to develop the dilemma for the newspaper audience because, evidently, he wanted to get to some other points. It was another of his remarks I found interesting. “While philosophy rests upon assumptions not absolutes, morality is a demonstrable evolving system, which contains both objective and subjective morals, paralleling the advancements of society and humanity. That is to say morality is, inherently, from man.”

What is interesting to me in this remark is his association of “objectivity” with “a demonstrable evolving system.” Boy!, that really gives much assurance, doesn’t it? Man has an objective morality that is evolving?

  • If morality is objective (greater than the individual and collective man), then how can it be evolving (changing), and what is the source that changes (or evolves) it?
  • If morality is evolving – was there ever a time when something which is wrong now, was right a long time ago? If it was right a long time ago, what makes it wrong today?
  • Since there was a change (evolving), how can one know that the change to the new standard is right and true?

These questions simply make clear that the “objective” standard is not objective at all, but subjective and whimsical. So much for a morality that is greater than man! An atheistic morality might be able to conjure up much that is good, but the atheist has no objective (transcendent) standard by which to know whether he is right or wrong; as soon as it is individually determined, it is undermined because another might disagree with him – and who is to say the other is wrong?

#letter-to-editor, #morality

What an atheist did answer, then me (6)

QUESTION: If there is no God, can we do what we want? Are we free to murder and rape? While good deeds are unrewarded?

ATHEIST: Every person is free to do what they want, and is naturally subject to the effects of her/his actions. As to good deeds being unrewarded, why would a good person want to be rewarded? As to murdering and raping, why in the world would I want to do those things in the first place? Does the inquirer believe that if there was no God that she/he would be compelled to murder and rape? If so, then there are greater issues for the inquirer to deal with than whether or not there is a God.

CHRISTIAN: It is true that people are free to do what is desired, but the following replies to the three questions offer nothing in the way of an answer, just a set of more questions. The question is not why one would or would not engage in the vile activity, but on what basis would an atheist say they are wrong – except on the basis of his own personal likes and dislikes? Thus, moral chaos!

#atheism, #morality

Letter to editor

In the Tuesday paper (10.14.2014) there was an article headline telling us the Catholic Church is entertaining a more open response to the homosexual community. The lead sentence conveyed two primary points in regard to a new practice within: first, the church is now “accepting gays into the church” because they have “gifts to offer,” and second, morality in regards to any homosexual couple is now “problematic.” This is not a surprise. The Catholic Church has not followed the Bible for years, hundreds years in fact. They take some information in the Bible and teach it, but following the New Testament as prescribed by the Lord and His apostles is something they don’t do.

What is truly problematic is that the Catholic Church, a significant religious community, has now introduced confusion into their own community. “Some conservative cardinals downplayed the report as insignificant or derided it as unacceptable, while conservative groups denounced it as heresy and a ‘betrayal’ that will only serve to confuse Catholics.”

This gets to a greater issue: a moral base from which one can understand right, wrong, good or bad is set in place by God, or by man. If by man, then the moral base is fluid, not anchored in anything but man’s thinking. If it is anchored in God (and it is), then that which the Catholic Church, or any other church says to the contrary is a church to be rejected as not of God.

Submitted to the Herald-Review (Decatur, IL)

#catholic-church, #homosexual-agenda, #morality

A microcosm of the larger problem

The big football league of America sure seems to be overwhelmed with serious moral issues right now…intentional concussion-giving players included. As far as the bandwagon media attention goes, the flow will soon give way to the ebb, but the issues won’t disappear. And maybe it’s just because the issues revolve around the behaviors and decisions of people (sin and temptation are common problems to athletes and non-athletes, right?), but I can’t help but notice how the football league and its problems look strangely like a perfectly clear microcosm of the larger problem that the American culture is dealing with – namely how do we deal with the obvious errors of humanity.

For now, like the American culture at large, the response from the professional league has been to deal with the issues from almost a purely punitive aspect – fines, suspensions, and firings, with a little counseling mixed in here and there. But what about the root of the issues? It doesn’t seem to be the love of money because the problems are costing the players that stuff – not making it for them! What it seems to be is a lack of morality and common courtesy. And it seems that the big league is willing to endorse almost any cause other than the one that could and would solve the vast majority (it would be all, but the answer is based upon the application made by each individual) of the issues that are being dealt with today, not to mention the issues that will be dealt with tomorrow; but for now it seems like they’re only willing to throw a penalty flag at someone who is willing to attempt to introduce a new “head-coach” and “play-calling book” that could and would help every party involved.

Hey, I’m not trying to Monday-morning quarterback here. I just know from experience that when I fail to listen to Jesus, I end up on the bench every time with the decisions that I make; and anybody who has a desire to compete and win knows that sitting on the bench is not where you want to be.

#answer-to-sin, #culture, #jesus, #microcosm, #morality, #nfl, #rg3

More ungodly in 2014 than in 2001

Has America (or even the entire western culture) learned any lessons on morality?

Has an enemy that vows to destroy us despite our effort to destroy it (including millions of soldiers and hundreds of billions of our currency) taught us anything?

Has the vanity of the notion of a Godless nation not yet been filled?

Our politicians still use the phrase “God bless America” while signing laws that attempt to condemn his ways of righteousness and morality. Our very own weapons of war are now being used against us. Our Godless landscape is continually changing into a landscape not void of God, but a landscape full of idols that encourage us to do what we have already decided is going to be done.

Not a single lesson remains within the American psyche as a whole that was planted on the morning of September 11, 2001. Our media has grown more foul. Our politicians have grown more corrupt. Our moral mindset has grown more numb. Our pride has continually risen. Our ungodliness is evermore present as an example to the rest of the world.

Have we become Babylon, or is Babylon on its way here? Either way, the results will be the same.

And by the way, this is not an anti-America rant – this is an anti-sin rant. My prayers still go out to the families that were devastated on this morning so many years ago, as well as for the families that have been separated due to their loss in the armed services. But another prayer still remains as well: that we, as a nation, would see that it is still the most high God who rules within the kingdoms of men, and he gives the power to whosoever he wills (Daniel 4:32), and collective ungodliness will be collectively dealt with.

#lessons-unlearned, #morality, #september-11th, #ungodliness

Scientology and Flint, MI

Morality and the city council have a meeting of the minds upcoming. It appears that in Flint Michigan there is a desire to have a “nonreligious moral code” promoted for the community. What is that moral code? Scientology. Certainly, the pagan ideology has a moral code, but its moral base is what? Well, it is pagan, isn’t it? And, don’t we already know that pagan moral codes have worked tremendously through the years? Just look around and see how effective they have been.

The sarcasm notwithstanding, in the story, the implementation of the moral principles will be helpful to the community, any and all communities. But the foundation of the principle has at its base the thinking of man, and the very nature of man’s thinking is fleeting and evolving. What if someone did not want to obey? Will there be an arrest? Will there be an educational moment wherein some educator speaks about a transcendent, objective reason for why obedience is of greater value than not?

Of course not.

The reason for a moral code is obvious to a thinking person, but a moral code that has its origin in societal evolving man is a moral code that is resting on a piece of drift wood. It comes and goes with the tide (or waves).

The ONLY moral code for man that is transcendent and objective is that which has its origin in the righteous and holy God. We may all struggle with putting it into perfect practice, but at least we know it will net be floating like a piece of wood drifting on the water.

#morality, #scientology

Ashby Camp on the Bible and homosexuality

Ashby Camp has added a new study in PDF format about “The Bible and Homosexual Conduct” to his Bible studies page. It can be accessed here, along with others:

Ashby is a thoughtful student of the Word. You’ll be benefited by his material.

#bible, #homosexuality, #morality

It’s Amazing What the Government Can Fast-Track When They Want To!

So the Supreme Court decided last week that employers can’t be forced to provide employees with “birth-control” (i.e. abortion causing medication) that violates its religious convictions. Sounds like that would settle it, right? Wrong!

In a government that is notorious for gridlock, somehow one of the political parties has managed to get it all together in only a few days to produce a bill that would overturn the Supreme Court’s decision and force businesses (including certain schools, hospitals and churches) to provide whatever form of birth-control is covered (i.e. mandated) by the Affordable Care Act.

And their reasoning? Well as senator Patty Murray, of Washington state, said, ““Your health care decisions are not your boss’ business….”

So here’s my response to that statement:

  • if it’s not the boss’ business then why is the boss being forced to provide it!?
  • why is the boss being told it’s not their business when it is their business that’s being targeted?
  • if it’s not the boss’ business then why don’t you go take care of the situation privately without forcing someone else to participate against their will?
  • if it’s not the boss’ business, or anyone else’s business for that matter, then why is it the government’s business?
  • and since when does someone’s “right” require the revenue of someone else?

It’s a veiled issue that forces intrusion on the basis of preventing intrusion, and it sure is amazing what riles up the dander of some politicians while other issues seem to float on down the river of moral apathy, hypocrisy and relativism.

#birth-control, #morality, #opinion, #political-hypocrisy, #politics, #supreme-court

Can the leopard change its spots by the vote of man?

The complete mockery of God that comes from creeds and councils has reared its ugly head according to an article on AOL which begins by saying:

“[the] top legislative body of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has voted by large margins to recognize same-sex marriage as Christian in the church constitution, adding language that marriage can be the union of “two people,” not just “a man and a woman.”

I guess the “top legislative body of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” has apparently decided to get into the work of the saddest sorts of comedy. Whether or not it is unbeknownst to them, this “legislative body” has just proven that they’re every bit as spiritually depraved as those who practice the newly sanctioned (not to be confused with sanctified) abomination of homosexuality within their church.

When it comes to what is “Christian” it is Christ who determines what is and what isn’t Christ-like. And the Christ of Christianity has spoken on the matter of marriage and who may and may not enter the God-ordained union (Matthew 19:1-9). The situation has not been left open for mankind to decide, for God has never taken a vote from humanity to determine what is and what is not moral, especially for his people, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read Jesus’ “epistles” to Pergamos and Thyatira amongst the other churches of Asia addressed in the letter better known as the Revelation of Jesus Christ. A council can change whatever words they like in a creed or some supposed constitution, but not a single word has been changed in the word of God concerning the issue.

Can depravity become moral with a majority vote? No more than a majority vote can change what is moral into depravity! And as Isaiah’s letter so plainly says, woe to those who think to the contrary (Isaiah 5:20).

And by the way, in case you may be wondering why the vast majority of people who make up the churches of Christ are so adamantly against councils and creeds, listen to this quote from the article; particularly to the description of the “constitution” under consideration. While speaking about the coming change to the “church constitution”, Bill Norton, of the Presbytery de Cristo, said:

We are laying hands on something that is holy, that God has given us, so we need to be sure any changes we make are in accord with God’s will revealed in Scripture,

If the will of God has been revealed in scripture then why is any other book, page or paragraph needed? And if it comes from God it cannot be changed by the will of man (John 10:34-36).

What will you say when He punishes you? For you have taught them to be chieftains, to be head over you. Will not pangs seize you, like a woman in labor? And if you say in your heart, “Why have these things come upon me?” For the greatness of your iniquity your skirts have been uncovered, your heels made bare. Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil. “Therefore I will scatter them like stubble that passes away by the wind of the wilderness. This is your lot, the portion of your measures from Me,” says the Lord, “Because you have forgotten Me and trusted in falsehood. Therefore I will uncover your skirts over your face, that your shame may appear. I have seen your adulteries and your lustful neighings, the lewdness of your harlotry, your abominations on the hills in the fields. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! Will you still not be made clean?”” (Jeremiah 13:21-27)

Related Article:

#apostasy, #councils, #creeds, #homosexual-marriage, #morality, #presbyterian-church

I have a good friend who is an…

I have a good friend who is an atheist. He is an atheist for what he thinks are rational reasons, but in truth are not reasonable at all. We have discussed this matter for some length of time. It can be read at This good friend is not one I have seen for quite some time, but our personalities have hit it off exceptionally well. At one time he was preaching for the Lord in His church. It goes to show, because he is doing so no longer, that what he thought was depth at the time was nothing of the sort.

2 Corinthians 13:5 is always a good passage to reflect on.

Recently, this friend of mine posted some thoughts relative to God. He has done so many times before, but I could not give any attention to them; I can only give but a little bit of attention to it now.

To him, the issue of morality is a troubling matter; he won’t agree to this so much, but that he writes on it often is indicative of the fact that it is. For instance, he recently said that “moral codes are so subjective” and then sets out to undermine the foundations of those who ascribe to a moral code that is objective (or transcendent) in nature. He does this by arguing that the moral code of a community is based on that particular community’s acceptance of what is accepted from a previous generation (or generations). This, by the very nature of the case, is a subjective acceptance. He then buttresses his argument by illustrating it with what Muslims accept: the Qur’an. That particular community is compelled to accept that standard, and they even argue that it is an objective code of morality for all people at all times.

If morality is subjective, as my friend argues, then there is no rational reason to judge a particular perspective wrong – but this is exactly what he does with the pejorative term “homophobic” in a sentiment expressed by him:

Case in point, the homophobic tendencies of both Fundamentalist Christians and the Muslim communities are based upon the subjective standards which were written by homophobic peoples of the past.  Those homophobic writings then have come to be regarded as objective standards for people who even more than two millenniums later still consider such writings as sacred truths.

The term “homophobic” is clearly used in a judgmental, pejorative way. It is a term that “situation ethicists” use to dismiss something they can’t overcome in argument. It is a term used in current debate to dismiss those who stand opposed to homosexual behavior as something that is immoral (and also unnatural).

As he brings his subjective perspective to a close he speaks of generations past who have misused an objective standard of right and wrong to abuse others in the community. Whatever is to be said about these abuses…might warrant just criticism, but that in no way undermines, in rational debate, the valid nature of morality based upon a source higher than man.

#atheist, #morality, #objective-morality, #subjectivity

Jesus isn’t allowed in school? What’s new?!

There’s a news story out there on the web about a 6-year-old who was told by his teacher that “Jesus is not allowed in school” after bringing some candy canes for his classmates with a religiously themed note attached. Now I personally understand that the teacher was trying to use words that a 6-year-old could understand, but I also understand that explaining something in its simplicity does not do away with the truth, that being that the school is not interested in having Jesus around.

Schools can’t have Jesus around, huh? So what’s hanging around schools since Jesus isn’t allowed anymore? Contraceptives without the parent’s knowledge? Sure. Telling kids how to have sex instead of educating about sex? Sure. Teachers having sex with kids? Sure. Kids dressing like they’re ready for the late night streets and the beach? Sure. Kids relentlessly physically and mentally torturing other kids? Sure. Kids buying and selling drugs? Sure. Kids disrespecting and threatening their teachers? Sure. Kids taking the lives of others kids? Unfortunately and sadly, sure.

Why wouldn’t you encourage a 6-year-old boy who will soon be a 16-year-old young man to bring someone to school who can teach the other kids to love and respect their parents, to love and respect their self, to love and respect their fellow students, and to love and respect their teacher? We wouldn’t want kids growing up to do that would we?!

Look at the major problems that schools are dealing with today – large dropout rates, graduated ignorance, out-of-wedlock children having children, drugs, gangs and school shootings. Why didn’t this stuff happen 40 to 50 years ago anywhere close to the way it happens today? Is it because you couldn’t drop out of school? Nope. Is it because there weren’t any kids not interested in learning? Nope. Is it because kids weren’t capable of having sex? Nope. Is it because there was no such thing as a group of punks? Nope. Is it because there were no drugs? Nope. Is it because there were no guns? Nope.

One of the biggest contributing factors may just be that the last generation of adults were more interested in telling Jesus to stay home instead of coming to school with the kids resulting in a generation that doesn’t know about the Lord, because of a generation that didn’t want to know about him, thus resulting in a generation of kids who are being given an education for their physical side but are being deprived and starved of an education for the side that helps to temper the physical one.

So Jesus isn’t allowed in school? Where’s that getting our culture and our children?

And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.” (Judges 2:10)

#children, #culture, #education, #jesus, #kids, #morality, #news, #school, #school-system