Tag Archives: wretched

There is No Death With Dignity

A sick child who is not terminally ill is permitted to starve to death in the UK and the mother who perpetrated this crime against her own child is considered “compassionate?” We live in a culture of death where life is meaningless and death is dignified?  Does that make us, as a culture, civilized?

There is no dignity in death. Ever. Death stalks us all and we can muddy the waters with euphemisms, but that doesn’t make death dignified. How long before these “brave” and “compassionate” champions of “death with dignity” legislate the value of someone’s quality of life? Who will be rendered obsolete tomorrow?

Wretched with Todd Friel

Episode 1504

View original post

Advertisements

Purpose is NOT the Gospel.

Jesus is not a product.  Many try to sell Christianity as something to make you feel better, or give you peace, or in the case of Joel Osteen (or anyone else who touts the prosperity gospel), to make you rich.  Don’t come to Jesus for stuff.  Come to Jesus for Jesus.

Wretched with Todd Friel

Episode 1356

View original post

It’s All Relative?

All of the great philosophers have attempted to answer the really important questions. Are people innately good? How do we determine what is moral? Where do those socks go when they are lost in the drier? Perhaps the greatest question of all was posed by Pilate. He asked Jesus, “What is truth?”

The dictionary certainly doesn’t help. It says truth is the quality or state of being true. Sounds kinda circular to me.

If something is true, is it always true? Or is it only true to the individual? Maybe the question should be reframed. How about, “Is truth really namby-pamby”? CARM.org states, “In relativism, all points of view are equally valid and all truth is relative to the individual.” So, from the relativistic postmodern view, truth is namby-pamby.

On the surface, relativism sounds pretty good. We each can hold our own truths and everyone lives happily ever after, right? What happens when these relative truths conflict with each other?

If I say chocolate ice cream is the best and you say vanilla ice cream is the best, how do we determine what is right? (I believe I first heard this analogy from Todd Friel on Wretched). Rock, paper, scissors? We both can hold our individual view as our favorite ice cream flavors are preferences.

What if you say murder is bad and I say murder is good? Are we both right? Are these ‘truths’ preferences? Which opinion overrides the other?

Before you say that murder is harmful to the murderee, how do you know? What is right for you is not necessarily right for me. Maybe the murderee has terminal cancer. Maybe not. It’s irrelevant. I say murder is good. You have no right to force your worldview on me anymore than I have a right to force my worldview on you.

Maybe you think it’s a stupid question. That’s merely your preference. In the world of relativity, serial murder is just as valid saving the whales. Further, the mere fact you think the question is stupid is forming a judgement.

Doesn’t the Bible say, “Don’t judge?” Is that all the Bible says? It goes on to instruct the proper way to judge. To judge with righteous judgment. Wait a second, I thought the Bible said, “Don’t judge.” When considering what the Bible says, think about what Paul Washer says. He says it so eloquently in KJV style. In response to this particular misconstrued scripture, he says, “Twist not scripture, lest ye be like Satan.” That sounds mean. Wait, I take that back because I was being judgmental.

The truth is that there is absolute truth. This truth comes from an eternal God. This is where we derive our morality. Is rape always bad? We already know the answer, but if we play Dueling Worldviews, we cannot say with any authority that rape is bad. We have an opinion.

I’m no expert. See what William Lane Craig has to say on the subject. You cannot have objective moral values based on subjective observations.

I’m no authority. I’ve just heard the argument unfold and people insist there is no God, yet there are subjective-objective moral values.

This argument gives me a headache. Some people want to suppress the truth in God so vehemently, he will accept ridiculous tenets to support his fractured worldview.

I know I must be anti-intellectual because I’m a Christian. We “blindly” hold onto crazy beliefs. Why should I accept the lie when I can plainly see the truth?