According to a 1991 study, 67% of the population of this country do not believe in absolute truth. 52% of Evangelical Christians said they didn’t believe in it!
In 1994, 75% of the
Are issues too black and white? Does a gray area exist when it comes to morals? Is lying okay for some situations and not for others?
Christians “typically” fall into a Traditional thought group.
First of all, let’s define some basic terminology.
One definition of truth is: (according to Dictionary.com) Fidelity to an original or standard.
This definition has a couple of dimensions to be considered. Firstly, it is important to note that a standard must exist. So truth is based on the existence of other truths. Also, what would truth be without deception? Is that a standard to which truth must be compared?
Morals are: (again, dictionary.com) Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
So again we have a comparison to a standard. We have guidelines that we follow to get us to truth and moral behavior. Where are these guidelines derived? For Christians they are given to us in the form of God’s word. We find that we as humans don’t get to choose what is right and wrong when we look at the guides such as the Ten Commandments and other writings that define the will of God with wrong and right in mind.
But what about people who do not believe in God or the Bible? They will fall into one of the other categories of thought. They are modern and post-modern.
A person who tends towards the modern thought will say “if there is no absolute truth, then there can be no absolute right and wrong”. With God out of the equation, is there really truth? So if the answer to that is no, then how can we judge morals? Morals must be based on truth. (McMullen)
There are some subgroups of this group such as “Conventional Relativists” They believe Right and wrong; good and bad are determined by the conventions of one’s society, not by any ultimate truth. This brings up some problems because if no one society is wrong then what?
Next is Individual relativists, who basically believe “what’s right for me is right for me, and what’s right for you is right for you” This presents a similar problem as before except on a much larger scale because everyone’s idea of right and wrong will clash if there is no standard.
Then we get to the other school of thought: Postmodernism. This basically states that it’s pointless to look for the truth because it doesn’t exist. Do whatever feels right, and go with it.
The problem with having no moral absolutes is that all things then become permissible, even those things such as Slavery and Racism that it are pretty firmly considered to be a bad idea. If you are in the “Modern” or “Relativist” viewpoint, then you are concerned with what is acceptable by society. If this is the case than people who owned and mistreated slaves were “right” in their society. They were engaging in a practice that was accepted as a part of their culture.
Lets take another example. Murder. Is it ever good? Society says no, most individuals say no, the bible says no. We have 3 agreements that it is a reprehensible act. But if you don’t believe in an Absolute NO, then how can you convict and punish this person for murder?
‘If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing, and I’ve since come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else, will be accountable to Him.’
These words above are those of Jeffery Dahmer, one of the worst serial killers in the history of mankind. He realized that his belief of there not being an absolute truth to answer to gave him the authority to behave in a way that is unacceptable because there were no after death consequences. Unfortunately for his victims this realization came too late.
We as humans are expected to behave in a particular way, our entire justice system is based on the idea of truth (in the
Let’s take the concept that “I saw him do it”. You have to believe that the person is giving an accurate representation of what they saw… but it isn’t even that simple. You must first believe that they can see, and that they can commit what they see to memory and reproduce that memory into a communication that we can understand! Do we know that what we remember is fact? Well, often it can be proven through other means, but to what standard are those means held?
We are given a set of standards for our lives. They are great standards. Take sexual sin for example. It is clearly addressed many times in the bible. If we remain sexually pure we are rewarded. We don’t get STD’s, we don’t get pregnant, and we don’t have to deal with the emotional issues of being sexually active. Most would agree that sexual purity is a Biblical principle.
If you don’t believe in the bible, are the consequences any different?
The obvious answer here is NO! All those things can happen whether you believe the bible or not. So truth exists whether you belive or not!
An earlier discussion brought up this point about recent news involving Billy Graham: “he sees things not as black and white, but as issues that have compelling sides and needs to be walked through.”
I contemplated that for a while, and here is my response: There are many issues that could be dealt with in the realm of this comment, but I’ll focus on one of them. We, as a society and as Christians, must have a standard by which to live. If we have no standard then chaos will ensue. We as people have not done very well setting up our own utopia (i.e. the fall of communism) and we cannot rely on our own understanding to guide us. Someone somewhere has to have some moral absolutes or societies as we know them will not continue.
What is important to note about Rev. Graham is his way of loving the sinner and hating the sin. He doesn’t feel the need to attack them as people, but rather he ministers to them through love and appeals to their sense of reason. We don’t need to break out the “30lb Bible on a Stick” and start going around telling people how wrong they are, but we need to build relationships and SHOW them that they should change to conform to the standards set for us by God in the Bible. I’m not saying our message should change, by any means, but the method used by some could be more in the image of Jesus. Remember that Jesus got angry with sinners once too, though. He did not take kindly to the dishonesty that was going on IN THE CHURCH!
Back onto my other topic, ethical relativism. This principle says that “what is right in one situation is not always right in another”. Plato would argue that if given the choice between telling the truth and someone’s life being taken or telling a lie and their life being saved, he supports the lie.
In his book, Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. 2nd ed Louis Day gives a great summary for this topic: telling the truth never needs any moral justification; lying and deception ALWAYS do. (Sourced from McMullen)
Why is this? Because truth is the basis of all morality. Without it, there is no standard to which our actions are to be compared and proven to be the best or right choice!
The age old question of stealing a loaf of bread to feed ones family being right or wrong. How do you think God would view that? Not only is it a direct violation of the Ten Commandments, but it shows a total lack of faith that God can provide for our family within the guidelines he has set forth!
Ok… wrapping this up…
Moral and ethical absolutes are important, and Truth must exist.
I know that seems like an abrupt end to this whole tirade, but that summarizes everything I’ve said and could say on the topic.
OH! One more thing… any good and believable lie has some element of truth. Think about that and leave some comments, if you’ve read this far!
Here’s a link to some of the Dr. McMullen stuff I’ve been sourcing all along here. She was my favorite prof in college and really got me to thinking about this stuff!
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~jmcmulle/310truth.htm
http://www2.una.edu/jmcmulle/310lecture2part2.htm
I think I have a good post coming on Moral Absolutes and Ethical Relativism. I’m still researching it and reading some resources from a respected mentor of mine, and some others out on the web, as well as (of course) What God’s word says about it. It may take me a couple of days to get it out there, but hopefully i’ll get some good thoughts put together, and hopefully it won’t be too boring!
UPDATE: I’m having a hard time making this NOT turn into a college term paper. I’ve been writing for a half hour and i’m already on page 2. I may have to get everything out and condense it. It could take a while!
Thanks for being patient!
Billy Graham says “that the former president (Clinton) should become an evangelist and allow ‘his wife to run the country.’” -Story from the AP.
I think maybe this was taken out of context… Surely what he meant was “Bill is slicker than a TV preacher” and “Hillary might as well run the place, she’s already done it once.”
But I wasn’t there…
Tonight while driving I gave Sean Hannity a listen. I haven’t intently listened to him in a long time, but this show caught me by surprize. He was interviewing Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham who is regarded as being probably the greatest evangelist of our time, possibly of all time.
Sean asked Franklin about following in his fathers footsteps, and taking over the Graham crusades. Franklin responded by saying that a ministry like what his dad has isn’t something that can be passed down like a business or property (i’m paraphrasing, of course). The part that really spoke to me was this great illustration that he used about his father’s ministry.
“It’s like a turtle sitting on top of a fencepost, you know he didn’t get there by himself”
God puts us all where he wants us to be, and it’s even more beneficial if we find ourselves in the center of his will for our lives. Certainly I find myself having this realization all the time in the last 6 months. 8 months ago, if you had told me i’d be living in Arkansas right now, I would have laughed you out of town. In fact that was the attitude with which I first met God. “Ha, real funny… me moving to Arkansas… that’s a good one Lord” *wipes a tear from laughter*
Here I am, and I am probably the happiest i’ve ever been in my career. I know God can maintain it, but I worry about having hit a peak to early, and that it might go downhill from here. But I am like that illustration earlier… I am the turtle. I am sitting on top of a fence post. God had to have put me here or I would have never had the strength, courage, or even the sheer ability to climb up by myself. God put me on a fencepost for a reason. That reason is still somewhat unknown to me and I don’t know what the next fencepost will be.
So for twice in all of history, the turtle has been used as a great illustration for living life.
1: Slow and steady do the job.
2: If you are a turtle you don’t get on top of a fencepost by yourself.
Franklin Graham went on to say that he is called to evangelism ministry, and that he is following that calling, but I thought it was very insightful of him to realize that without God allowing him that venue he would never be able to achieve it on his own.
It’s amazing how tensions can reach an unbelieveable level, only to be thrown over the edge by one misplaced and perhaps misintentioned comment or e-mail. Last night we had problems with our scheduling software outputting a corrupt file. This is an uncommon, but previously documented problem that from time to time raises its ugly head. Unfortunately, to solve this problem means that 2 people (myself and one person from the scheduling department) have to be disturbed after hours. Now I could go on about how that could have been averted if procedure had been followed and the logs had been prepared by the staff before 8pm, but at this point it’s irrelevant.
The other person who was called in was NOT happy about being disturbed during her evening with her husband. I, being on call, am quite used to it. I don’t like being taken away from a nice meal with my wife or the enjoyment of a movie to answer a phone call or to have to leave and go back to work, but you learn to deal with it.
The scheduling person sent a rather irresponsible and inaccurate e-mail about the support she recieved not only from me, but from my boss (who told her that he wasn’t on call, he was at a rehearsal and she needed to call me) . She sent a segment of this workplace into an inferno of blown-out-of-proportion. My boss pointed out to her supervisor the inaccuracies and general bad attitude of the person during our support call last night, and that perhaps it was inappropriate to place blame on Engineering/MIS because we had no control over the export of schedules. IF there was blame to be placed, perhaps it should have been placed on the people who did not do their job before 8pm.
This was taken wrong, blown into quite an explosive argument, and even a few remarks were made claiming that our department was racist in some way. I put a stop to that immediately.
Why do people feel the need to stir? There was no purpose in the original call, there was no purpose in the e-mail… and there was no purpose in the responses given.
I have wasted minutes of my life dealing with this childish stuff… why?
So, next time someone ticks you off… before you fire that e-mail off, be sure and think about it … read it out loud to someone and get a feeling for it before you send it off. It could really save everyone, including you, some heartache!
Designed By :
