Proclaiming The Truth. Are you ready?

ADDRESSING RELATIVISM:

The argument that all religions are equal to the truth-  "If all religions have equal claim to the truth, then no religion has an absolute claim to the truth (which they all claim to have.)   [But even in this belief you are stating an absolute truth ](kind of ironic, huh?)  By maintaining that relativism is {always true,} you are appealing to an absolute truth, which denies validity to the view of relativism and therefore defeats their own position.  If everyone is right, then no one is ever wrong.  No matter how disturbing, ridiculous, or perverse their beliefs.  Those who believe in molesting children or sacrificicing human life are just as right as everybody else.  SOURCE: Fast facts on defending Your Faith: John Ankerberg/ John Weldon

Another way of saying the same thing: To say there are no absolute truths is an attempt to state an absolute truth.  If your statement is true, then it is self contradictory, and not true and you are wrong.

*  Critic says:"What is true for you is not true for me"

Response: 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.

   2. ->If  you say 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.

   3. ->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.

   4. ->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 is false.

   5. ->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.

   6. ->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.

   7. ->If there is something other than relativism that is true, then                relativism is false.

* Critic says:  "No one can know anything for sure"

Response:

1. If that is true, then we CAN know that we "cannot know anything for sure."   Which is self defeating; because by stating that "no one can know anything for sure," you are in fact stating that you know {that} for sure.  But you can't know that for sure, remember?

*  Critic says: "We all perceive what we want"

Response:

1. 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?

2. If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived? Simply desiring truth is no proof that you have it and if we can all percieve what we want; what is truth?  And how could you verify truth?

*  Critic says: "Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting"

Response:

1. To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent to its system of thought.

ADDRESSING ATHEISM    Critic says: "I Lack a belief in a God"

1. If you say that atheism is simply "lack of belief in a god," then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith.  Therefore, your definition is insufficient.
2. Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject.  Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not it would not be an issue of "lacking anything," it would be a direct/ thought out decision...or you are agnostic.  You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief."
3. If you "lack belief in God," then why go around attacking the idea of God?  If you also lack a belief in invisible pink unicorns & flying purple elephants, why don't you go around attacking that idea?

Critic says: "I don't believe there is a God."

                                >Why do you believe there is no God?

1. critic says: "There is no God"         Response:                                                                                                      > You cannot logically state that [there is no God] because you cannot   know all things so as to determine that there is no God.                          2. critic says: "There is no proof that God exists"

                Response:              

             > To say, "there is no proof for God's existence," is illogical because                                  an atheist cannot know all things by which he/she could state that                                  there is no proof. He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing                                  proof.  After all, there may be one he hasn't yet seen.                                                                                                           Critic says: "Prove your God is real."                                      Response:

1. I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family.  If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid.  [ It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists. ]

2. I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists.  Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence...because your presuppositions don't allow it. 

3. The universe exists.  It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning.  The universe did not bring itself into existence.  Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.

                              Spiritual Blindness

Let us ask: What sorts of things cause this dysfunction? What causes this inability to see spiritual things--to see life from a spiritual point of view? Again, there are degrees of blindness, and several possible causes. The most common of all causes, we are told, is selfishness. We may not have thought of it in this context before, even though we may have suffered in many other ways, directly or indirectly, from the consequences of selfishness--ours or someone else's. But the fact is that self-love (and all the attendant evil and corrupt desires and purposes that follow in its train) has the power to paralyze our spiritual optic nerve--to blind our minds to the nature of spiritual realities.

In the mind of the person with the intent only on personal gain and gratification without any regard for the rights and feelings of others, "light" or "enlightenment" is what favors worldly interests and leads to temporal, self-centered gains. (Someone once called this "enlightened self-interest"--a strange illogical inconsistency. Self-interest is always blind.) This same person sees the fundamental principles of spirtual life as "darkness" or foolishness.

All of us, to some extent, are born blind. We all tend instinctively to put personal, often selfish purposes first in our list of values. Ultimately we need to realize that only in a way directly analogous to the process we have been discussing can we receive spiritual sight.

Turning to words of Isaiah 42:1-9, we need first, somehow, to become conscious of our innate spiritual blindness. To paraphrase the words of the prophet, we need to ask the Lord to "strengthen our feeble hands, to steady our knees when they give way, to say to our fearful hearts, 'Be strong, do not fear.' Then (and only then) will our blind eyes be opened."

What does the Lord say? Then Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment [as a Separator, in order that there may be separation between those who believe in Me and those who reject Me], to make the sightless see and to make those who see become blind."  Some Pharisees who were near, hearing this remark, said to Him, "Are we also blind?"  Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but because you now claim to have sight, your sin remains." [If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but because you insist, we do see clearly, you are unable to escape your guilt.] John 9:39-41 AMP

Meaning:  "to make the sightless see"- the physically blind were healed but this leads us to the deeper meaning--->To make spiritually blind people see IF they were willing/wanting to see the Truth.

Meaning:  "to make those who see become blind"- The "know-it-alls" He is saying if you would admit that you are {spiritually blind} you would not be guilty of sin. [because --then-- you would see your need for a Savior/forgiveness] but because you insist you DO SEE clearly your guilt will remain.  ie: stubborness, "I don't need God attitude" In essence people place judgement on themselves when they reject Jesus' offer to forgive.  Because forgiveness is always extended; with the admission of guilt, admitting that indeed you have sinned and are truly sorry about it.

The Born again believer- "Now we have not received the spirit [that belongs to] the world, but the {Holy Spirit} Who is from God, [given to us] that we might {realize and comprehend} and appreciate the gifts [of divine favor and blessing so freely and lavishly] bestowed on us by God."                                     1 Corinth. 2: 12......AMP

Person without Jesus as Lord-"...But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, {for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them }  [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] (why?->)because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated."    1 Corinth. 2:14AMP                                                                                   

"To argue the evidences for Biblical inspiration are the result of a myriad of lucky guesses requires an enormous amount of faith.  Such an assertion requires us to believe that ancient fishermen, tent makers, shepherds, kings, and paupers, who were seperated by 1500 years on three different continents, could consistently, and without error describe the nature of the universe, planet Earth and its life forms in a way that is  fully consistent with 20th centrury science.  It requires us to believe that those same men wrote history in advance--all of this without the guidance of One with supernatural "inside information." -Dr. Henry Morris