The Little Girl and Her Watch

I once read a parable of a little girl – living before the time of atomic clocks – who noticed all clocks in her village told a different time. Ambitiously she set out to get everyone synced to the correct time – her time. Walking down the dusty streets, going from house to house and shop to shop, she attempted to persuade all that their time needed modifying. Our little character was destined for disappointment, none were willing to change, all happily living in his and her own asynchronous worlds. As the setting sun glared into her squinting eyes, she approached the last house in the village. Sitting on the porch sat its owner – an old man. Again failure, he too had no desire to change. However, with a mysterious wave of his hand, he expressed that he had good news. Slowly rising, he hobbled to his little herb garden where sat a large, beautiful sundial. "The sun" he said "gives us the ultimate standard for time, which is shown with the shadow on its face." With that he offered to help change her timepiece. But alas, she too had no desire to change.

We also live in a society that leans heavily upon "tolerance" and "acceptance" of all views. Morality is relative. All religions go to heaven. 

Obviously, some culture issues need empathy and "tolerance". However, there are issues that are core to our existence that give no flexibility – like morality. We happily live in our asynchronous world, each doing right in his or her own eyes. Most ignore the ultimate standard, saying each can make up morality for himself and they are all equal. 

When people call for tolerance because someone else opposes their views, they themselves are being just as intolerant. The cry for tolerance in this sense is self-refuting. However, we should never have tolerance for bad ideas – only tolerance for people. 

Image Source: Wikipedia

On Discrimination and Noah's Ark

During the last few years, Ken Ham’s organization, AIG, has been spearing heading a project to build a full size replica of “Noah’s Ark.” One may not be interested in this project, agree with it, or even go to see it, but, it would seem to me, most would be like “great, if it brings money into the state, more power to them.” Interestingly it is not this way. They have been denied tax incentives because of two reasons:

1. The park owners want to have the right to hire per religious preference.

2. Have the ability to tell others of their religious views.

Practice What You Preach

However, it seems to me, the state is doing exactly what they are accusing this organization of doing: discriminating against those of a different view. Some parks are just for fun, others have more educational aspects such as history, religious education or science. Shouldn't they all have equal access to tax rebates? In fact, this park tries to combine all of these types of parks (even if one disagrees with their conclusions). Is “discriminating” now correct when another “discriminates?” This seems to be a self-defeating position.

Is It That Bad?

In addition, "discrimination" is made out to be a “bad” thing in this case – but why this type of situation? Governments and business do it all the time. In fact you do it too! Why else do businesses drug test people? Why don’t they hire engineers who have not gone to school? Why don’t hospitals hire a welder for a physician position? Why don’t you let anyone move into your house? Why don’t you allow robbers to enter – why do you lock your doors? Why did you marry the one who showers once a day instead of one who showers once a year? These practices are all discriminatory – but is this case different? I think they have the right to decide who they want to hire. If the state wants to discriminate, then they need to call it for it really is – they are “discriminating against non-materialistic worldviews". They don't discriminate against those who hold to a materialistic worldview.

Discrimination At Institutions and Governments

Look at government run institutions that only hire those of the same view point. Think about the educational system, I have personally meet and talked to teachers and scientists who have been demoted, denied a job, fired or had there articles denied in magazines and journals - because of their worldview. Why? Simply because they held to the view that the universe, to some level, had been designed by an intelligent agent. Talk about tolerance, diversity and being non-discriminatory!

Worldview Issue

You see, the foundational issue here is not Ham's boat or even one's science job, but rather worldviews. Nor is the pivot of this issue over religious views. It's the question of whether or not the universe was designed! That is foundational! The line of demarcation is design or no design. The fulcrum is materialism or theism. Both are worldviews, both try to explain our human experience.

However, it seems that preferential treatment goes to one worldview in our cultural – the one that feels that nature is all that exists. Even though this view is weaker in its explanatory power, it is more attractive because of its false sense of immunity to ultimate authority.

This skewed sense of morality leads to strange positions such as "discrimination is good dished out to those who hold to a view of a designer". It seems like it is a one way street by our culture's standards - it's good and upright one way, but the other....immoral and intolerant!

You will not want to miss the next posts. If you found this one helpful, you will want to keep an eye open for others. The best way is to click here, because you can get them straight to your inbox so you don’t miss out! (Click here.)

What are your thoughts? Do you know of cases or have you ever been "discriminated" against because you have a theistic worldview?

Yes, No, I'm Mixed Up

It's interesting when people who are not indigenous English speakers say "me speak no English." Why? Because it is self-refuting. They are speaking English to tell you they can't speak English. It is a contradiction. It is like saying "I am not going to respond to that comment" or "I don't have time to talk to you now."

We automatically forgive people in cases like these, even though they should be a little more precise. However, on important issues, I have concerns when people, who should know better, make claims that are self-refuting. Even though some seem funny, people really make these statements.

We already talked about the old "tolerance" trick, the "knowledge makes one proud" topic and "man's reasoning" statement. All are self-refuting. Here are others to watch out for in conversation.

Truth

"There is no truth." What? is that claim true? if it is then that statement is false. It self contradicts because that statement is a truth claim.

“Nobody can know anything to be true.” Is that statement true? If yes, then your stating a knowledge claim about truth. If no, then there is a possibility of knowing things to be true.

Science

"One can only know something by using the methods of observable science." A person on facebook once told me something like this. I had to tell him that the process of science itself is not observable, it is a concept. Nor do we learn about the concept of science using the scientific method. In other-words the scientific method itself is not testable by observational science.

Believe 

What if one says “I don’t believe in anything”? My question would be, do you believe that? do you believe what you are saying?

Knowledge 

“You can’t know anything for certain.” The person who says this seems to be quite certain of what he is saying. You need to ask, "do you know that for certain?"

Post modernity 

Unfortunately we see post modernity effecting our culture. It has made things relative and has made us sound silly. Proverbs states that the beginning of knowledge and wisdom is the fear of the Lord. These silly self-refuting statements seem to stem from a lack of biblical foundation.

You will not want to miss the next posts. If you found this one helpful, you will want to keep an eye open for others. The best way is to click here, because you can get them straight to your inbox so you don’t miss out! (Click here.)

Paint On The Wall

Paint on the wall. Yes, it does have significance to a house, but structurally what does it do? Do we as Christians sometimes focus on the "paint" instead of structurally issues? Do we quarrel over silly issues that have no long term ramifications and just cause division?

Yes, we can say they are important , but are they really? Are we focused on obeying Christ and the apostle's doctrines, or do we go about making up our own teachings that they knew nothing about?

Do we learn so we can teach others? Do we grow so we can affect others? What are you doing for the sake of Christ?

We each have been given at least one gift, what is yours and what are you doing with it? There is a war going on, are you just sitting there worried about the "paint on the wall", or are you doing something for the kingdom? Are you lifting the curse, saving lives from both spiritual and physical pain and death? Be intentional, be bold, be true, be merciful.

Follow Christ's example and teachings.

Ducks, Tolerance, and Persecution

In the land of the free, we have persecution. In fact it comes in multiple forms, but one main type is the putting some one down because they are intolerant. Our culture is constantly pressuring and persecuting those who do not fall in line with the status quo. It seems there is intolerance aimed at the biblical perspective.

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson made some observations on homosexuality. While a little crude, it was true and accurate. He used two very good lines of reasoning to tell why he does not support the act. The first one was design. Those of the same sex are not designed to have intimate relationships in that way. Jesus talks about how the first couple was designed to be male and female, they were one flesh. Second is biblical reasoning calling it sin. The Bible speaks out against homosexuality as Phil says. It is true, both Moses and the apostles wrote against it. The third line of reasoning, which he did not supply, is that the heterosexual relationships, ie. biblical marriage, is designed to biologically reproduce the next generation. This can't be done naturally with same-sex couples.

But what about tolerance, when people call for tolerance because someone else opposes their views, they themselves are being just as intolerant. The cry for tolerance in this sense is self refuting. GLAAD made a statement against Phil's statement that says the following "Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.” GLAAD demands tolerance for their views, but advocates intolerance for Phil's view.

The culture is calling for tolerance, but in the process they themselves are not being tolerant of Phil's biblical truth presentation. In other worlds, we are to be tolerant of everything except for Christian truth, in which we should intolerant. Would more Christians stand out like this guy on truth!

You will not want to miss the next posts. If you found this one helpful, you will want to keep an eye open for others. The best way is to click here, because you can get them straight to your inbox so you don’t miss out! (Click here.)