Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Why Mike's Not A Christian: Honest Questions About Evolution, Relativism, Hypocrisy, and More.
Why Mike's Not A Christian: Honest Questions About Evolution, Relativism, Hypocrisy, and More.
Why Mike's Not A Christian: Honest Questions About Evolution, Relativism, Hypocrisy, and More.
Ebook160 pages2 hours

Why Mike's Not A Christian: Honest Questions About Evolution, Relativism, Hypocrisy, and More.

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

3/5

()

Read preview

About this ebook

Why Mike's Not A Christian offers reasoned responses to the most common challenges to the Christian faith.
LanguageEnglish
PublisherBookBaby
Release dateFeb 12, 2014
ISBN9781608221295
Why Mike's Not A Christian: Honest Questions About Evolution, Relativism, Hypocrisy, and More.
Author

Ben Young

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong.

Read more from Ben Young

Related to Why Mike's Not A Christian

Related ebooks

Christianity For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Why Mike's Not A Christian

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
3/5

2 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    Why Mike's Not A Christian - Ben Young

    belt.

    CHAPTER 1

    Because It’s True for You, But Not for Me

    The little discussion between coworkers Mike and Josh in the opening chapter revealed a lot about their worldviews. Mike strongly believes that truth is relative and that any particular point of view is equally as valid as all other points of view. He thinks that it should be up to the individual to decide what he or she considers truth. Josh, on the other hand, believes that truth is absolute and that Christianity is what leads us to that truth. Much of their disagreement is an old war between those who believe in absolute truth and those who believe truth is relative. George Barna conducted a survey that showed that 64 percent of American adults (18 years old and up) do not believe in absolute and objective moral truth.¹ If you concur with Mike and the 64 percent of Americans who would take a relativistic stance, then please allow me to challenge you to rethink your claims.

    Meet Frank and Carl. Frank owns a jewelry store; Carl is a diamond thief. However, Frank isn’t aware that Carl is a thief. It’s a typical morning at the store, and about ten o’clock, Frank begins polishing some necklaces. Carl strolls in, feigning an interest in buying something for his wife. They talk about possible purchases, just as they’ve done every day for the past week. Then the topic changes.

    Carl says he has a meeting and leaves without making a purchase yet again. He’s been casing the joint for a week now, and tonight he’s ready to make his move.

    At ten o’clock PM, Carl routinely makes his way past the alarm, without a glitch. He’s got his ski mask and a Glock 33 (with a silencer), and everything is going as planned except for one thing—there is a light on in the back. Frank’s not usually here at this time; I need to make sure, he thinks. He walks to the back and, sure enough, Frank is sitting there, paying bills.

    In terror, he immediately yells out, Hey, don’t shoot … don’t shoot … don’t kill me … you can take whatever you want!

    DO THE RIGHT THING?

    Now, this may be an extreme example, but indulge me a moment. If your motto is, It’s true for you, but not for me, then you’ve got to give Carl his due. You must give him permission to kill Frank. He has that right because self-interest rules the day in his mind. You may be thinking, That is a stupid story. Anybody knows that killing is wrong. Well, why is killing wrong? Why does an objective standard of right and wrong all of a sudden apply when it comes to murder? I feel that it is wrong, you may say. But Carl felt that it was right for him. You may then reply, Well, it’s against the law to steal and to kill. They voted and passed legislation about this. It’s up to society to determine what’s right or wrong. Okay, but what if I said to you that black people are inferior to white people and that a bunch of white people should take over the ships of the Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, go down to Africa, and bring some black people back with them to be their slaves?

    By now you’re really thinking I’m a nutcase because everyone knows slavery and murder are morally reprehensible. On what grounds, though? You just told me that society determines what is right and what is wrong—and just awhile back in our nation’s history, society said slavery was okay.

    Slavery is an extreme example, you may be objecting. Nevertheless, we can take society out of it. My point is that no individual should impose his morals or religious values on another individual. You don’t have the right to tell me what to believe. But don’t you see that in saying that I don’t have the right to impose my beliefs on you, you are imposing your beliefs on me by telling me what I shouldn’t do?

    Now before we drown in a sea of quasi-semantics, let me give you another scenario: There is a man jogging by himself through the park one night. As he passes through a more secluded area, he sees someone brutally raping a young lady. He says to himself, Well, I don’t agree with what this man is doing, but who am I to say that he is in the wrong? You would likely say this is outrageous, but would a true relativist have any basis for condemning this jogger? I don’t think so. After all, he was only respecting the values (or lack thereof) of the rapist.

    Now, I’m not saying that all relativists stand for murder, oppression, and rape. In fact, I believe that most relativists are philanthropic by nature. What I am saying is that they don’t always realize the repercussions of their claims. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche admitted these repercussions when he wrote,

    The obliteration of God—and therefore, all objective standards for truth and morality—would usher in an age of nihilism, the rejection of all objective meaning in value. All that is left is the will to power, by which only the fittest survive.³

    What it comes down to is this: when you throw objective moral truth out the window, it’s every man for himself, every woman for herself—and the individual freedom you intended is forfeited and replaced by chaos and abuse.

    YOU SAY TOMATO

    To be sure, when you move from culture to culture there are certain norms that differ. For example, I lived in Mexico City during the summer of 1989, and I observed firsthand some major differences between Mexicans and Americans. In Mexico (at least at that time), you did not leave your parents’ home until you were married—it didn’t matter if you were rich or poor, young or old. In fact, to leave the family nest for any reason other than marriage was considered a disgrace. In the United States, however, children are encouraged to leave home after they turn eighteen or graduate from high school. To continue to live with your parents well into your twenties is not an ideal situation for most

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1