Weekly Thoughts

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Thinking of what Satan told Eve and what her answer was to God:
Satan told Eve they would be as gods (knowing) able to discern between good and evil. Eve told God it was the serpent who beguiled her. This is paraphrased of course but so to make a short point. Calling good evil and evil good is a thing which society has become very adept to and or with. Thinking of being as gods knowing the difference between good and evil has a logical extension which has brought man to this place. You see, not only did it give one the ability to know the difference between good and evil but also give man the ability to believe the lie and decide for himself what was good and what was evil. Eve said, the serpent deceived me. The truth in what she was saying was that all evil starts with believing a lie.

George Will said “There is nothing so vulgar in the human experience for which we can not fly in some professor from somewhere to justify it.” This Quote, although a secondary evidence, could lead one to consider that it was more than the knowing of good and evil that Eve and Adam received with the curse of fallen man. Consider that the extended results were, that from that point on man was going to decide for himself what he was going to consider to be good or consider to be evil. Just as Satan decided for himself to set himself above God and see it as right in his own eyes even though he knew it was wrong is the same curse, of “being as gods” that man would, from that time forward be entangled with in his newly acquired, fallen state of godliness. From that point forward man has been calling good evil and evil good. Placing darkness for light and light for darkness. Sweet for bitter and bitter for sweet.
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
As said above by Will, “There is nothing so vulgar in the human experience for which we can not fly in some professor from somewhere to justify it.” It also seems there is no belief system or perversion thereof where one can not fly in some Doctor of this or Doctor of that, with many letters following his name, to justify a particular religious view point. The problem with this is that pluralism in a religious world just does not work.

“Religious pluralism is the mood of society as a whole. It seems that open-mindedness has recently become synonymous with intellectual sophistication, and those that hold fast to their religious conviction are considered to lack any cerebral knowledge or intellectual rigor, says Ravi Zacharias, Christian apologist.
The problem with such a world view is that if taken to its logical conclusion, it can have disastrous consequences. Also, it is entirely self-defeating.
When analyzing all world views, we have three options. All world views are correct. All world views are incorrect. Or some world views are correct and some are incorrect.
Now, if all world views are correct, then all world views cannot be incorrect. Likewise, if all world views are incorrect, then all world views cannot be correct. Therefore, these two options cancel themselves out, and we are left with this option — some beliefs are correct and some are incorrect.” (D.H. Leonard)

Then on the same note, close mindedness does not work either. The close minded will do the same thing that the opened minded will in that each “fly in” their heroes and apologist to support a particular view point and before one knows it the Bible stops being taught in church but rather the little note book of wisdom brought by a PHD who is intelligent and often correct but presenting his wit to the witless or rather, clueless. Yea, that is harsh, Sorry! A danger here is the perversion of such ideas to support anti-biblical dogmas and doctrine. Using such to control instead of instruct. Thereby emptying more and more seats and filling them with emptiness or empty mindedness.

G.K Chesterton said, “The danger of not believing in God is NOT that people will believe in nothing. Alas, it is much worse. It is the danger that people will believe in ANYTHING.”
An extension of that thought is that even people believing in God tend to Conform Him to fit them and as such are still believing in any and everything. You see, when one can decide for himself what is good and what is evil then it is not only morality which becomes relative it is religion which becomes relative and the foundations of truth crumble. God can not be conformed to fit the times, mind or culture of man. If culture rewrites who God actually is and perverts the truth to satisfy those who do not wish to conform to what they call, an archaic and out dated religion then culture is wrong; and as such it is not God who can be changed to fit culture it is culture which must change to fit God. If not then one is not worshiping God at all; one has only made himself his own god deciding for himself what is to be considered good and what is to be considered evil.

To conclude:
If pluralism, in the church or out, is taken to its logical conclusion and if the pluralist lives a life consistent with his/her beliefs, then “nothing in human experience is too vulgar where we can’t fly in some professor [for the secular world or clergy for the religious world], from somewhere to justify it.” What are the consequences of this?

“The danger of not believing in God as the eternal, holy, self existent, immutable creator of the universe who needs no one or no thing; and in Jesus Christ as His Son being the way the truth and the life; being the Christ by whom no man comes to the Father accept through Him; is NOT that people will believe in nothing. Alas, it is much worse. It is the danger that people will believe in ANYTHING.”
That especially being true now that man has arrogated to himself the right to decide what is good and what is evil.  This is believing the lie.  The lie man has told himself.

David