The Blog

Hi Everybody! I am a christian teen who wishes to share his ideas on the web, and ultimately, create an online christian teen community. This blog is new, but I am hoping that you will be impacted by what I write and become a member of this online community. I have been greatly inspired by Alex and Brett Harris at and David Platt at thank you for reading!

Friday, April 17, 2015

Truth: Absolutely True or Perception of Morality?

Over the centuries of human experience, there are few things that don’t change. Nations rise and fall, continents shift, culture changes and evolves. One thing, however, that never changes, no matter how long humans have existed on earth, is that they disagree with each other. Every human has his own worldview, the way he sees the world, and it contradicts everyone else’s. Many ideological conflicts, including most of the current controversial issues, can be traced back to one central disagreement: the definition of truth. More specifically, whether truth is absolute or relative, whether it changes or not; this is the issue that has haunted humanity for millennia.
Truth, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “the real facts about something” (Merriam). The first and more traditional school of thought is that truth doesn’t change, and that it is absolute. Subscribers to this school believe that right and wrong do not change from person to person, and that the truth is the truth. The second school is made up of proponents of relative truth, who believe that truth differs from person to person. The conflict between these thoughts has existed for centuries, and it isn’t likely to go away anytime soon. In the modern context, “tolerance” has become a rampant ideal as a substitute for equality. The problem with tolerance is that it is being taken into the realm of truth. The main conflict lies in defining what exactly tolerance is. A believer in absolute truth will say that tolerance is respecting another’s views, while a relativist will tell you that all views are equal. Despite the recent popularity of relativism, various logical arguments exist that point towards the existence of absolute truth and morality being, well, true.
The first case against relativism can be found in the argument itself. If any sort of debate is established between the two variants of truth, then relative truth has already conceded the fact that it is possible, even necessary, to absolutely determine which brand of truth is the “true” one. This coincides with the argument often made in this discussion “there are no absolute truths,” which is an absolute statement, thereby nullifying itself. It happens over and over again; “When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves” (Absolute). This is the most commonly known fallacy in relativism, but it itself does not simply end the argument, as the idea of relativism still persists.
A second problem arises when considering relativism in the context of morality – a context most often used today. The relativist view is that different kinds of morality exist, and that as long as each person follows their own morality, with the only rule being not to interfere with another’s morality, then everything is going morally well. In reality, this is moral stagnation. The main argument for moral relativism is that “ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice” (Moral). By this very same token, however, it is a logical fallacy for two conflicting worldviews to be correct. To say that two different moral views are both right is impossible, as they could be (and often are) open contradictions. This is the very point that relativists make, but they do not acknowledge that this fact leads to the nonexistence of morality as a whole.
Imagine a primitive tribe in some unknown region of the world. According to this particular tribes’ culture, it is morally right for a human to murder another human in cold blood. Somewhere else, a man branded with a mental disorder finds within himself the moral urge to kill. We would say that killing is morally wrong, but if these people truly believe it is right, then who are we to deny that? No, we would have to stop them, because they are interfering with other people’s moralities. And the second you make an absolute statement that murder is wrong, you have just put one view over another, collapsing the entire basis for relativism.
If relativism is true, then that means right and wrong don’t truly exist, as they are only perceived in the minds of people. If that is true, then there is no reason for order in the world. Anarchy would be fine! Oppression, stealing, lying, murder, all of these things would be acceptable, just because that is how morality works. Again, this does not make sense in any worldview. Relativism cannot be true, because it would defy all sense of morality.
As a side note, have you ever wondered how morality exists? How do we even have a sense of right and wrong? If we didn’t, after all, anarchy would indeed reign. No, morality is ingrained into us as humans for some reason. We do have a moral compass, that small feeling one gets when contemplating a wrong action. This compass points to at least some standard of absolute truth, which again shows that morality does indeed exist. CS Lewis puts it best in his book Mere Christianity:
But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust… If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
Now, the argument can be made that relative truth and absolute truth both exist in different contexts. Perhaps it is absolutely right that murder is wrong, but being an alcoholic is more relative. This presents a new problem: finding the line. Where does one draw the line between an absolute wrong and a relative one? You could say it’s up to interpretation, but that’s just circling back to relativism. The line can’t be relative, and if it’s absolute, that just more strongly enforces the importance of absolute truth.
On the issue of tolerance, relativism holds up no better. Relativists make the mistake of incorrectly defining tolerance as accepting all beliefs as true, where tolerance is really just respect. It is right to respect others, but the relativist view “eschews any evaluation of other cultures’ norms in the name of tolerance” (Westacott). This is an insult to those cultures. Remember the murderous tribe mentioned earlier? If no one cares to help them learn what is right, then they will keep killing each other until there are none left. If no one stood up and said slavery was morally wrong, it would still persist to today. Tolerance also seems to conveniently leave out proponents of absolute truth. Any view is acceptable except for one that contradicts relativism, which is a contradiction in itself.

Truth doesn’t change, and neither does morality. By their very definitions, if they changed, they would cease to exist. Truth that isn’t true is opinion, and morals that aren’t absolute morals have no value. If we lived in a world where these two didn’t exist, there would be no point to anything we do. Nothing would make sense, and anyone could do anything they wanted. Relativism and tolerance, while good ideas, have been taken too far, and in their acceptance are now threatening to destroy any kind of society. They are an insult to culture and morals, and acceptance of anything is what leads to an anarchistic world.
Works Cited
"Absolute Truth." N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
Lewis, C. F. M. Mere Christianity. Glasgow: Fount Paperbacks, 1977. Print.
Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
"Moral Relativism." Moral Relativism. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
Westacott, Emrys. "Moral Relativism." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.

Monday, April 14, 2014

God and Science Part 3

 In the first part of God and Science, we established the existence of absolute truth and morality, meaning that there is only one right and one wrong and that two contradicting rights can not coexist. In part 2, we explored the creation of the universe and how it came about. Today in part 3, we will talk about the earth.
     Modern science (or modern media, your pick) explains earth as a random planet where life started as microscopic organisms that over time evolved into people. Now the first problem I have with this is the life part. On every other planet in the solar system, we have found no life, and we have not found any conditions where any life on earth could exist. Therefore, there must be something special about earth that allows life to exist. As it turns out, there are several conditions that are required for us to live on this planet. One of the most commonly known is the distance from the sun. If we were any closer to the sun, then it would be too hot, and if we were any farther, away it would be too cold (extreme examples: mars and mercury). Another factor is our atmosphere. On every other planet, we need suits and oxygen tanks to breathe, but the atmosphere on earth is perfect for all our lungs' needs. Yet another factor is water. One of our biggest needs is water, and our planet is the only one in the solar system with any water at all (except for the ice on mars). Another one is the protective magnetic field around it. This field redirects solar winds and asteroids around the earth, which is one of the reasons that earth does not have many craters (which is not the case on the moon or mars). 
     There are several more factors and addition to the ones I just mentioned on how earth is perfect for life on earth. When all the numbers are added up, it is a pretty rare occurrence. So according to all the evidence, I can not think that earth is a random occurrence. By all this, I have to think that a certain something set everything right for us to live. But then again, someone could explain all of this away by saying that humans evolved into the earth's conditions. This would definitely make sense, if indeed evolution was the way life came about. And that brings us to my next topic: Evolution.
     Evolution theorizes that a bunch of chemicals randomly combusted and became a microscopic organism, which eventually grew into a fish, which became a reptile, which became a mammal, which became a person, through the process of natural selection, or survival of the fittest. Now I won't ask about how the original chemicals came about, or the original planet for that matter, for a similar question was posed in part 2 and I feel like I would just be repeating myself. I do, however, wonder at nonliving objects coming alive without any aid. I certainly have never seen that happen, with or without aid. To me, logically, something that is not alive and never has been alive couldn't simply come to life. Life is made by other life, but never have I heard of life spontaneously combusting into existence. Well ok, I will have a little faith and go with the assumption that life did come from random chemicals. So now we have a planet with a living organism in it. What next? That microscopic organism reproduces and creates more microscopic organisms by splitting itself in half and the two halves growing into separate organisms. Now this species begins to spread, and as it gets into different environments, some of the microorganisms die from new conditions. A select few, however, have changes in their body structures that allowed them to survive. As time goes on, these "adaptations" slowly changed the species, and some of them get larger. And larger. After a few billion years, we have fish. And the rest, as they say, is history.
       But then we get to an interesting place. After life has evolved into monkeys, those monkeys evolve into humans. I can see the structural similarities, but one thing I do not understand is the human brain. All of the capacities of the human brain, such as the ability to think, are, well, mind blowing. I do not understand how something so complex came about by evolution. I can kinda see how the other body systems came about, as they slowly evolved into what they are now (provided we didn't go extinct along the way) but the human brain... I just don't see it. Scientists have studied the human brain, and they don't understand much of it, much less able to reproduce it. They can't even fully reproduce one body system, much less all of them working together. All of that coming by chance takes a lot of faith.
     Unfortunately, I don't have enough faith for all that. I'm more of a logical person, and logic tells me that if evolution did happen, someone guided it to happen the way it did. Or perhaps everything was created separately. Any way you go, I don't see it happening without a guide. Take an example I used in part 2. Just like a painting is painted by a painter, a creation never just happens, it is created. A famous illustration is the Watchmaker Analogy. Say you take apart a watch, piece by piece. Then, you take your pile of piece and throw them on the ground. What are the chances of all the pieces fitting together into a watch on impact? Not likely, I'd say. The complexity of the watch is just too great to be able to fit it together by chance. And this doesn't even explain how the parts of the watch were made, or even the materials of those parts. 
     As I conclude, I would like to mention a joke someone told me once that got me thinking. An atheist scientist challenged God to a creation contest, and whoever can create the greater creation would win. They met in a field, ready for the contest. The scientist went first. He picked up some dirt, ready to create something amazing out of it. Just as he was about to create, God stopped him, and God said this: "Get your own dirt." The point of the story is this: no one can create something out of nothing, much less something randomly being created out of something. The only way for something to be created out of nothing is for something or someone to come from a higher plane and create. 
     So back to the original question: does God exist? I believe that He does. I do not think that He is in conflict with science, but that He created it. I also believe that the Bible is true, and that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world. I will not settle for the mediocrity of accepting my beliefs as merely beliefs but as Truth, because I do not believe that there can be multiple truths. I believe in an absolute right and wrong and true and false, and I do not believe in shifting, relative moralities and truth. I also believe that if my beliefs are true, then they change everything. If my beliefs are indeed true, then the very nature of our existence is radically shifted from mediocrity to purposful. And if my beliefs are true, then every person in the universe was uniquely and powerfully created by a loving and powerful God. No one would be devalued by evolution, no one would be a mistake, and everybody would be loved and created for a purpose. And that to me is the greatest Truth of all.

Friday, December 20, 2013

God and Science Part 2: Creation

   One of the greatest debates in history is the debate over creation. How was the universe made, how did we all get here? These questions have been answered by various religions and sciences, but none of them seem to offer definite answers. Today I'm going to logically show what I believe and why I believe it.
     First off, the universe. Did this universe come about by chance, a random mixing of chemicals, or was it created by something or someone? The answer that most people attribute to science is the Big Bang Theory. This is the idea that one day a random particle started expanding into what is now known as the universe. What this theory doesn't explain is the origin of that original particle and the space it was in. Imagine an empty room. Outside of this room, there is nothing else, only this room. Inside the room is a set volume, a volume which starts expanding and turns into furniture, air, food, everything a typical living room has. Now we can say that our Bang created everything in the room, but we can not say that it created the room itself, because the room must have existed for the Bang to take place. Another question I have is time. Did time begin with the Big Bang, or was it something that was always there?
     I personally have so many questions regarding the Big Bang Theory that have yet to be answered. I find it a bit of a stretch to say that nothing created something. I have never seen that happen. I don't have enough faith to believe that, instead I find myself forced to think that everything had to be created by something. I do not find it logical or plausible that the universe was not created by something. But then that brings us to a critical question: if the universe was indeed made by something, then how did that something come into being?
     This is the exact problem I pointed out with the Big Bang Theory, and it is indeed a troubling one. First off, this something would have to have existed before the universe. But if that is the case, then it wouldn't be bound by time and space, and how did that time and space get there? The only solution to this contradiction is if that something were to exist outside time and space. Only something not bound by time and space can create it.
     Now things are getting a little confusing. For something to live outside of time and space is impossible for the human mind to fathom. We can not understand such a concept because we ourselves are bound by time and space, so we can not understand something beyond what we are bound by. Consider the example used in the last article. If we all lived in a two dimensional space, where everything was flat, how could we imagine the existence of height or depth? The only reason we understand the third dimension is because we live in it. In the same way, there may be things that we do not understand because we do not live in it. So if something were to exist outside of time and space, we wouldn't be able to understand it because we ourselves do not live in that "dimension."
     Now say that something does live in a higher dimension, is not bound by time or space, and created our universe and everything in it without being affected itself. While to some this may seem far fetched, I find it far more believable than the universe creating itself. But we still haven't answered the question of how that something came into existence. The answer to that is simple: something that lives outside of time and space doesn't simply "come into existence." It has to be something that is always there and is timeless, because one can not have a beginning without a concept of time.
     So in order for me to think of a logical way for the universe to come into existence, the only thing I can think of is something manipulating it from outside itself. A painting does not paint itself; it is painted by a painter. If this world is the two-dimensional canvas, then there has to be a three-dimensional painter. Perhaps I may not be able to absolutely prove the existence of the painter, but I can not absolutely disprove it either, and from a logical standpoint, I see no other way that a painting can be painted.
     This something that lives outside of time and space and can create a universe must be pretty powerful. It would have to be powerful enough to create galaxies and smart enough to design laws of nature. This concept sounds pretty close to the concept of God. By logic, I have to see the universe as created by a higher being, or God, given the evidence I have explored thus far. So back to the question. How was the universe made? I believe that the universe was made by God. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

God and Science Part 1: Absolute Truth vs Relative Truth

     God vs Science. Everyone has thought about this before, and it seems that in modern times they are in conflict with each other. As culture and technology have advanced, people have begun to get the idea that religion is a thing of the past, and now science has taken over. Over the next few weeks, we are going to start from the beginning and discuss in a logical fashion various misconceptions and debates over this topic. I will not use the Bible or Christianity as the foundation, since some reading this may not believe that these things are true. What I will do is use logic to explain what I believe, that Science and God really can coexist.
     To begin, I would like to make a few things clear. I do not intend to bash any belief systems throughout the course of this series, but I will point out some things. Also, if anyone feels like I haven’t covered a topic completely or missed something, feel free to email me at, and I will prayerfully answer it by email or in the next article.
     Initially, I am going to make a statement that might confuse some of you: I do not have enough faith to not be a Christian. This may seem odd in the sense that Christianity supposed to be all about faith, while atheism would be the opposite. After taking a solid look at the facts however, I find it much harder to be an atheist than a Christian. If this counter-intuitive statement perks your interest, I encourage you to keep reading.
     Naturally, there are many places to begin. When dealing with such a complex subject, there is bound to be. First, we will start with the fundamental question: “What Is Truth?” After all, if the purpose of this series is to find out the truth, it’s probably a good idea to find out what truth is first.
     Over the past few decades, society has had a paradigm shift from belief in “absolute truth” to “relative truth.” Absolute truth says that there is a universal standard for right and wrong, and that standard does not change. Relative truth takes the stance that what is right or wrong for one person is not necessarily right or wrong for another person.
     There are a couple things that seem odd to me about relative truth. First, the statement “There is no such thing as absolute truth” is a paradox. If that statement was true, then it contradicts itself in the fact that no statement is true. Let me put it another way: say relative truth was true. Now look at that previous statement. How can something be true if there is no such thing truth? It is a paradox that contradicts itself.
     This alone, however, isn’t enough to completely discount relative truth. My other qualm with it is this: what if my truth contradicts your truth? For example, one person believes that murder is morally ethical while another believes murder is morally wrong. If it is morally ethical for the first person to murder the second (think cannibalistic tribes in Africa), but from the second person’s perspective it is morally wrong, these two viewpoints contradict each other and have no logical resolution.
     Another more realistic example is this: My truth is that there is absolute truth and a non-changing standard in morality, while your truth is that truth is relative from person to person. Again, our truths collide, for my truth says that your truth can’t be true while your truth says my truth can’t be true as it infringes on your truth. The second that something is said to be absolutely true or absolutely false, relative truth falls apart.
     One more thing that points to an absolute right and wrong is the sense of morality ingrained into every human being. Most of us can agree that there is something in us that urges us to do what is right and to not do what is wrong. If we didn't posses this moral sense, then morality would have no meaning and there would be no such thing as right and wrong in our minds. Therefore, we have this moral sense  in our very beings, however this moral sense must conform to some kind of moral law. If this moral law changes from person to person however, then our moral senses can’t always be right, meaning that emotions such as guilt have no meaning.
     In conclusion, based off what has just been said, our only other option is that there is only one truth, and everyone is subject to that truth just as much as we are to the laws of gravity. If this is indeed true (no pun intended), then the entire game changes. Instead of a perspective of “let’s not offend anybody” and “let’s all live our lives as we see fit”, it turns to a perspective of “we must find the truth” and “if there is one truth, then everything else must be wrong.” By this last statement I do not mean that everyone except Christians are absolutely wrong, but what I do mean is that not everyone is right about everything.

     Now that we have established that truth is absolute and does not change, we are ready to dive into God and Science. Over these next couple of articles we will go into evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and the question of “is there a higher being directing the universe.” There is a lot I will be covering, but eventually we will get to difficult questions such as “why does God allow evil in the world.” If you have any questions, feel free to email me. I do not claim to have all the answers, in fact there is a lot I don’t know. Some things we can’t understand. It’s like if we all lived in a two dimensional space, we would have no idea what a three dimensional space was, we couldn't fathom it. Or if we were all born blind, none of us could describe color. There is a whole dimension of things out there we don’t understand, and we won’t be able to in this life. Thanks for reading, until next time, God Bless!

Thursday, June 13, 2013

What Is Christianity?

Christianity isn’t a set of rules dictating one’s life. It isn’t a mysterious supernatural being condemning all of humanity. It isn’t a set of teachings about how to live. It isn’t an excuse to live however one wants. It isn’t a promise that life will be better. It isn’t about being good enough.

     So, what is it about?
     When God created the heavens and the earth and all living things and forms of matter, He knew all that was going to happen. God is not bound by time, i.e. He knows everything that has ever happened and ever will happen. And He also has thinking capacity beyond our understanding. When God created everything, He had one thing on His mind.

     God sees every person as His unique and beloved creation. He has that capacity. And with every man and woman He has ever created, He meticulously made them in His image, and said that His creation was good. See when God created everything, He had a purpose. And that purpose was relationship.
     God created you because He desired a relationship with you. The God of the universe wants to be friends with you, you whom he says is His greatest creation. He actively searches for you, to know you and to be with you. He wants to be your friend.
     After God’s creation, the first human, Adam, made a mistake, as we are all prone to do. He rebelled against God and sinned, causing the fall of humanity. God can’t live with sin, because he himself is sinless, so He had to punish Adam. Work became difficult, and life would be rough for generations to come. Time and time again, people would sin, and each time God’s heart would break.
     So it looked like humanity had been a failure. A messed up drawing. Someone had drawn outside the lines, and now it was time to throw it away.
But God didn’t throw us away.
     Even though we had (and still do) failed Him, He in His love for us made a plan to save us, so that we could be with Him again. With this plan He showed us that He does draw outside the lines, and instead of throwing away the drawing, He fixes it. And this plan to save us? To die.
     God sent His only son, Jesus Christ, down to earth to live and die for us.
     The God of the universe came to earth as a man to clean up our mess so that He could be with us. Instead of erasing the mistake and doing it over again, He fixed it. After all, He is a carpenter.
     Not only did He come to save us, but He came to experience what being human was like. He stayed perfect with no sin, but He felt physical and emotional pain as well as temptation while on earth, all so He could say to His children “I know what you are going through, and I’m here for you”. After all, true friends are there for each other.
     Then, He died on the cross. But it isn’t just the cross that He experienced that day. When Jesus was hanging on that tree, He bore not only the pain of the cross but also the pain of our sin. He took the punishment that we should receive, just so that He can be with us. He did this so that on the day when humans are judged, God sees Christ in His perfection instead of us in our sin and we may be with Him for eternity.
     Jesus died so that He could give us the greatest gift of all: to be with Him. And the crazy thing about this gift is that it’s totally undeserved. After all the mistakes we’ve all made, and to be with Him in heaven? It’s preposterous, but God loved us so much that He made a way for us. Like all gifts, He expects nothing in return. All you have to do is accept it.

So what is Christianity? It’s a love story.