Morals – Absolute versus Relative

Truth Behind Reality readers: the following conversation took place in January 2011.

Within the ensuing conversation, I argue that Truth, and thereby Morality (the human design specification for all humans – past, present, and future), is necessarily both objective and subjective by nature.

My goal in this Truth Behind Reality post is to show that Truth is not only separately objective and subjective but also entirely both, their source and mutual reconciliation – Jesus is Truth. Truth is not merely objective or subjective but instead the living source and reconciliation of both back unto himself.

A Discussion on Prayson Daniel’s blog, “With All That I Am

Post Title: “Facing the Challenge of Relativism

Premise

  • Prayson Daniel takes the stance of moral absolutist
  • Brap Gronk takes the stance of moral relativist
  • Todd Beal takes the stance of moral absolutist
  • Lance Ponder takes the stance of moral absolutist

Introductory statement to Prayson Daniel by Brap Gronk:

“Thus, Homosexuality is wrong, and Homosexuality is not wrong can not be true at the same time and sense.”

I would agree that homosexuality cannot be objectively wrong and also objectively not wrong, but moral relativists don’t claim that so I’m not seeing how moral relativism fails the law of non-contradiction. You have to assume there is objective morality for homosexuality to be either right or wrong. Too bad we never finished our discussion on objective morality.

Introductory question to Brap Gronk by Todd Beal:

Would I be incorrect in saying, moral relativists claim that moral absolutists are wrong in saying absolute right and wrong exists?

Brap Gronk says:

“Would I be incorrect in saying, moral relativists claim that moral absolutists are wrong in saying absolute right and wrong exists?”

Yes, as I have been discussing with Prayson for quite awhile, I believe absolute right and wrong does not exist. (I don’t know for certain if that makes me a moral relativist, since I don’t generally care for labels, but it probably does.)

What does exist is opinions about right and wrong that are almost universally held among non-psychopaths, and similar intuitions about what is right or wrong, neither of which make something absolute or objective.

Todd Beal says:

Brap Gronk, that’s great, but you still didn’t answer my question.

Brap Gronk says:

If we limit “right and wrong” to “moral right and wrong” then I believe it is wrong (meaning incorrect, not morally wrong) to say absolute moral right and wrong exists. If we do not limit “right and wrong” to “moral right and wrong” then I believe it is right to say absolute right and wrong exists, because that includes “correct and incorrect.” Here are some examples of statements that are absolutely right or wrong (correct or incorrect):

– Two plus two equals four.

Object A has more mass than object B.

– The distance between objects A and B is less than the distance between objects C and D.

– There are two stars in the Milky Way Galaxy that currently are exactly 20,462.54 light-years apart.

Todd Beal says:

Brap, you clearly believe in absolute right and wrong, but only within a physically based measurable context. In other words, if you cannot perceive the absoluteness of moral right and wrong, then it is ultimately incorrect in your point of view. However, your inability to perceive the validity of something only testifies to your inability to perceive that something, and in no way invalidates the existence of that something.

“The ability to perceive is non-existent if something cannot be what it is separate from perceiving it.” – Todd Beal

Truth is not about believing what is most comfortable to believe. Truth is what it is whether we perceive it as such or not. We discover truth, not construct it. If we discover truth then truth does not belong to us. If it does not belong to us then it is not naturally in us. If it is not in us then we are ultimately incorrect in proclaiming this absolute, “Absolute moral right and wrong does not exist”. But if truth is in us, then it is truth that says, “Absolute moral right and wrong exists”, not us.

So, ultimately, the question is not about whether absolute moral right and wrong exists, but whether one absolutely accepts absolute truth.

Brap Gronk says:

Todd wrote: “However, your inability to perceive the validity of something only testifies to your inability to perceive that something, and in no way invalidates the existence of that something.”

Agreed. Nobody’s inability to perceive the validity of unicorns, gravity, the Loch Ness monster, evolution, Bigfoot, a flat earth, or the Big Bang Theory has any bearing on the existence of those things.

“Truth is not about believing what is most comfortable to believe. Truth is what it is whether we perceive it as such or not. We discover truth, not construct it. If we discover truth then truth does not belong to us. If it does not belong to us then it is not naturally in us.”

Agreed.

“If it is not in us then we are ultimately incorrect in proclaiming this absolute, “Absolute moral right and wrong does not exist”. But if truth is in us, then it is truth that says “absolute moral right and wrong exists”, not us.”

Until someone can counter my arguments against the existence of objective morality, I don’t think I’ll be agreeing with those sentences.

“So, ultimately, the question is not about whether absolute moral right and wrong exists, but whether one absolutely accepts absolute truth.”

Sure, I absolutely accept absolute truth. I agree that my beliefs have no bearing on any absolute truths outside of my brain. I accept that not everyone has the same beliefs regarding what is true and what is false, and sometimes, when someone tries to convince me that something is true when I believe it not to be true, I’ll try to show them why I believe they have an inaccurate belief.

Todd Beal says:

Brap,

Objective morality, no such thing exists. Morality is foremost intrinsic to the integrity of human design, and is secondarily intrinsic to the integrity of each individual’s unique personal design.

At some crucial point, objectivity necessarily becomes subjective. Otherwise, we fall into the age-old trap of human-based religious law. You do what “We” say, regardless of how God designed you. We can hold an “objective” truth out in front of us for a lifetime, but until we subjectively make it our own, according to our unique personal design, that truth is mere concept and consequently delivers no truth. Truth is what it is, but to make it personal, we necessarily make it our own, subjectively.

We westerners have been brainwashed into thinking that subjectivity and objectivity are mortal enemies, that objectivity allows us to see things the way they really are and that subjectivity introduces irreparable personal blindness to reality.

Objectivity allows us to see something out and away from our self, but subjectivity allows us to understand that something in a uniquely personal way. However, truth is what it is and does not depend on our agreement – whether objectively or subjectively – to exist. Truth exists; we simply find it and personally accept it as is, or not at all.

So how do we accept something we don’t initially fully understand? How do we know that what we are accepting is irrefutably true? Understanding morality, both universally and personally, is directly dependant on the same premise as understanding real and unselfish love. One cannot understand an all-consuming marital or parental love before first experiencing it. Yet one cannot experience that selfless love without first opening his or her heart to embody that love. But how do we know that we are opening our heart to something that is truly real, truly authentic, and not a gross facsimile?

Until we know for certain which foods nourish our body, we must rely on our complimentary senses of smell and taste. Once we swallow the food, our body inevitably informs us if we are eating the wrong foods according to our unique body type. However, we can override what our body tells us – and shows us – continually eating only those things that initially taste great to our preconditioned palate, but wish as we might, our body demands certain nutrients specific to its unique personal design. The same goes for truth. Truth always reveals itself as good and nourishing food, but if according to our preconditioned palate we accept only what initially smells good and tastes good, we become malnourished and begin to waste away.

Truth may initially taste bad, as in accidentally drinking a glass of water while expecting a glass of coke. The water isn’t bad; it just tastes bad according to our expectation of good. In the same way, truth isn’t bad; it just tastes bad according to our pre-conditioned expectation of truth. However, once our heart rejoices at finally ingesting real personal truth, we begin to love it, need it, and become willing to die for it, just as we would for our child or spouse.

As much as we each desire to understand truth first and accept it second, we cannot because truth doesn’t work that way. Intellectual thought only points toward or away from truth, but inevitably, only experiencing it provides personal understanding, both objectively and subjectively, according to your unique and personal design. So how do we experience it? We do so only by expecting something other than the incompleteness of what we already expect. Truth will do the rest.

Brap Gronk says:

“Objective morality, no such thing exists.”

So you wouldn’t consider William Lane Craig’s moral argument for the existence of God a very strong argument?

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3) Therefore God exists.

Todd Beal says:

Brap,

When I say objective morality, I mean it as existing strictly external to self as an ideal or concept. This is not to say that conceptually understanding the intrinsic nature of morality is impossible, but rather that by nature, morality does not exist as an ideal or concept. Morality is the human equivalent of the operational design specifications for an automobile engine, robot, bolt torque setting, etc. Unless one adheres to these operational specifications, one will damage or break the object. Morality is simply the operational design specification for human beings.

We were designed with a set of operational specs specific to the human species as a whole, and we are also designed with a set of specs specific to each unique individual. God personally designed the human race, but he also personally designed each individual as unique within that human race. Therefore, the operational design specification (morality) of each individual is unique to that individual but at the same it must harmonize with the overall operational design specification (morality) of the human race.

So yes, we can think about and understand morality objectively, but until we also make it subjective by internalizing that morality and infusing it into our unique personal life, it will at best, always remain within the realm of conjecture and opinion where one person’s version is no better or worse than another’s.

If we don’t understand how something is designed to operate, we inevitably damage it and eventually break it, including our self.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:30 AM

Subject: I solicit your thoughts

Hey Lance,

I am participating in an interesting conversation with Brap Gronk on Prayson

Daniel’s blog, “With All I Am”. I would be most grateful to hear your take by email.

Todd

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:05 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: I solicit your thoughts

First of all, I do believe in the Loch Ness Monster, but I’m not so sure about gravity.

In one of Brap’s comments he says: and sometimes, when someone tries to convince me that something is true when I believe it not to be true, I’ll try to show them why I believe they have an inaccurate belief.

The retort I would offer is: why? Why be driven to correct error – be it moral or philosophical or logical (etc)? The answer is natural law. There are moral (good/right and evil/wrong) absolutes and one part of our nature naturally is aware (one might say instinctively?) of this. This is why when we perceive error, particularly outside ourselves, we strive to correct the error. We know good from evil because they exist. Until our conscience is seared away (turned over to a reprobate mind), we will gravitate toward good. Unfortunately we also have a sin-nature which repels against this gravity when our thoughts come into conflict with our desires. This is the flesh/spirit war.

It seems to me the only real conflict is over the word “objective”. Is good/evil or right/wrong (moral context) universal? Of course I’m going to say because that’s how I roll. But to explain why ultimately depends belief in the existence of a morally perfect eternal God. Allowing for moral relativity assuages the guilty soul. All are guilty, so all of us seek excuses. The relativist will not give up his relativistic argument until confronted with Truth he or she is personally unable to deny. Does that mean objective morality does not exist until it is perceived? Of course not, as you’ve already argued quite nicely.

Shall I post these thought to stir the pot, or were you simply doing a little sanity check?

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 3:29 AM

Subject: I solicit your thoughts

Hold off on your comment until I see his response. This guy is different from the others. Something tells me he is truly searching, hence my lengthy and comprehensive reply to his comment. If he responds with a careless and flippant reply, then put the hammer down, but make Jesus proud in doing so.

Thanks Lance,

Todd

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:37 AM

Subject: I solicit your thoughts

Lance,

I posted my comment reply to Brap Gronk on Prayson Daniel’s blog, Feb. 4th. He has not responded. What are your thoughts regarding this last comment?

Todd

Lance Ponder says as blog comment:

First of all, I do believe in the Loch Ness Monster, but I’m not so sure about gravity.

In one of Brap’s comments he says: and sometimes, when someone tries to convince me that something is true when I believe it not to be true, I’ll try to show them why I believe they have an inaccurate belief.

The retort I would offer is: why? Why be driven to correct error – be it moral or philosophical or logical (etc)? The answer is natural law. There are moral (good/right and evil/wrong) absolutes and one part of our nature naturally is aware (one might say instinctively?) of this. This is why when we perceive error, particularly outside ourselves, we strive to correct the error. We know good from evil because they exist. Until our conscience is seared away (turned over to a reprobate mind), we will gravitate toward good. Unfortunately we also have a sin-nature which repels against this gravity when our thoughts come into conflict with our desires. This is the flesh/spirit war.

It seems to me the only real conflict is over the word “objective”. Is good/evil or right/wrong (moral context) universal? Of course I’m going to say yes because that’s how I roll. But to explain why ultimately depends on belief in the existence of a morally perfect eternal God. Allowing for moral relativity assuages the guilty soul. All are guilty, so all of us seek excuses. The relativist will not give up his relativistic argument until confronted with Truth he or she is personally unable to deny. Does that mean objective morality does not exist until it is perceived? Of course not, as Todd already argued quite nicely.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 2:48 AM

Subject: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Okay, that works.

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:52 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Thanks. That’s the same answer I replied to your email a couple of days ago, aside from fixing a couple of typos. LOL.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 2:57 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

I see that. I was wondering what you thought about that particular comment. It’s not a big deal, I just wanted to hear your thoughts.

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 3:15 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Sorry, I guess I’m confused. You mean my thoughts on your last answer to him, or his last answer to you? His was pretty short and you went at some length to respond to him. If the latter then I see what you’re saying. I think objective absolutes remain such regardless of whether or how we internalize (subject) them. But that’s not the point you were making and that’s fine.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 3:24 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

As I told my father, my last comment is the first I have (in my view) successfully explained morality with a practical answer. My question to you: If you were on the receiving end of my comment, would it help you to better understand that morality is not relative, but absolute and simultaneously uniquely personal?

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 4:17 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Well, since you asked…

I really liked the first, second, and fourth paragraphs. The third paragraph, however, left me having to think a little too hard. I get where you’re coming from, but I’m not so sure about the details…

//So yes, we can think about and understand morality objectively, but until we also make it subjective by internalizing that morality and infusing it into our unique personal life, it will at best, always remain within the realm of conjecture and opinion where one person’s version is no better or worse than another’s. //

I don’t much care for the way you said we have to make the objective into the subjective. Like I said, I understand what you’re getting at, but the word choice leaves me cringing because I don’t really think that’s how you want to say it. Objective morality is not in the realm of conjecture and opinion. Not ever. If so it ceases to be objective. Once it is no longer objective it cannot again become objective. Consider the lesson of the leavening. A little does the trick, and once its in there it ain’t coming out. What is in that realm [of conjecture and opinion] is our corrupt, imperfect, and/or incomplete (subjective) understanding. The specs on a machine must define construction, and in this sense it is internalized, but the objective specification remains separate just as the builder of the house remains separate from the house.

It seems to me that perhaps what you’re really trying to get at is purpose and application. Of what use is morality until it is internalized? Perhaps that’s more along the lines of what you meant? Ah…. then…. Purpose goes to justice, and from there we enter another realm. Not so easy to compartmentalize, now is it? LOL.

Have a great morning and be blessed.

Lance

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:50 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Lance,

Truth exists as neither exclusively objective nor subjective but entirely the source of both, with each serving to complete the other, separate in essence yet unified within truth. Truth is alive – he is a person – apart from which the object and subject are not merely separate but entirely nonexistent. Therefore, we understand truth both objectively and subjectively – one in terms of the other – or entirely not at all. If indeed truth is the source and reconciliation of all things, and if indeed truth is within and without all that it reconciles, then “truth” remains in the realm of conjecture and opinion if one does not both objectively and subjectively understand it as truth to the exclusion of what it is not.

If then morality – the operational design specification for the ongoing integrity of human construction – is understandable only as exclusive to objectivity, an external law only unto itself, then it is true only in and of itself and remains impersonal, as personally unknowable. If on the other hand morality is exclusively subjective, a law only unto oneself, then it exists as true only in and of the unique person, remaining impersonal and personally untrue for all others. If however, morality transcends both the objective and subjective – wherein both are unified within truth, the source of everything – then morality is understandable and adhered to only by subjectively internalizing one’s objective understanding of morality, and, simultaneously, objectively externalizing one’s subjective understanding of morality; understanding both in terms of truth, and, necessarily then, each in terms of each other.

So, to address your concern regarding the inability to re-objectify morality once it becomes personally subjective: truth is both in and through everything including itself, both objectively and subjectively, apart from which neither objectivity nor subjectivity exists. Therefore, truth is completely known – including his provision of morality – only when understood objectively, as concept, and subjectively, as incorporated personal essence, and both in terms of each other as reconciled back unto truth.

Lance, I know this is extremely abstract, but this is the bare-bones essence of how I reason through everything. I employ this method only when nothing else will suffice.

Your friend,

Todd

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:11 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Wow. Okay. That makes sense. Now I get it. Thanks for your patience. You’ve given me a new way of seeing all this. Thanks so much. Sorry for being such a scoffer – LOL.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:35 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Thanks for giving an honest listen.

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:40 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

You’re welcome. I really enjoy the sensation of my cranium expanding. LOL. Its not easy fitting new ideas into this old skull. ~_*

Advertisements
Posted in By Title [A] | 4 Comments

How Will People Remember Me?

It is not what we do that holds value all by itself, but who we are and how that affects what we do. The spirit in which we do what we do, by this alone others remember us.

Todd Beal

I think sometimes that when talking to someone else, we get so focused on the “what’s in it for me” in the monologue/dialogue – the self-interest factor of the conversation – we forget we are talking to ‘someone else’ who is a person. Continue reading

Posted in By Title [H], Relating, Self-Achievement | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Two Kinds of ‘Tongues’: Angelic language (Spiritual) and Human Language (Earthly)

I have never spoken in tongues and so do not present here a predisposed agenda.

It might repulse you, the reader, to even think of receiving the gift of speaking in spiritual tongues, but whether you agree or disagree with Paul’s letters to the Churches – Paul’s Spirit-led outlining of the proper conduct for speaking in spiritual tongues (a Spiritual prayer language, not just God’s gift of speaking other human languages, as what happened at Pentecost) – your personal stance does not change the fact that Paul himself said HE spoke in Spiritual tongues more than any other person within the Church entity under his charge.

Do not confuse your disdain for ‘anything out of the ordinary’ (what you were taught by humans) with what scripture teaches. Scripture teaches, through Paul, the spiritual gift of two types of tongues – two types of linguistic-based Spiritual utterance and understanding: Holy Spirit-compelled linguistic communication with God (where, even as we pray, we do not naturally understand the words we are saying); and the Spiritual gift of speaking and understanding a non-native earthly human language (that is, spontaneously speaking, with no foreknowledge, some other non-learned human language so that others will, in their native tongue, understand God’s truth to them through you/me).

Continue reading

Posted in By Title [T] | Tagged , , , | 29 Comments

Please Pray for My Friend!

To All Truth Behind Reality Readers:

I ask you to please pray for my close personal friend. This is an urgent ongoing request for those of you who have faith in Jesus Christ. Thank you in advance!

Todd Beal

Posted in By Title [A] | 2 Comments

Gospel-Centered Expectations

by Timmy Brister

Source: timmybrister.com (Gospel-Centered Expectations)

I received this article in my email and wanted to pass it along to all of you. Mr. Brister’s insight here means a lot to me personally. God is more than the very best I could possibly expect. His personal word to us, the Bible, has every thing one could imagine to keep anyone, from any walk of life, personally and spiritually challenged and growing for an entire lifetime. That is the essence of what Mr. Brister explains in his following article:  Gospel-Centered Expectations. Continue reading

Posted in Bible Study, By Title [G], Personal Growth, Worshipping God | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Job 40:6-8 Translation Comparisons

I grew up with the KJV, submitted myself to God in 2004, and bought my first carefully chosen Bible (ESV) in 2007. I often joke that there is more ‘black’ in that Bible from my personal notes than there is ink from the publishers. I literally devoured that Bible.

In 2011, I heard my pastor reading from a translation that was unfamiliar to me. I looked up the wording on Biblos.com’s parallel Bible and discovered she was using the NASB. After doing a ton of research and comparing passage after passage with the ESV, I bought the NASB Study Bible. Hands down, it is my translation of choice – overall. I say ‘overall’ because, for the majority of the time, it most accurately reproduces the underlying intended meaning of the original Biblical language. But for those rare instances in which the NASB fails to reveal the full naked meaning I seek other translations to fill in the gap.

A good example of when I turn to other translations:  I love the Book of Job, and my favorite part is chapter 40 to book-end because it holds tremendous personal meaning for me. The NASB fails to capture the personal/spiritual significance of the original, idiomatic cultural meaning of the phrase, ‘gird up your loins’ (Job 40:6-8). The idiomatic cultural meaning of the phrase ‘Gird up your loinsmeansPut your big boy pants on’, and in this particular case the ESV simply nails the translation with ‘Dress for action like a man’.

I compared Job 40:6-8 between the translations Gary Zimmerli mentioned in his most excellent post, “The NKJV and the ESV”, and then highlighted each key phrase with a different color to show how it uniquely differs from translation to translation.

Thank you, Gary, for giving an honest look at this translation topic, perfectly marrying your subjective take with true objectivity – a most rare find these days.

My translation of choice by highlight color:

Yellow:  ESV

Green:   NASB

Purple:  NASB; NKJV

Grey:     NONE:  I think the better translation/interpretation would be, “Will you condemn me to justify yourself as righteous”.

 

 

ESV:  Job 40:6-8

The LORD Challenges Job

6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

7 Dress for actiona like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.

8 Will you even put me in the wrong?
Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?

 

NASB:  Job 40:6-8

God Questions Job

6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said,

7 Now gird up your loins like a man;
         I will ask you, and you instruct Me.

8 “Will you really annul My judgment?
         Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?

 

NKJV:  Job 40: 6-8

6 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: 7 “Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me: 8 “Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?

 

NIV 1984: Job 40: 6-8

6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 Brace yourself like a man;

I will question you,

and you shall answer me.

8 “Would you discredit my justice?

Would you condemn me to justify yourself?

Posted in Bible Translations, Biblical Book of Job, By Title [J] | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Elizabeth’s Quest for Truth

My constant mission for Truth Behind Reality is to deep dive behind what we normally accept as reality.

Most of us too readily accept the people and events in our lives at face value. We are satisfied with skimming the surface without ever going deeper than our presumptuous conclusions. Sure, we may dive deep into someone or something, but we do so based only on our initial presumption that what we want to believe is true and everything else is false. That makes us closed-minded. Something is either true or not true whether we believe it or not, even if we believe it with our whole heart.

This past week I have had the privilege of talking to Elizabeth Carter here on Truth Behind Reality. She is a 71 year old lady whose lifelong passion for discovering and understanding truth – not presumptiously but authentically and deeply – is unusually similar to what I have described in My Story.

Please read her story below (originally a comment on the Truth Behind Reality post, “Does Truth Exist?”).

Thank you Elizabeth.

Todd Beal

Elizabeth’s Quest for Truth

I have dedicated my life to seeking truth. I have no idea why it has been the most important thing in my life, all of my life. I often seemed to be the only person I knew who actually believed there was such a thing as absolute truth and made the effort to find it.

The search was as important to me as breathing. It was not something I decided to do. It was something I had to do. Actually it has been more important to me than breathing, because when I find some truth, I am willing to die for it rather than compromise such a pearl of great price.

My life has been spent on the quest and I am 71 now. It has been a frustrating and richly rewarding journey. I would not have missed it for this world; I have found a better world.

When I was very young and started the search, I started in church. The churches compromised the truth and I could not understand how a group of people who claimed to believe in Christ did not believe what the Bible said about Him. They did not believe in miracles. They were very “educated and scientific” in the 1950’s and looked for rational and scientific means to explain away the miracles. By the time I was 19, I knew for certain that they did not believe what they were professing to believe and I looked elsewhere.

I would find something that seemed good and true, but as I studied it and considered it I would find deep flaws. The New Age is all about Magick and Miracles but no one tries to explain them away. As long as God and the Bible are omitted, it seems a person can believe anything without repercussion. Absolute Truth stands the test; it does not fall apart on closer inspection.

Words [in the New Age teachings] were deliberately changed and used to confuse us. God was not the God of the Bible, but whoever they decided God was. They believe that man is God and man creates God in his own image. I spent a lot of my study time finding out how they were defining words that seemed familiar but had entirely different meanings than I had supposed. I have read thousands of books in my search.

After many years of searching I came back to the Bible, the One Book that matters, and found that I saw Scripture very differently at 50. I told God that I would read the Bible and accept it as true; if I did not understand it, then I would assume it was my immaturity and not His need to do things my way. It changed my life. He began to show me things in Scripture that I had never been able to understand before. It is a very supernatural book. I know now that miracles really do happen and I am willing to admit that the fact that I cannot explain how God does things does not make God unable to do them. I just have more to learn and further to go on my journey. I enjoy the journey now.

The most difficult part was realizing how much we have been lied to and how often and by so many. We have been born into a world filled with lies, taught them in our homes, schools, churches and governments and coerced into agreeing with them if we want to succeed at high levels. I was horrified. I literally felt sickened and disgusted by what I discovered. For a while, I thought it might destroy me because everything in my belief system was being taken apart and found to be based on these lies. I was overwhelmed.

I held on to Scripture and learned to depend on the Holy Spirit to guide me through it all. Truth would replace the lie as each was discovered. Fear receded as love and life flowed into me.

After many years of delving into this, I can deal with it better now. We really do live in a fallen world and I accept it now instead of thinking that evil could not exist; I know it can and does exist. The Bible says how evil this world is and I finally had to accept the fact that God knows what He is talking about.

Learning the truth and standing up for truth is a demanding quest and has been the best possible use of my life. I happily anticipate my future and love to see what He has planned for me today and forever.

– Elizabeth Carter

Posted in By Title [E], Reality, Truth | Tagged , , , ,