...I say go away and leave those of us who are happy with it alone. You see, what you believe is "wrong and flawed" in the Bible is what has been declared and decreed by God himself through his prophets and other special witnesses and nothing you can do or say will change nor override that. Can you really be so miserable yourselves that you cannot stand to see those who believe in and live the principles of this holy book of scripture? I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and one of my core beliefs is making Christ's gospel the center of my life and doing my best to live by it. In so doing, it makes me happy. It makes all those around me who are doing the same happy. Does it make life easy? No. Does it make life easier? YES...and helps me to enjoy and appreciate it more as well.
One of the key-root issues that has brought such desparity upon this nation and has been the cause of the social, moral and economic illnesses that are plaguing us now is the way that we have allowed ourselves- and our beliefs- to be bullied by so-called and self-professed "Atheists" who claim such hardships caused by us living our own private lives and which have been very successful in taking God out of every place with the exception of our own homes (which, sadly, many have also allowed to fall victim to their lies and deceit). For this I say "Shame on us!". God has taught us truth through His holy scriptures and truth is eternal and unchanging--especially by weak, imperfect men. We have no right whatsoever to try to alter nor revoke His words, commandments and teachings and that is exactly what these miserable groups and individuals are trying to accomplish with their lawsuits and appeals to so-called "civil-liberties" groups and organizations. Stand up against them, folks. Don't cower before them and demand the same of your city councils, county commissioners and state executives and legislatures. You will here me reiterate here over and over the vital importance of leading the citizens of this nation (and its elected officials) to turn back to God and reverse the actions that have caused us as a nation and as individuals to turn away from Him. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is to our future survival and conditions under which we live.
I came across an article posted in the New American this afternoon in which Selwyn Duke addresses the sad, poor little man Piers Morgan in his recent attack against the Bible and feel to share it with you now. It can be found HERE.
Piers Morgan Takes Aim at the Bible
You’ve got to hand it to bloviating Brit Piers Morgan. While he got most of the facts wrong in his recent targeting of the Second Amendment, it hasn’t stopped him from moving on to even more formidable targets.
Such as the Bible.
He says the book is “inherently flawed” — and needs to be amended.
Piers handed down his decree while interviewing Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren on the December 24th Piers Morgan Tonight. Yes, on Christmas Eve. When other hosts might be discussing love, brotherhood, salvation, and all things ethereal, Captain Morgan was giving us the world according to Piers. And how would he improve the Good Book? Said he, “Both the Bible and the Constitution were well intentioned, but they are basically, inherently flawed. Hence the need to amend it. My point to you [Warren] about gay rights, for example; it’s time for an amendment to the Bible.”
Well, Piers, we’re so blessed to have you to correct both America’s founding document and the most influential book in history. We had to suffer more than 200 years with one and more than 2000 with the other, but the right god-man has finally come along. Oh, and when you’re done with that, old boy, can you contact the Genome Project and rewrite the human genetic code for us? We’re flawed, too.
To Warren’s credit, he politely but firmly disagreed, responding to the amendment call by saying:
What I believe is flawed is human opinion because it constantly changes. […]What was hot is now not. […]My definition of Truth is: if it’s new, it’s not true. If it was true a thousand years ago, it’ll be true a thousand years from today; opinion changes, but Truth doesn’t.
To this Morgan quite predictably responded, “We’re going to agree to disagree on that.”
Warren then noted how pleasant their exchange had been, prompting Morgan to concur and say, “The debate should always be respectful. By the way, it applies to politics, too. The moment it becomes disrespectful, and discourteous, and then rude, and then poisonous, you never achieve anything.” Talk about amendment — without making amends. If that’s what Morgan now believes, he has definitely discovered a new “truth” since his recent interview with Larry Pratt.
This brings us to what lies at the very heart of modern liberalism and confuses the head of Piers Morgan. When Morgan disagreed on the unchanging nature of Truth, he was espousing moral relativism. This is the notion that what we call “morality” is determined by man and thus is relative to the time, place, and people. It is also something virtually every liberal believes.
And while Morgan’s relativistic statement was almost made in passing, and was allowed to pass — perhaps partially because of time constraints — it was actually the most significant comment of the exchange (relativistic sentiments always would be). Why? Because that was precisely when Morgan, completely and abjectly, lost the debate. And if you understand what I’m about to explain, you’ll be able to cut any liberal off at the knees — anytime.
While many will say, as Warren might have implied, that relativism reduces morality to opinion, even this is both too generous and a misunderstanding. “Opinion” often refers to a thesis about what may be the answer to a particular question, about what may be true. But this presupposes that there are answers to be found, that there is such a thing as “true.” In other words, Mars exists not because everyone believes it does, but because its existence is a physical truth. And the question is, does moral Truth exist in the same way, apart from man and his imagination? If not, then saying that something is morally “true” would make as much sense as saying that planet Vulcan exists simply because you felt it did. Delusion does not a truth make.
So relativism does not reduce morality to opinion. It implies something else.
That morality doesn’t exist.
After all, to say that society determines “morality” is to simply put lipstick on the pig of man’s preferences about behavior. To analogize the matter, if we learned that 90 percent of the world preferred vanilla to chocolate, would this somehow make chocolate “wrong” or “evil”? No, it would simply be an issue of taste. But then how does it make any sense to say that murder is “wrong” if the only reason we do so is that the majority of the world prefers that one not kill in a way the majority calls “unjust”? If this is all it is, then murder falls into the same category as flavor: taste. Again, delusion does not a truth make.
More intellectually nimble moral relativists have thought the above through and — although their ultimate conclusion is wrong — they don’t fool themselves the way Morgan, Richard Dawkins, and virtually every other leftist do. For example, I know of a fellow who has echoed the Protagorean mistake “Man is the measure of all things” and said, “Murder isn’t wrong; it’s just that society says it is.” He takes liberals’ cherished relativism to its logical conclusion (or at least close to it).
This brings us back to Morgan’s philosophical juvenility. He repeatedly stated in his Warren interview that the Bible was “flawed,” but such a concept is incomprehensible in a relativistic universe. For what yardstick is he using to judge the Bible? He certainly cannot refer to any transcendent Truth (a redundancy). And the times, places, and people that extol(led) Scripture certainly don’t align with his judgment, and who is he to impose his values on them? “What you espouse is your ‘truth,’ Piers; theirs is different. Don’t be so judgmental.” That’s how easy it is to hoist liberals on their own petards.
The same applies to homosexual “rights.” If “morals” are values and values just reflect tastes, how can respecting homosexuals be morally superior to persecuting them? How can any behavior preference rightly be judged at all? I think here of how the robot in the film Terminator 2: Judgment Day repeatedly asked the adolescent John Connor why he shouldn’t kill people. “Why? Why?” The machine was just being logical, unlike the liberal organic robots (atheism=no souls=man is merely chemicals and water) that entertain meaning-inducing illusions. In a relativistic universe, moral principles do not compute. This is why any relativism-buttressed point collapses upon itself.
Feelings can become fashions, but never morals. “The Bible isn’t flawed; it’s just that secular society says it is. Respecting homosexuals isn’t right; it’s just that secular society says it is. And what Adam Lanza did isn’t wrong; it’s just that all of society says it is.” Does that sound sociopathic, Piers? It is.
It is also what your relativism implies.
That is Philosophy 101. And if you can’t understand even that, Mr. Morgan, you’re going to start to seem, to use your own words, like an “unbelievably stupid man.”
*NOTE--In the spirit of following after truth and finding it in its purest form available to us, I would caution all who read or plan to start reading the Bible to be careful of which version you choose to use. Though the "Old-English-style" language can be hard to pick up on and understand, they are by far the most accurate and pure translations available to us--particularly the King James Version. Some of the newer "revised" versions may be easier to read but one runs the risk of private, individual interpretations that provide opinions of men not intended by the prophets and/or God Himself.