What’s Your Point?

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. (Ps 14:1)

What’s your point?

When you say, “You can’t force your beliefs on me,” what’s your point?

If what I’m saying is true and you respond by saying that you’re not going to change your mind, you’re not being reasonable, you’re being selfish.

What’s your point?

If you say,”What’s true for you may not be true for me,” you’re attempting to change the definition of Truth to something that’s based on what’s preferred as opposed to what’s accurate.

Declaring that something is true for one person, but not for another, is to claim that the truth is relative to or dependent on the subject being considered. Therefore, there is no universal truth applicable to all men, making the judgment of others futile. Thus, the endgame of this phrase becomes quite clear. To claim, “That may be true for you, but not for me” is to deny any objective and universally applicable standard by which men can be judged. Consequently, it outright denies and stymies the possibility of judgment.1

You’re not being reasonable, you’re being selfish.

What’s your point?

You say the truth makes you uncomfortable, but just because you don’t like what’s being said doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

If you’ve shot yourself in the foot and you want to blame all your pain on the person or principal that told you not to pull the trigger to begin with, you’re not a victim, you’re a fool.

What’s your point?

People who want to maintain themselves as their own absolute have to demonize or dismiss anything that prevents them from being able to justify the way that they think. But if you’re determined to believe that there are no bottom lines and truth is relative, not only do you subscribe to a philosophy that contradicts itself, you reveal yourself as the fool who believes that because they have the right to think for themselves, they can think in a way that has no regard for anyone other than themselves.

What’s your point?

You don’t have a point, you have a problem: There is a God, and you’re not Him.

  1. “Faulty Phrases: ‘There Are No Absolutes’ & ‘The Truth is Relative'”, Jaret Kanerek, “The Intellectual Standard”, October 20121, https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=tis#:~:text=Declaring%20that%20something%20is%20true,this%20phrase%20becomes%20quite%20clear, accessed March 28, 2024

Two Religions

There’s only two religions in the world.

Either God is God or you are.

First of all, “religion” is simply the term given to the way you answer four basic questions:

  • Where did I come? (Origin)
  • What happens when I did? (Destiny)
  • How am I supposed to behave? (Morality)
  • What’s the point of my existence? (Purpose)

How you answer those four questions determines your religious framework. From that standpoint, even the atheist is just as “religious” as his faith based counterpart, the only difference being that the name of his god just happens to match the name on his birth certificate.

Every religion save Christianity provides a way in which you can merit the favor of your preferred deity. With Islam you’ve got Jihad, as a Buddhist you’ve got Nirvana. Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to be among the 144,000 referenced in Revelation 7:4 , Hindus pursue Moksha in order to be liberated from the cycle of death and rebirth. Mormons believe that they can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth. The atheist evaluates his need to be redeemed as well as the source of his redemption according to what he sees in the mirror every morning. In each scenario, you have the ability as a human being to improve your spiritual status.

Christianity, on the other hand, says that you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1). You are dead in your sin and you have no option available to you that can offset your default status as a sinner that is permanently and irretrievably separated from God (Ps 14:3Is 64:6). That’s what makes Christianity distinct from every other religious school of thought – you are completely destitute apart from some kind of miracle that can somehow transform you in the eyes of God from being sinful to sinless.

In that regard, Christianity is not only a standout, it’s the only authentic religion in the way it positions humanity as being utterly subordinate to God as opposed to being somehow comparable to Him.

This goes back to the book of Genesis where satan told Eve that by disobeying God you would become “like God.” (Gen 3:4-5)

Yes, there are many doctrines and creeds, but they all boil down to the same thing in that you are “like God.”

Christianity, however, says you are created and loved by God and it’s because of His Love and amazing grace that you can know Him.

But you first have to accept that you need Him, which is a tall order for those who are determined to be their own spiritual bottom line.

There are only two religions: Either God is God…

…or you are.

For further reading…

Something to Hide

Although it’s not always the case, when you hear someone say, “That’s your opinion,” you’re hearing someone who can’t disagree with what’s being said without sounding selfish or foolish.

Knowing they can’t get people to agree with them, they focus instead on getting people to feel sorry for them by asserting the idea that to be questioned or criticized is a violation of their right to think for themselves and they are now a victim of a cruel and unjust environment.

It looks like this:

  • I can’t get people to agree with me…
  • So I’ll get people to feel sorry for me…
  • Now should someone criticize me…
  • Everyone will side with me.

This is how bad ideas and distorted perspectives get introduced into our society as noble concessions.

You can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel and intolerant. So by posing as a victim, you don’t have to answer any questions or take responsibility for your actions.

This is the signature tactic of someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they have something to hide.

But how can you argue with someone who maintains that their reasoning can’t be challenged without you being categorized as hateful and intolerant?

Ask them questions about other situations and let their own answers reveal the lack of logic that characterizes their beliefs.

For example…

Was Hitler justified in killing six million Jews because he was entitled to his opinion?

Of course not.

In the same way, just because you have an opinion doesn’t mean you’re always right.

If you believe yourself to be correct in the way you think, you have to prove that in the context of what happens when your perspective is put into practice. In other words, you have to run the play and show how it moves the ball down the field. If it doesn’t work, then you’re not trying to win the game as much as you’re trying to validate a self-serving mindset.

That’s your opinion.

Not everyone feels that way.

Separation of Church and State.

You can’t force your beliefs on me…

None of these phrases constitute an argument in and of themselves as much as they’re used as way to conceal one’s inability to defend their viewpoint without sounding selfish or absurd. And in some cases, not only do they not have a point as much as they have a hole in their shoe because they’ve shot themselves in the foot and now they want to blame all their pain on the person or the principle that told them not to pull the trigger to begin with.

They don’t have something to say as much as they have something to hide.



Who’s In Charge?

Who’s in charge?

The Oval Office?

It changes every 4-8 years.

How about the Supreme Court?

They can reverse their decision.1

When our Founding Fathers delivered their Declaration of Independence to King George, they began by answering that question by saying our rights were not dispensed by a monarch, rather they were guaranteed by God.2

Throughout the war, Congress would continue to answer that question by proclaiming a national day of prayer and fasting on sixteen different occasions.3

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”4 James Madison insisted that before anyone could be “…considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”5

Who is in charge?

This is the question you need to ask the person who wants your vote, your subscription or your support.

How you answer that question either puts your name alongside those who signed the Declaration of Independence and ratified the Constitution, or…

…it defines you as someone who wants to replace the One Who is in charge with someone who looks a lot like themselves.



1. “Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades”, NPR, Nina Totenberg, Sarah McCammon, June 24, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn#:~:text=In%20a%20historic%20and%20far,half%20century%2C%20no%20longer%20exists, accessed March 10, 2024

2. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”, “Declaration of Independence – A Transcription”, National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript, accessed March 10, 2024

3. From July 20, 1775 to August 3, 1784, Congress called for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting. You can read the text as it’s preserved in the Library of Congress and see who it was that drafted each of the Proclamations by reading “The Finish Line,” which you can access by heading out to http://muscularchristianityonline.com/forum/the-finish-line/

4. “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102, accessed March 10, 2024

5. “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785”, “Founders Online” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163, accessed March 10, 2024

How Did That Happen?

In the “That’s Your Opinion” series, we talked about how when you subscribe to a viewpoint that can’t be championed directly because of the problems that are inherent to your perspective, you can nevertheless be perceived as credible by shifting the attention away from the subject matter and instead make the conversation all about the way you’re being made to feel.

If you can successfully cast yourself as either a victim or someone who’s in pain, you’re able to avoid that line of questioning that has the capacity to reveal the flaws of your argument. Reason being is that no one can be critical of someone who’s “wounded” without being labeled cruel and intolerant.

In the absence of an objective evaluation, a genuinely ridiculous idea can be embraced as an enlightened inspiration. Not because of its intellectual merits or practical utility, but simply because of the way you’ve been able to manuever the dialog so the focus isn’t on your logic or on your actions. Instead, it’s now on your emotions and by making your sensibilities the only things that matter, you can place a restriction on any questions or comments that pertain specifically to both your thought process and your behavior. Your pain becomes your platform, the problems you create are blamed on other people and your behavior is excused rather than corrected.

You see this everywhere. It’s in the news, it’s in our society, you’ll see it in politics and you’lll see it in relationships as well.

When a person does something hurtful and you call them on it, watch to see how they respond. If they reply by apologizing, you’re dealing with an honest invididual in the context of a healthy relationship.

If on the other hand, they answer by talking more about your reaction than their behavior, that’s not someone who wants to take responsibility for their actions let alone acknowledge that they’ve done something wrong.

It’s not always obvious. You can be in the middle of telling someone that they’re wrong for what they did and suddenly you find yourself apologizing…

How did that happen?

It’s a signature strategy of someone who’s got something to hide as opposed to having something to say is to “react” to whatever correction or questions they’ve having to field by shifting the focus of the dialogue off of their behavior and instead attempt to make it into a situation where they’re being treated unfairly.

It goes back to that verse in Proverbs…

Fools mock at making amends for sin, but goodwill is found among the upright. (Prov 14:9)

You always want to be sensitive to, not just what you’re saying, but also the way you say it (Prov 25:11). But it’s not always about being more patient or more willing to forgive or even a determination to be a better communicator. This is about being wise enough to recognize a tactic if, in fact, a tactic is being used.

How to Win…

When you’re talking with somone who has something to hide more than they have something to say, one of the more common tactics they use to avoid that line of questioning that has the potential to reveal their argument as fundamentally flawed is to pose as a victim.

But it’s more than a mere agenda. It’s part of a philosophical paradigm that has to be engaged strategically in order to avoid a bogus perspective being given precedence over an objective evaluation of what’s true.

There is no “Right” or “Wrong”

A Liberal doesn’t believe in there being any sort of Absolute Standard by which their behavior is measured. Consequently, there is no “right” or “wrong” only preferences and perspectives. This is why when they’re having to contend with the consequences of their actions – because in their mind they have done nothing “wrong” – they can feel justifed in claiming the status of a victim. They’re either being limited by an oppressive society or they’re struggling beneath the weight of unfortunate circumstances, they’re never simply reaping what they have sown.

Even when you can successfully navigate the conversation to that place where they’re willing to concede they made a poor choice, they will defend that choice by saying they had no other option. By clinging to the notion that they had no alternative, they’re able to preserve the idea that they’ve done nothing inappropriate and whatever code or creed would otherwise result in an indictment is effectively circumvented and they remain a world unto themselves.

The Wrong Side of the Road

Imagine someone driving on the wrong side of the road.

If they position themselves as someone who’s under duress, it becomes very hard to be critical of their behavior without appearing indifferent and perhaps even cruel.

For example, if they’re trying to get their wife to hospital before she gives birth, that changes the way in which you evaluate their choice to risk a head on collision, even if it’s not a good idea.

But if on the other hand they’re just being reckless and irresponsible, then their behavior is rightly identified as such regardless of how they might try to justify it.


The challenge is to be able to figure out whether or not the person you’re speaking with is, in fact, someone having to deal with mitigating circumstances, or if they’re just trying to appear that way in order to avoid having to take responsibility for their actions.

You can do that by keeping the conversation focused on the problems created by your opponent’s behavior as opposed to their feelings.

For example…

You: “You’re driving on the wrong side of the road.”

Them: “You accusing me of driving on the wrong side of the road is a manifestion of an oppressive socieity and you’re making me feel uncomfortable.”

You: “I’m sorry that’s the way you feel, but we’re not talking about your emotions, we’re talking about the way you’re choosing to drive.”

Them: “I choose to drive that way because I’m naturally drawn to driving on the wrong side of the road. I have the right to be happy and you questioning my perspective constitutues an assault on my personal freedoms.”

You: “Your freedom to choose does not mean that every option you have available to you translates to the same outcome. In this instance, your choice translates to you being a threat to yourself and others. Neither your freedoms nor your feelings exempt you from having to take responsibility for your actions.”

The Way You Think + the Way You Act…
This isn’t about perspective, this is about math…
You want to shoot yourself in the foot and then insist it’s because someone told you not to do it that you’re in pain. The way you think plus the way you act equals the price you pay. You either make wise decisions that cost you very little or you make foolish choices that can be very expensive. Either way, it’s you that pays the bill and you don’t demand someone else pay the tab simply because you don’t like the amount.

Them: “I’m not hurting anyone.”

You: “You’re forcing everyone to adjust the way they drive in order to accommodate what amounts to a self serving resolve to ignore the law and a healthy flow of traffic. From that standpoint, you’re hurting everyone.”

Them: “I belive the law to be corrupt and can therefore be interpreted according to person’s individual preferences. Furthermore, whatever your opinion may be, while you are entitled to it, you cannot force your beliefs on me.”

You: “You cannot conceal or deny the problems your decisions produce by criticizing the very rules that were designed to prevent those problems to begin with. We’re not talking about what I believe. Rather, we’re talking about the natural consequences of your behavior.”

Them: “Fine. That’s the way you feel, but that’s not the way I see it.”

You: “This isn’t about perspective, this is about math. You want to shoot yourself in the foot and then insist it’s because someone told you not to do it that you’re in pain. The way you think plus the way you act equals the price you pay. You either make wise decisions that cost you very little or you make foolish choices that can be very expensive. Either way, it’s you that pays the bill and you don’t demand someone else pay the tab simply because you don’t like the amount.”

Them: “That’s your opinion.”

You: “No, that’s your responsibility. The validity of your perspective is ultimately gauged according to what happens when that perspective is put into practice. You can’t say your approach to a particular issue is credible simply because it’s yours. You have to demonstrate that it works and if it doesn’t, then you have to be willing to admit that you might be wrong. But if all you do is blame somone or something else, you’re not looking for the truth as much as you’re looking for an excuse.”

Them: “You can’t make me think like you.”

You: “No, I can’t. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s a car coming and you’re in the wrong lane. Regardless of how you feel or what I believe, there are consequences to your actions and you are responsible for the decisions you make.”

“You might want to get over.”

Choices and Results

That’s how you win.

Your opponent may not yield to your line of reasoning, but…

…by keeping the conversation focused on choices and results, you can avoid the concessions that are often made when the dialogue focuses more on opinions and complaints.

Who Makes the Rules?

A great deal of the tension that exists in our society today – be it a cultural anomaly or a political argument – can be resolved by simply considering how you would answer one fundamental question.

Who makes the rules?

We’re not talking about the person who occupies the Oval Office nor are we looking to the Justices on the Supreme Court.

Rather, we’re talking about something even more foundational and to arrive at that bottom line, we’re going to look at a sequence of definitions and realities that begin with what serves as the basis for all governments and then building on that in a way that reveals the source of all the angst that characterizes the discourse pertaining to politics and morals.

The goal is to do this in a manner that’s irrefutable, regardless of your political persuastion or spiritual convictions in that it’s not so much about a perspective as much as it’s a common sense treatment of what otherwise is a volatile exchange of ideas and opinions that’s based more so on passion than principle.

Here we go…

What is “Religion?”

From a purely philosophical standpoint, every religion answers four basic questions:

  • Where do I come from (orgin)?
  • What happens when I die (destiny)?
  • How am I supposed to behave (morals)?
  • What’s the point of my existence (purpose)?

Regardless of creed or deity, every religion proposes an answer to those four questions. And it’s how you answer those four questions that defines your religious framework and dictates the way you define yourself and the way you process the world around you.

Bear in mind as well that using this approach, Atheism can be appropriately categorized as a “religion” in that it too proposes answers to these questions, the only difference being that the name of the Atheist’s god matches the name on their birth certificate.

Amazing Grace

According to Scripture, you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1). You are dead in your sin and you have no option available to you that can offset your default status as a sinner that is permanently and irretrievably separated from God (Ps 14:3Is 64:6).

That’s what makes Christianity distinct from every other religious school of thought – you are utterly destitute apart from some kind of miracle that can somehow transform you in the eyes of God from being sinful to sinless. And the only way that can happen is through the Solution God engineered through the death and resurrection of His Son.

There Are Only Two Options

While there are many religions, there are only two options.

Either God is God or you are.

Every religion on the planet empowers the individual with the ability to faciliate their own salvation. Either by doing something or making some kind of sacrifice – you’re able to put enough spiritual points on the board to merit the favor of your preferred deity.

Christianity, on the other hand, says that the the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.

So, while other religions place you in a position where you are “god-like” in that you can accomplish what needs to be done in order to rate an enhanced supernatural status, the gospel of Jesus Christ defines you as utterly destitute apart from the life God offers as a gift and not as something you can earn.

Either God is God or you are.

Every Government is Based on a Church

Every government that has ever existed is ultimately based on the way you define a human being which is an extension of one’s religious framework. From that standpoint, you are no longer talking mere policy as much as you are now entering the realm of theology.

A Monarchy, for example, is looking at a person’s bloodline to determine their rank and title. A Socialist will categorize an individual under one of two headings: Either the Bourgeoisie or the Proletarians – the Bourgeoisie being those who own the means of production, and the Proletariat – the worker who suffers beneath the weight of an oppressive Capitalist system.

The Six Types of Government

Consider the way Aristotle outlined the Six Types of Government.

Rulers Correct Deviant
One Ruler Monarchy Tyranny
Few Rulers Aristocracy / Republic Oligarchy / Plutocracy
Many Rulers Direct Democracy Anarchy

The idea is that you can have different formats, all of which can conceivably work depending on the character of the “rulers.” When the goal is to govern for the good of the community, you have what’s categorized  as “Correct.” On the hand, when those who are in positions of authority govern for the good of themselves, it’s then when you have the “Deviant” verison of that particular approach.

But regardless of the virtue that is present or the corruption that is apparent, you have an underlying way of defining those who are being governed.

However you craft your approach to the way in which human beings are to be governed, your starting point will always be the way in which you characterize the individual.

You’re either created or you’re merely sorted.

This is part of what makes the Declaration of Independence so significant because of the way it bases its content on the fact that all men are created equal. But this is also why any effort to suggest that the “separation of church and state” translates to a scenario where there is neither a need nor a desire for a “religious” premise to be included in the way a country’s government is to be defined is revealed as being logically flawed. It’s there by default because of the manner in which the essence of the individual is being evaluated.

It’s Not About the Freedom of Religion

Because government is a fundamental extension of the way a human being is defined, you have a religious dynamic in place because you’re either seeing humanity from a purely secular standpoint or you’re seeing him as someone who is made in the image of his Creator. Again, this goes back to the fact that while there are any one of a number of “religions,” there are only two options: Either God is God or the individual is his own deity.

When you hear someone launch a verbal assault on the presence of the Christian doctrine in our nation’s founding and its continued influence in our legislative landscape today, it’s usually spearheaded by a passionate appeal to their interpretation of the “separation of church and state.”

While much of their content can be refuted by demonstrating the lack of context that characterizes their platform, the structural flaw of their argument is the way in which they want to position their viewpoint as one that replaces Christianity with a spiritual vacuum where no “religious” statement is being made or acknowledged.

But that is a philosophical impossibility because of the way every governmental system is founded on the way in which a human being is to be defined.

What they want to present as “freedom of religion” is actually an attempt to asssert a different religious hierarchy where the individual is his own absolute. They’re wanting to either ignore or qualify every reference to Christianity in a way where it is stripped of any significance and in so doing promote the idea that there is no Authority save the one that is consistent with their preferences.

That’s Your Opinion

At this point, we have…

  • Revealed how religion, from a purely philosophical standpoint, answers four basic questions and it’s how you respond to those questions that dictates the way you see yourself and they way your process the world around you.
  • Demonstrated how there are many religions but only two options: Either God is God or you are based on the way every religious school of thought empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation with the exception of Christianity.
  • Shown how every form of government is based on a “church” in that every legislative framework is built on the way that particular approach defines a human being. Given that philosophical starting point, the contemporary usage of the phrase, “separation of church and state” is revealed not as a noble effort to foster the freedom of religion as much as it’s an attempt to replace Christianity with a spiritual paradigm that says the individual is his own Absolute.

Confronted with a platform that’s difficult to refute without conceding the selfish character of their argument, it’s here where the most vocal advocates of the separation of church and state will say, “That’s your opinion.”

While it’s not always the case, more often than not, when you’re involved in a debate and someone says, “Well, that’s your opinion,” you’re hearing that person attempt to avoid the line of questioning that has the potential to reveal their platform as being fundamentally flawed. So, rather than stay engaged, they retreat behind the premise that suggests everyone is right all the time which is by default accompanied by the idea that to disagree with whatever they believe represents a form of oppression.

On the surface, it has the appearance of cooperation and compassion. But in the hands of those who have something to hide more than they have something to say, responding to an argument by saying, “That’s your opinion,” is a tactic designed to make their platform appear logically and morally comparable to whatever other options may exist, regardless of how nonsensical or unsustainable their perspective may be.

And that’s the problem…

What Actually Happens

The fact that a person has the “right to be happy,” or the “right to choose” or, “is entitled to their opinion” doesn’t mean that every option that’s available to them translates to the same outcome.

At some point you have to evaluate the mindsets being considered according to what actually happens when those viewpoints are deployed.

We’re not talking about your feelings, my beliefs or the rules you want to dismiss as corrupt simply because they prevent you from being your own bottom line. Rather, we’re talking about those things that result from the perspective you subscribe to.

If someone is driving on the wrong side of the road it’s hard to imagine that person defending their being in the wrong lane by saying, “You accusing me of driving on the wrong side of the road is a manifestion of an oppressive society and you’re making me feel uncomfortable.”

Yet that is the approach taken by someone who wants to ignore the practical results of their perspective and instead focus only on the way they feel. To their way of thinking, anything that’s wise, healthy or beneficial is secondary to whatever it is that best promotes the idea that they are in charge.

Who Makes the Rules?

You Can’t Make Me Believe

Saying, “You can’t make me believe…” is neither a defense nor an indictment. You’re not defending your position nor are you challenging the substance of your opponent’s argument. All your doing is attempting to assert the idea that your perspective is somehow superior, not because of it’s logical density but because you’re uncomfortable with what’s being said.

Your discomfort doesn’t qualify as a rebuttal nor does the damage your philsophy creates gets overlooked simply because you prefer a different approach.

Every argument and school of thought has a starting point – a collection of assumptions that dictate the direction and the strength of the line of logic that proceeds from that philosophical baseline.

If your perspective on a particular issue begins with the belief that there is no God, then you’re inevitably basing your mindset on a human agency – be it a court, a legal document or a cultural trend. All of these things can be altered to accommodate a shifting consensus and are therefore fluid.

This can be a very handy tool in the hands of someone who’s looking to promote a specific agenda that requires a noble sounding justification in that you can sound compassionate, yet be morally bankrupt because of the way you guage the difference between right and wrong according to an adjustable scale.

But if, on the other hand, you believe that the Bible represents the Authoritative bottom line on the human experience, your perspective will be based on Something that does not and can not change, thus providing a dependable approach that isn’t compromised by dynamics that can be corrupted.

Who Makes the Rules?

Whatever polls, soundbytes, headlines or subject matter experts you compile, at the root of your argument will be either a Divine Absolute that gives it weight and substance or it will be a human preference that can be challenged and overruled.

The reason the Declaration of Independence resonated as a cause and not just as a complaint is because we referenced the Creator as being the Standard that showed how the monarchy of King George violated the rights that were not his to dispense but were God’s to guarantee.

It’s because God makes the rules that we can embrace them as tools that strengthen the barriers that prevent the deterioration which causes us to stumble and fail both on a personal and national level.

They’re free and they work.

But to the individual who chooses to engage his existence believing himself to be his own bottom line, he will condemn anything that challenges his authority as cruel and antiquated. Determined to process safeguards as limitations, he blames the pain and problems caused by his personal regime on either the God Who supposedly doesn’t exist or the people who aren’t willing to certify his calamities as accomplishments.

This is why it can be a difficult conversation to navigate. Those who dismiss the Reality of God’s Influence in the universe and in their lives will insulate themselves from any correction or criticism by insisting any system or opinion that doesn’t reinforce their mindset constitutes an attack that qualifies them as wounded and oppressed.

But the fact of the matter is, they’re simply trying to create new standards of behavior in order to avoid being held accountable for both their actions and their chosen perspective.

As long as the dialogue is defined as a noble activist fighting against an oppressive and opinionated system, the odds will swing in their favor when it comes to determining what’s a fair and appropriate approach to politics, morals, medicine and religion.

But let the conversation be steered according to who it is that’s making the rules to begin with and you’ve got a much more revealing exchange. Once it becomes apparent that their concept of justice and morality are founded on an entirely different foundation than the one upon which our nation is built, their topics are rightly perceived as tactics to replace rabbis, priests and pastors with lawyers, judges and magistrates.

Before you can make the right decision, you first have to establish what is True.

And in order to figure out what is True, you first have to identify the One Who defines the Truth.

Who makes the rules?

Let that be where you begin and sensation will give way to substance, the real problems can now be discerned and the answers you seek can now be discovered.

The Central Truth | Part III

At the core of every issue is a Central Truth – the bottom line, the “thing” you’re trying to get done.

It’s that Central Truth that has to be prioritized in order to ensure you’re making the right decisions. And in order to make the right decisions, you’ve got to ask the right questions and you’re asking the right questions only when you’re engaged in a comprehensive evaluation of all the facts and not just a subjective manipulation of some of the facts.

You ask the right questions in order to…

…make the right decisions in order to…

…do the right thing, which is the Central Truth.

What is it that’s most important? What are you trying to accomplish? What is the Bottom Line?

What is the Central Truth?

By establishing what it is that you’re trying to get done, you’re able to better frame the questions which lead to the decisions that best facilitate what needs to be achieved.

It’s a simple way of organizing your thoughts and efforts that prevent the kind of scenario you see in Genesis 3 where Satan was able to get Adam and Eve to make a lethal compromise simply by asking a question that effectively diverted their attention away from what was most important.


Not everyone agrees on what the “bottom line” is, and some will even insist that absolutes in general are a ridiculous fiction.

It’s here where you encounter the true source of all the tension that permeates the headlines and the debates in our world today. Reason being is that the Central Truth doesn’t merely define what it is you’re trying to do, it’s a manifestation of the Reality you use to validate your approach to yourself and the world around you.

You can compile enough in the way of subject matter experts and polling data to legitimize almost anything. And while it’s tempting to believe that your rebuttal to some of the more outrageous assertions made by scientific sounding parties is sufficiently fortified with the appropriate amount of intellectual density, that faith is oftentimes revealed as a foolish confidence because of the way Truth is marginalized by so many as something that is defined more by one’s perspective than it is by a transcendent Absolute.

In other words, your platform is only as credible as the extent to which the Truth you’re defending is regarded as an appropriate premise.

This is why the way in which Truth is defined is so important. It’s here where discussions that should be civil become volatile because it’s not the strength of the logic that’s being questioned as much as it’s the authority of the individual that’s being challenged.

“You can’t tell me what to do.”

“You can’t judge me.”

“That’s your opinion.”

“Not everyone feels that way.”

“Not everyone believes the way you do.”

The Homosexual lifestyle, for example, is promoted as a behavior protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.1 As long as the conversation is contained within a sphere that defines the behavior of the individual according to the legal consensus of a human collective, their logic is beyond reproach. This is part of the reason why those who staff the Supreme Court come under such scrutiny because of the way some have discarded the notion of what is “moral” so they can instead validate their conduct according to what is “legal.” Church steeples are replaced with pounding gavels and just like that, what was morally reprehensible is now a “right.”

Are you ready? We’re on the threshold of what represents the exciting conclusion to this series and I guarantee you, it’s the kind of bottom line you want to keep in your psychological back pocket as you attempt to push back on those cultural trends and legal initiatives that are promoted in the name of Constitutional Rights or Social Justice.

We’ve established that every issue has at its core a Central Truth that needs to be prioritized in order to make the right decisions. By being able to maintain what’s most important, you can deploy a wise disregard for those things that are either intentionally or unwittingly introduced into the conversation that makes the Central Truth appear less important and even irrelevant.

But what is the Central Truth?

For the Gay Activist, it’s Freedom of Speech. For those who subscribe to the philosophical foundation our Founding Fathers built upon, it’s the Word of God which means that Homosexuality is not a “right,” rather it’s a perversion.

You see where this is going?

Before you can hope to accurately establish the Central Truth, you first have to ask…

“Who makes the rules?”

What is your starting point? Who is your absolute? Where do your rights come from? How do you certify your perspective as being completely correct?

Granted, not every issue you encounter pertaining to Politics or society constitutes a moral dilemma. Where you position a traffic light or deciding what day your taxes need to be filed doesn’t require any real introspection as far as what course of action resonates as a better moral option.

But there are very few issues that dominate our national headlines that don’t include a moral component. Gun Control, Climate Change, Black Lives Matter, Illegal Immigration, COVID-19 – every one of these topics is debated in a manner that associates a specific morality with a particular viewpoint.

As has been mentioned before, you can find a poll or a subject matter expert to say pretty much anything you want to hear. But we all have in place a metaphysical ground zero that endorses the conclusions we subscribe to as being true. It’s that filter that defines your existence, shapes your convictions and dictates your choices as far as who you will listen to and who you will ignore.

So, for some, it’s not so much about what makes the most sense as much as it’s what makes the most difference in the way it reinforces your personal philosophy as the best way to process the human experience.

Who makes the rules? Who’s in charge?

We’ll talk more about that in Part IV!


1. “LGBT Rights and the Free Speech Clause”, “American Bar Association”, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gp_solo/2020/march-april/lgbt-rights-free-speech-clause/, accessed August 10, 2022>


The Central Truth | Part II

It Can be Overwhelming

Being able to sort through all of the headlines and subject matter experts can be overwhelming when you’re trying to figure out who’s who and what’s what, especially when everyone insists that they’re right and everyone else is just trying to catch up.

But there’s a tool that you can use that brings a substantial amount of clarity to whatever it is you’re trying to process called, “The Central Truth.”

The idea is that every issue has at its core a Central Truth – the bottom line that needs to be prioritized in order for the right decision to be made.  In Part I of this series we looked at how by identifying what it is that’s most important, you’re able to prevent noble sounding tangents from distracting you from that one thing that’s more important than anything else.

The Central Truth.

But in order for this to work, you first have to identify what Truth actually is.

Welcome to Part II…!

Perfect Accuracy

Regardless of how obvious it may appear, not everybody defines Truth in the same way. Bear in mind, we’re not talking about the way in which philosophers have pondered and debated the meaning of Truth. Rather, we’re looking at Truth as being the conclusion you arrive at after a comprehensive evaluation of all the facts. For the sake of our conversation here, we’ll call it “Perfect Accuracy.”

You can answer a question correctly without being completely honest and you can be honest without telling the whole truth. This is part of the reason why people differ when it comes to the way in which Truth is defined because of the way the facts being considered can be limited to a collection of carefully selected soundbites – bits and pieces of credible sounding data that are presented in a way that’s designed to make a flawed perspective appear both complete and irrefutable.

In order to arrive at “perfect accuracy” you have to engage in a comprehensive evaluation of all the facts, as opposed to a manipulation of just some of the facts. And you can’t dismiss any one piece of data as irrelevant just because it doesn’t line up with your philosophical preferences.

Again, it has to be a complete assessment of all the information and it’s going to be in the context of the questions that are being asked that will reveal whether or not the person posing the questions is focused on the Central Truth or is resolved to promote a different reality and the subsequent lie that serves as its theme.

The Right Questions

If you go back to the example we looked at before in Genesis 3, the “Central Truth” was that God had said not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That’s what needed to remain front and center in order to ensure the right choices were being made. And in order to make the right choices, you have to ask the right questions because otherwise you get drawn into a line of thought that sounds reasonable, but nevertheless runs contrary to the bottom line.

When Satan approached Eve, he began by asking what it was that God had commanded pertaining to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He didn’t reference that tree specifically. Rather, he begins by implying that God had told her not to eat from any tree…

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Gen 3:1)

Right out of the chute you have an unspoken element of “unfairness” being introduced into the equation – the idea that God has prohibited both Adam and Eve from eating any of the fruit from any of the trees in the garden. Satan has set the table, now he serves the main course:

4“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4-5)

He began by implying that God was unreasonable, now he builds on that by stating that God is fearful of Adam and Eve’s potential, which translates to God being insecure and even antagonistic.

It’s a bogus assertion, but do you see how it grew out of the initial question that was asked?

You have to ask the right questions in order to make the right decision. And the right decision is validated as such by the Central Truth that represents not only what it is that you’re needing to do, but also the reason why you need to get it done.

Moral Absolutes

Up to this point, the illustration of the Garden of Eden and the way in which Satan used an obviously calculated question in order to compromise the absolute nature of the Central Truth works well because of the way the Central Truth is so clearly defined and very few would dispute God’s instructions as being fair and even generous.

But when you get into Moral Issues, the Central Truth becomes a source of contention in some instances because of the way some want to position themselves as their own moral authority.

For example, in the minds of some the issue of Homosexuality has as its Central Truth the idea that, “I have the right to be happy.” Abortion is another case where, for many, the Central Truth is, “I have the right to be happy” or “I have the right to make decisions pertaining to my body.”

If one’s happiness and health is established as the Central Truth, both the decisions and the questions that support those choices are easily established and answered in a way that provides the individual the ethical endorsement they need to engage those behaviors and shrug off any criticism as being inappropriate and even cruel.

But if Truth is going to be defined as “perfect accuracy” that’s determined by a comprehensive evaluation of all the facts and not just those that cater to one’s personal preferences, even if you don’t believe or agree with the Substance of Scripture, you have to at least acknowledge the way in which the Bible utterly condemns both practices.

This is where the “Central Truth” often becomes a volatile topic of discussion because you’re not just questioning a person’s logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to define for themselves the difference between right and wrong.

And while this tension surfaces primarily in the context of moral issues, it’s often at the root of the disagreements that happen in Politics, Medicine and even in the Economy.

Like what’s already been mentioned, you have to ask the right questions in order to make the right decisions. But even before you ask, “What’s the problem?” You first have to ask, “Who’s in charge?”

We’ll look at that in Part III…


The Central Truth | Part I

I’m Done…

Have you ever found yourself feeling a little exhausted, as far as trying to understand a particular issue that has no apparent bottom line?

Every viewpoint is championed by a passionate collection of advocates all of whom insist that their subject matter experts possess the real knowledge and the true reality. As you try to sort through the headlines and the soundbites, there’s also the occasional distraction of the popular personality that uses their cultural capital to make one specific perspective appear to be the only real, rational approach.

It’s chaotic.

Even with their flawless delivery coupled with the somber ultimatums articulated by the academics, the other side seems to have a credible platform and it becomes this incessant tension that has no satisfactory resolution.

And it becomes even more difficult when you encounter that person who labels any dissenting opinion as immoral and cruel. At that point, there’s not even a conversation and it becomes more about an individual’s supposed lack of character than the substance of their argument.

However convoluted the situation may appear to be, there is, however, a tool that you can use that brings a refreshing breeze of clarity to an arid desert of confusion.

It’s called, “The Central Truth.”

The Garden of Eden

Every issue has at its core a Central Truth which has to be prioritized in order for the right decisions to be made.

Anytime someone comes along and says, “I have a question,” or “There’s some other things that need to be considered,” – whatever questions or information they’re getting ready to throw into the mix will fall under one of two headings.

  • They’re either reinforcing the Central Truth or…
  • They’re intentionally engineered to distract from the Central Truth and make it look less significant and even irrelevant.

You can see this played out in the Garden of Eden.

The Central Truth in this instance is that Adam and Eve were not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (Gen 2:15-17)

Here comes Satan and the first question he asks Eve was whether or not they were prohibited to eat from any tree in the garden.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Gen 3:1)

Satan knows what the Central Truth is. The correct question would’ve been “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil’?” But he’s looking for a way to set things up where he can compel Adam and Eve to see God as Someone Who’s wanting to restrict them unnecessarily. So he poses a question that’s designed to cast doubt on, not only what was said, but also the Character of the One Who said it.

When Eve responds by clarifying what God actually commanded, Satan then makes an assertion saying that God’s motives should be more carefully evaluated because of the way He’s obviously denying her an opportunity to become more like Him.

Now God is no longer a Loving Authority as much as He’s an insecure tyrant that’s not only intimidated by what Adam and Eve could potentially become, but also antagonistic towards them because why else would He deny them the chance to be more than who they are?

Fear and Hate.

Sound familiar? We’ll get back to that later…

Principle and Not Just Passion

And so, having been convinced that Satan had a point, they ignored the Central Truth and made a decision based on a collection of information and assumptions that were all intended to divert the attention away from what was most important and instead focus on what amounted to be a toxic premise.

The Central Truth was to obey God.

Had that been maintained as the primary theme in the conversation, Eve would’ve been able to tell Satan that, regardless of his perspective on God’s motives, disobeying God was non-negotiable and being able to successfully navigate the exchange would’ve been much easier.

Regardless of what the issue is or how complicated the dilemma may appear to be, by identifying the Central Truth, you’re able to deploy a wise disregard for those things that constitute an attempt to minimize the importance and the priority of that which is absolutely crucial.

People will differ on what the Central Truth is. Some will even dispute whether or not there is such a thing as an Absolute.

But by steering the debate in the direction of what it is that needs to be accomplished, you’ve severely crippled the utility of whatever tactics might be used by those who have something to hide more than they have something to say. Even the way in which you can compromise yourself by allowing destructive distractions to cloud your thinking can be halted by recalling what it is that’s most important.

Now you’re conversing and concentrating in a way that’s characterized by principle and not just passion. The result is a streamlined yet substantial approach to being able to do the right thing in the right way at the right time for all the right reasons.

For this to work, however, you have to be able to define what “Truth” is.

We’re going to cover that in Part II…