Posts

That’s Your Opinion | Part I

I) Here’s Your Challenge

You have a perspective on a particular issue that when it’s put into practice results in a world of pain and problems.

Yet, it’s something that falls in line with your preferences, so now you have a dilemma…

How do you champion your viewpoint without sounding either outrageously selfish or absurd?

Part of what makes this especially challenging is that you have to retool the very definition of all that’s right, good, moral and just. If you are to successfully position your viewpoint as something that is comparable to every other approach, despite its flaws and liabilities, you’ve got to introduce some new standards in order to make your platform look credible.

You have to be your own absolute.

But it’s really not that hard.

All you need to do is use one of several phrases that frame the debate in a way where you are perceived as someone who’s merely advocating an environment where everyone’s opinion is credible. Now you can not only win the debate, but you can also make every other opposing mindset look sinister because those who are on the outside looking in aren’t hearing your opponent challenge your logic. Rather, they’re hearing them as being against the very concepts of compassion and understanding.

You have a number of comments to choose from:

  • Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
  • Not everyone feels that way.
  • You can’t force your beliefs on me.
  • Separation of Church and State.

Every one of these phrases has one thing in common: It changes the way you’re now no longer heard as someone trying to justify themselves. Instead, you’re heard as someone being “forced” to subscribe to something you don’t agree with.

You are a victim of a totalitarian system, and now you can’t be criticized or corrected.

The focus is now neither on the subject matter nor on the flaws of your argument. Rather, it’s on the character of the person who’s daring to question the validity of your approach because of the way you’ve been able to characterize them as overbearing and intolerant.

The direct line of questioning that has the capacity to reveal the flaws of your argument…?

Silenced.

The challenge of having to account for the damage done by the approach you subscribe to?

Not your responsibility.

No one wants to be labeled intolerant or judgmental or homophobic or racist…

So, in the context of one, well timed comment, you can shift the attention away from what’s being discussed and instead focus on the apparent character flaws of those who disagree with you. And in no time at all, you create a level of intimidation to the point where no one wants to say anything at all.

II) Your Battleplan

You can’t drive on the wrong side of the road and justify it by saying you have the right to be happy. At some point, you have to be able to certify your way of thinking as credible according to what happens when your battleplan is put into action.

If you’re forcing people into the ditch or you’re causing head on collisions, then your opinion needs to be subordinated to a different approach that yields a better result.

What you think and how you feel is important. But when you establish yourself as your own bottom line in order to avoid taking responsibility for the organic outcome of those processes you have endorsed, you’re not a victim of anything other than your own poor decision making.

You can’t shoot yourself in the foot and then turn around and blame all your pain on the one who told you not to pull the trigger to begin with.

III) Basic Math

Imagine telling someone that 2 + 2 = 4 and they respond by saying, “You can’t force your beliefs on me!”

Think about it!

They’re not declaring themselves to be right nor are they insisting that you’re wrong.

In some ways, they’re not really adding anything to the conversation, but it’s not what they’re saying as much as it’s what they’re doing.

They’re creating a distraction.

We’re not talking about math anymore. Now you’re having to contend with being labeled a tyrant and until you’ve vindicated yourself, the idea that 2 + 2 = 4 is suspect due to the way you’ve been indicted as being cruel and opinionated.

Of course, since you’re the only witness for the defense, your testimony isn’t especially compelling. You can’t really defend yourself because everyone expects you to insist that you’re innocent.

Meanwhile…

The person who said, “You can’t force your beliefs on me” is able to create their own version of mathematics.

2 + 2 can equal whatever they want because, while the conversation began by discussing the sum of two integers, it was altered by insinuating that you’re hateful and mean. Now everyone’s feeling obligated to perceive you and your platform as being inappropriate and any notion of a genuinely accurate calculation is no longer a priority.

Given some time, this kind of dynamic can actually produce an anomaly where 2 + 2 can equal anything but 4 because of the way basic addition is now characterized as unenlightened and immoral.

IV) Am I My Brother’s Keeper?

When Cain killed his brother Abel, God confronted Cain by asking him, “Where is your brother?”

Cain’s got a problem.

He can’t answer the question directly because by doing so he would be incriminating himself. So, he does the equivalent to what we’ve been talking about by asserting the idea that he is being questioned by an Individual Who is domineering and demanding.

Cain responds by asking God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

In other words, “I’m not responsible for my brother, therefore I can’t know for certain where he is and for You to assume that I would know represents a level of presumption that is neither fair nor appropriate.”

Cain tries to set himself up as a victim. He’s basically telling God, “That’s Your opinion.”

But look at how God responds.

He says, “What have you done?”

God’s Holy, so His Motives are beyond reproach. But the issue isn’t the purity of His Disposition, it’s the fact that Abel is dead and by refusing to submit to Cain’s line of questioning, God is able to maintain the true purpose of the conversation by focusing on what Cain has done and those things that have happened as a result.

Cain’s attempt to conceal both his way of thinking as well as his behavior by indirectly accusing God of having unreasonable expectations is the same methodology being deployed by people who would defend their viewpoint by saying…

That’s your opinion, you can’t force your beliefs on me, not everyone feels that way.

Even the separation of church and state is often nothing more than a veiled attempt to distract attention away from the consequences of a person’s behavior and instead make it all about the status of an individual’s emotional sensibilities.

I don’t care what the Bible says, I’m going to do whatever I want to do regardless of the problems it may cause and if you don’t agree with me, well…

That’s your opinion.

V) Conclusion

As believers we are often opposed by people who would attempt to shut down any meaningful dialogue by saying, “That’s your opinion.”

You want to be ready to process that response as something that is, at least potentially, not so much a contribution to the conversation, but as a tactic to tailor the conversation in a way where any Truth is compromised because of the way it’s now associated with an implied intolerance for the thoughts and feelings of others.

Should you find yourself in that situation, you want to take your cue from God’s Example and respond by simply asking the right questions.

Results and Outcomes as opposed to Feelings and Preferences.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you can’t force your beliefs on someone else. But you’re not being overbearing when you’re simply evaluating those things that result from when a person’s perspective is put into practice.

An “opinion,” according to the dictionary is, “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.” When God questioned Cain about Abel’s whereabouts, He wasn’t attempting to discern something that couldn’t be known for certain. There was no need to speculate. Cain’s response was an attempt to distract from those things that could be readily observed in order to perpetuate the idea that any notion of his being guilty of anything sinister was based on something wholly subjective.

And that’s the point.

When someone tries to navigate the dialogue in a way where everything remains relative in order to sustain the idea that there is no definitive right or wrong, you can counter that strategy by doing the very same thing God did with Cain: Replace subjective ideas with observable facts.

And not just some of the facts, but all of the information that’s relevant to the dialogue.

So, the next time you hear someone say, “That’s your opinion,” you can respond by saying, “No, these are observable facts” and then proceed to make your case. By bringing the focus of the debate back to what can be known and not merely felt, you’re able to prevent preferences from becoming principles and bad ideas from becoming accepted methodologies.

Read Me Your Rights

I) Intro

Many of the issues that dominate our nation’s headlines are defended by insisting that an individual’s “right” is being violated if someone disagrees with their perspective.

Gay Pride

Pride events are about human rights; they empower LGBTI individuals to reclaim the rights and freedoms they are denied, and the public space they are often excluded from.1

Civil Rights

…more than a year into the Biden-Harris administration, we remain disappointed by a lack of urgency on dismantling inhumane immigration policies and practices, reforming the criminal-legal system, and ensuring that civil rights are front and center in the nation’s technology and AI policies.2

Reproductive Rights

Reproductive rights—having the ability to decide whether and when to have children—are important to women’s socioeconomic well-being and overall health.3

For a homosexual, the “right” to be gay means that any school of thought that denounces Homosexuality as being morally wrong is to be legally processed as a form of discrimination. The Civil Rights movement dismisses any questions pertaining to illegal immigration – statistics that point to the disproportionate number of violent crimes committed by black people and the number of black minorities that drop out of High School – as being a front for Racism as opposed to an honest evaluation of all the factors that need to be considered before insisting that America is dominated by a bigoted populace.

And Pro Choice activists make a point of characterizing anyone who questions the morality of abortion as being opposed to women’s rights…

In all three instances, the validity of their platform is founded on an entitlement that is absolute and therefore any person who questions or attempts to refute their argument cannot do so without being immediately characterized as cruel and unjust.

Yet in order for a “right” to qualify as a transcendent given, you have to first consider how a right is defined and what it is that gives a right the ability to subordinate all preferences and opinions to its substance and truth.

What is a “right?” Let’s take a look…

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
Life: Ps 139:13-16
Liberty: Lev 25:10 (inscribed on the Liberty Bell), Lk 4:18
The Pursuit of Happiness: Ps 16:11; Jn 10:10

II) The Declaration of Independence

Among the things that makes the Declaration of Independence such a powerful document is the premise it was built upon. The Declaration of Independence is more than a list of grievances. It is a statement that identifies the monarchy of King George as being fundamentally flawed, not because of his tyrannical approach to the colonies, but because of the way his rule violated Divine Absolutes.

That is why it reverberated the way it did around the civilized world. Our Founders recognized both the strength and the necessity of building a government on the Substance of Scripture if that government was to succeed in providing the legal environment where an individual’s God-given rights could flourish.

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.4

It was both the advantages of a biblically based government and the way in which they rightly identified the King of Great Britain as ruling in a way that was contrary to the way in which Scripture defined a human being, that positioned our nation has having a legitimate cause and not just a mere complaint.

It’s also here where we see what a “right” is and why its legal efficacy is so profound.

III) What is a Right?

A “right” is something that has as its Source God Himself. Anything less is nothing more than a consensus arrived at by a human collective. And if the composition of the right in question is nothing more than a collaboration of like-minded people, it will ultimately fail to be reliable because if a human dynamic can give it to you, that same human dynamic can take it away, which means that it wasn’t a “right” to begin with as much as it was a temporary accommodation.

That’s not to say that a godless individual is incapable of recognizing and championing a fair and compassionate system of rules and laws. The problem is not in the substance, but in its Source.

In addition to the inconsistent dynamic of a humanistic approach to morality and government due to its dependence on a consensus rather than an Absolute, the other problem is that by establishing the individual as his own bottom line, he can’t insist on his own autonomy without extending that same dynamic to everyone else.

In other words, if he’s going to live by a mantra that says, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion” when it comes to issues of morality and the value of a human being, then they cannot logically declare that someone who differs in their viewpoint is “wrong.”

By saying that “You do you…” you’re implying that everyone can be right at the same time in the way they approach themselves and the world around them.

If that is the case, then there is no such thing as “intolerance” because, according to the idea that a person can choose however they want to perceive a particular behavior, then there is no right or wrong, it’s all a matter of preference.

So, any attempt to defend your perspective by labeling a person a person who disagrees with you as being “legalistic” or “intolerant” proves to be a pointless argument because of the way its philosophical foundation declares every viewpoint as being on the same moral plane.

Basically, you’re entitled to your opinion until you don’t agree. And then you’re labeled “hateful” and “intolerant” (see graphic below).

 

 

Yet how can this be if everyone’s viewpoint is valid?

This is why the court system is so utterly crucial in the mind of a Liberal. It’s the closest thing to being able to establish their preferences as principles without having to concede the one side aspect of their argument. But once the ruling of the court changes, the true nature of their philosophical paradigm is revealed as being an unsustainable and nonsensical preoccupation with one’s self as the ultimate bottom line.

IV) Ropes of Sand

Os Guiness was born in China during WWII. He moved with his family to England and completed his undergraduate work at the University of London and completed his doctorate at Oriel College, Oxford. A sought after speaker and a prolific author, he sums up America’s political status apart from it being founded on a Divine Absolute in his book, “Last Call for Liberty“:

The framers also held that, though the Constitution’s barriers against the abuse of power are indispensable, they were only “parchment barriers” and therefore could never be more than part of the answer. And in some ways they were the secondary part at that. The U.S. Constitution was never meant to be the sole bulwark of freedom, let alone a self perpetuating machine that would go by itself. The American founders were not, in Joseph de Maistre’s words, “poor men who imagine that nations can be constituted with ink.”  Without strong ethics to support them, the best laws and the strongest institutions would only be ropes of sand.5

He makes a strong argument for the way in which the “pursuit of happiness” unchecked by the responsibility one has to be moral translates to disaster. And while it’s not always obvious, as far as the true essence of why our political climate continues to deteriorate into violent protests and little regard for the rule of law, it is nevertheless the foundational curse upon which their rhetoric is based.

…there is a deep irony in play today. Many educated people who scorn religious fundamentalism are hard at work creating a constitutional fundamentalism, though with lawyers and judges instead of rabbis, priests and pastors. “Constitutional” and “unconstitutional” have replaced the old language of orthodoxy and heresy. But unlike the better angels of religious fundamentalism, constitutional fundamentalism has no recourse to a divine spirit to rescue it from power games, casuistry, legalism, litigiousness—and, eventually, calcification and death.5

Guiness is completely on point in what he says, as far the way in which a humanistic approach to morality and the world in general has no sure foundation. Even the idea of focusing on “what’s best for the community” ceases to be a legitimate restraint because, in the absence of an ideal that is not subject to interpretation, even what’s most beneficial becomes purely subjective.

V) Conclusion

Anytime you hear someone attempt to defend a behavior or viewpoint that’s contrary to Scripture by invoking the idea that it is their “right” to do so, you can easily refute their rationale and defeat their argument by simply asking who gave them that right?

Inevitably, they will have to concede that their right comes from the Constitution. Yet, as was recently seen in the way the verdict of Roe vs Wade was overturned, their “right” wasn’t a right after all as much as it was “a coupon” – an agreement made between the manufacturer and the customer that a certain provision could be assumed to be in place. But if the manufacturer decides that coupon is no longer valid, it becomes both obvious and incriminating in that what you claim to be a “right” is a favor defined exclusively according to the dictates of a higher, human authority.

It’s not a right.

And the idea that everything can be regulated to an open forum – that there are no Moral Absolutes and the individual is his own deity – is a sinister mechanism used to conceal a self-absorbed perspective that is ultimately revealed to be both hypocritical and nonsensical.

A right is something created by God to guard your way, not a weapon you can use to get your way.

The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. 9 The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The decrees of the Lord are firm, and all of them are righteous.  10 They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the honeycomb. 11 By them your servant is warned; in keeping them there is great reward. (Ps 19:8-11)

As believers we want to be the greatest commercial for all that Christ brings to the table, as far as the Purpose, Peace and Power that is available through a relationship with Him and how that translates to the kind of life that’s worth living.

We also want to be in spot where we can not just “defend” what we believe in the context of fielding criticisms and attacks, but also in being able to identify and defeat the assumptions that serve as the basis for the arguments used by those who are antagonistic to the idea of having to answer to anyone other than themselves.

However you may choose to believe that you are your own absolute and you can drive on whatever side of the road that you wish – that may be your choice…

…but it is not your “right.”

  1. “5 Reasons Why Prides Matter”, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/10/5-reasons-why-prides-matter/, accessed June 27, 2022
  2. “Civil and Human Rights Must be Advanced in 2022 and Beyond”, https://civilrights.org/blog/civil-and-human-rights-must-be-advanced-in-2022-and-beyond/, accessed June 27, 2022
  3. “Reproductive Rights”, https://statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/reproductive-rights/, accessed June 27, 2022
  4. “Declaration of Independence”, America’s Founding Documents, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript, accessed June 27, 2022
  5. “Last Call for Liberty”, Os Guiness, IVP Books, Downers Grove, p117
  6. Ibid, p117-118

 

If you’d like to teach this content as a lesson in a Small Group context, you can buy both the outline and the Listening Sheet for $5.00 at brucegust.com

llinois’ Governor Signs Abortion Bill Far Worse than New York’s

partialbirthabortionThe Illinois Senate just passed SB 25, the Reproductive Health Act, by a vote of 34-20. The bill expands abortions through 9 months and requires insurance companies to provide coverage. The bill has already passed the House and Gov. Pritzker has said he will sign it… (IBSA Twitter Feed)

That was the Illinois State Baptist’s Tweet in response to a recent piece of legislation that Illinois passed that allows babies to be legally aborted up to nine months. It removes a number of restrictions and allows the procedure to be covered by insurance.

So, to those who believe that Abortion is an acceptable practice…

Let’s first consider abortion in the aftermath of rape.

Rape is an issue, but it’s not a reason to increase the number of innocent victims by killing the child. And I’m not dismissing the burden and the risk represented by carrying that baby to term, but that’s a human being in your womb who is depending on you for all that he or she needs in order to be born. The one who assaulted you is the one who needs to be punished for having violated you, not the innocent baby that wants nothing more than a chance to live.

As has already been mentioned in this thread, the number of abortions that are a result of rape are less than .5%. So to disagree with those who aim to protect the rights of the unborn by citing rape is statistically irresponsible and a cheap tactic used to distract from the real reason why most have an abortion and that’s because they’re not ready for a child.

The only way in which you can justify sucking the brain matter out of an infant’s skull or, in the case of Illinois and New York, to euthanize an infant who is no longer dependent on their mother in order to breathe on their own, is to proclaim yourself as your own Absolute and thereby feel completely at ease deciding who gets to live or die.

Your right to “choose” is limited to whether or not you “choose” to be intimate with another human being knowing that there’s a chance that your actions will result in the conception of a child. Should you become pregnant it is the responsibility of both the mother and the father to ensure that baby is given the chance to live and thrive in the context of an adopted family. And by the way, currently there are 36 families for every one child who is put up for adoption.

Here’s the bottom line: Abortion is a sick and twisted way of justifying murder. It is a godless and altogether evil practice that is revealed for what it truly is when you take the time to read and / or watch what happens when a baby is killed.

“Planned Parenthood,” “Right to Choose…” These are words whose meaning has been hijacked by the Left in order to further the bogus narrative that man can be his own deity and define the essence of life. And let me reinforce that assertion by directing your attention to a couple of verses that demonstrate God’s Spin on man killing his own in the name of convenience.

First of all, Psalm 139:13:

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” (Ps 139:13)

Every child is a sanctified and intentional gift that has a holy worth and a Divine sense of significance attached to it that is completely distinct from the manner in which they were conceived. It is not your “body.” Your pancreas doesn’t have a pulse, your gall bladder does not have a mind of its own. You have a life growing within you that is worthy of your protection and your care. It is not a piece of unwanted garbage that you dispose of just because you don’t want to take responsibility for your actions.

Secondly, Genesis 25:21-23

Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.” (Gen (25:21-23)

If this verse were written in the vernacular of Planned Parenthood, it would read, “Two random pieces of flesh are in your womb and two disposable pieces of tissue from with you will be separate; one piece of waste will be stronger than the other…”

You get the picture.

If you’re a fan of “Pro Choice,” you are oblivious to the actual practice of abortion. You don’t associate the word with the actual technique and the very real picture of a baby squirming in pain. If you are, then you have no conscience and you need take an honest inventory of your soul.

All of the arguments submitted in the context of a “woman’s right” and the “ultimate well being of the child” are sips taken from a glass held by the devil himself. Six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust. Since 1973, over 50 million lives have been snuffed out all in the name of convenience. It is a wicked and twisted practice used by people who want to cover their tracks at the expense of an innocent life.

Period.