Tag Archives: morals

How to Answer “That’s Just Your Interpretation”

There are no facts–just interpretations.” Friedrich Nietzsche Part of a series on truth.

A bit of eccentric logic.

Especially since Nietzsche is presenting it as a fact…

The very thing he himself admits doesn’t exist.

What are we to do with that?

More importantly, what are we to do when people say, “Well, that’s just your interpretation?” when we present them with moral or biblical truths?

Let me show you an easy way to answer that challenge.

Two Problems with “Interpretation”

In the most basic sense, to deny objectivity is to assume something is objectively true.

In other words, the statement “That’s just your interpretation” .

But let’s just accept the argument that morals or biblical truths are a matter of personal preference.

If that’s the case, then only two things can come out of such a stance:

1. Why believe ANYTHING if it’s just perspective?  [We can never prove anything since “interpretation” becomes a circular argument.]

2. Or nothing makes sense if a person asserts everything is a matter of perspective–except theirs. [Leads to contradiction.]

As you can see, you’re not left with much of anything to cling to. And if you hold that position your world and worldview will eventually cave in on itself as absolutes make themselves unbelievably real to you.

Because in the end, whether we are talking about politics, history, theology, relationships, biology or literature–absolutes do exist.

Some Beliefs DO Come Closer to Truth

Now, we may never quite get things right.

And no doubt it’s difficult to get down to the nitty gritty–especially when we’re talking about morals or emotions or theology.

But that doesn’t mean it’s an impossible task. Or objective truth doesn’t exist. In fact, as we’ll see in a minute, some sources come closer to the truth than others.

Take the Wall Street Journal for instance.

For the most part everyone will agree that you can trust it. The National Enquirer, on the other hand, is something most people disregard as hyperbole, exaggeration and bald-faced lies.

No normal person would quote the National Enquirer to prove their point. Quite a different story with the Wall Street Journal.

And the same is true for religious truths.

“Interpretation” Is Usually a Smokescreen

Now, it’s NOT intolerant or bigoted to suggest otherwise. It’s fair game to say, okay, here’s where you are wrong–and here’s why.

In truth, appealing to “interpretation” is often a smokescreen for pursuing one’s own agenda.

Or autonomy.

Fortunately, there’s an easy way to see through this smokescreen.  suggests you ask these questions:

1. Do you mean that you just don’t like my interpretation…or that you have good reasons for disagreeing with it?

2. Can a perspective ever be correct?

3. And are some things not a matter of perspective [like chess or abortion]?

Listen: The very fact that we can recognize that some perspectives are better than others indicates that not everything is a matter of interpretation.

After all, if everything is just a matter of interpretation, how can we tell the difference between plausible and silly ideas?

Truth is, we can’t. Give me your thoughts. Brutal and all.

The Blissfully Plastic Moral Base of Humanism

“What does the meaningless, value-absent creed of humanism have to offer? It might surprise you. Part of a series on truth.

One of the reasons I’m enormously disenchanted with humanism is due to it’s inevitable, blissful slide into subjectivity.

I mean blissful in two senses:

1. It changes without much fuss or notice.

2. And it changes on man’s will.

What a Humanist Can Say

Recently I heard someone assert that he has the same morals as another person, although he was an atheist and the other was a Christian.

I don’t dispute that can be true. In fact, you don’t need to believe in God to be moral.

However, what a humanist can’t say is that they have an objective standard for their morality. Let me explain.

What a Humanist Can’t Say

Humanists can’t claim objectivity, because you can manufacture all the morals you want, but at the end of the day you have no mechanism to declare why we should choose one over the other.

If we are nothing more than naked apes who will decompose in the ground…why not lie, cheat and steal till your heart is content? Why not murder, gang rape and pillage just like apes, sharks and baboons?

Naturally, we won’t slip into that behavior overnight. But over time, yes.

An Honest Humanist

That’s because a humanist’s moral base is built on what’s appropriate for our culture or situation, which, as we all know, can change.

Sometimes drastically.

The Puritans departed England to reject religious oppression and bring to America core objective moral standards. And as any one who is breathing can attest…we’ve shed much of their vision on family, sex, possessions and government.

Why is that? The lawless, content-less creed of humanism is prevailing.

One reason I like Peter Singer is because he’s honest. He understands materialism cannot support morals. Or even the rights to morals.

See, any true materialist would say that we are nothing more than chemicals firing. And if that’s the case, then my parents love for me is really not “love” any more than two dragonflies “making love” or a  soda machine “obeying” me cause I put money in the slot.

In the end, what’s important or not important comes down to power. Like  said, “Truth is the majority vote of that nation that could lick all others.”

What I Mean by “Plastic”

A humanist has no real boundary for what he should do. He is left with only what he can do. That’s why  young lawyers that a pliable sense of morals is necessary to successfully practice law.

What this means is that anything a humanist suggests is subjective to change.

That’s what I mean by “plastic.” Morals can be melted down and moved. They shift with our decadence. And our decadence always follows one path: please the self versus please the Creator.

Too often, humanists want to throw off the moral base for moral duty and accountability by claiming we are nothing but machines…yet in the same breath declare themselves aware enough to be worthy of respect, honor and love.

What they need to demonstrate is why we should accept their claim and not someone elses.

An Alternative to Humanism

What does Christianity have to offer in place of humanism? A 2,000 year old book founded on the timeless wisdom of an infinite, holy and unchanging God.

And like Tullian Tchividjian wrote in , “Trying to follow God’s lead without God’s light guarantees a life of stumbling.”

The questions is: Why stumble when it’s unnecessary?