calling the President a criminal.

This is the same Saddam Hussein who attempted to overthrow the governments of Iran and Kuwait through the use of naked and aggressive military force. Hussein justified his behavior in a variety of ways, but when the same was done to him, he objected! Somehow, even a homicidal maniac like Hussein thinks there is a standard of right and wrong to which he can appeal.Another angle that Lewis takes is comparison. Once you compare two moral ideas to one another, and determine that one is superior to the other you are comparing them to a standard. He states the case in this fashion:If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. The moment you say that one set of moral ideals can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others.9 A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.10 Of even greater interest is the fact that, if you continue upward with each higher moral standard succeeding the previous standard, you must continue with comparisons until you reach an ultimate, absolute standard. This progression must eventually terminate in an eternal, uncaused, absolute, perfect, moral, personal standard. You cannot terminate the chain of standards at a finite level, because the finite level you appeal to must have a standard by which it can be measured. The line of increasingly superior moral standards can only terminate in an infinite, absolute moral standard. Only Christianity provides that type of personal and absolute standard. That standard is, and only can be, the God of the Bible.To further substantiate our case, we return to C.S. Lewis. Lewis not only speaks of an appeal to an independent moral authority and to moral comparisons between certain actions, he also discusses the inherent sense in all humanity that we somehow fall short of a standard that we know we should achieve, but somehow cannot. He writes:I now go back to what I said at the end of the first chapter, that there were two odd things about the human race. First, that they were haunted by the idea of a sort of behaviour they ought to practice, what you might call fair play, or decency, or morality, or the Law of Nature. Second, that they did not in fact do so.11 The laws of nature [physical laws], as applied to stones and trees, may only mean ‘what Nature, in fact, does’. But if you turn to the Law of Human Nature, the Law of Decent Behavior, it is a different matter. That law certainly does not mean ‘what human beings, in fact, 'do' for as I said before, many of them do not obey this law at all, and none of them obey it completely. The law of gravity tells you what stones do if you drop them; but the law of Human Nature tells you what human beings ought to do, and do not. In other words, when you are dealing with humans, something else comes in above and beyond the actual facts. You have the facts (how men do behave) and you also have something else (how they ought to behave). In the rest of the universe, there needs not be anything but the facts. Electrons and molecules behave in a certain way, and certain results follow, and that may be the whole story. But men behave in a certain way that is not the whole story, for all the time you know that they ought to behave differently.12 This law hangs over us, constantly reminding us that we fall short of its standards. It is certainly real, and really cannot be rationally denied. It is somehow a real thing, a law which we did not create, but we nonetheless find it persistently whispering to us, sometimes screaming at us, but always pressing in on us in some tangible way. Skeptics often call this guilt, imposed upon us by parents, environment, societal standards, etc. But this argument is untenable. How do small children know they should hide when they knock over the lamp for the first time, and have never seen such a thing before? Some SS officers in the Third Reich committed suicide because of their guilt in committing murder. Their guilt was not derived from human law (it was legal to do this in Nazi society), but from a Law higher than man, higher than themselves. The proper purpose of these human institutions is to keep us tune with the Law of Nature. They are not the creator of the standard itself. They are intended to help us, to attempt to minimize the deviation from the Law of Nature. Of course, they never work to perfection, for we all fall short. (Romans 3:23). These standards run through most societies to one degree or another. They are quite universal. Human imperfection makes them inexact at points, but they are consistent for the most part. And, we never evaluate these societal standards in isolation; we always compare them to one another. This returns us to the idea of the comparison between two moral ideas, and each must appeal to another standard in order to be weighed. Nazi laws dehumanizing Jews cannot be deemed immoral unless we can assert that some other standard is morally superior to them, and that can only be determined when it is weighed against some transcendental norm. This is inescapable.In conclusion, we can say the following with certainty: 1) It seems quite impossible that personal moral standards can even exist in an impersonal universe. 2) Even if personal moral standards could arise in a materialistic universe13, how could we determine their certainty if our very thoughts are random chemical processes? 3) It is certain that once you admit the superiority of one moral idea against another, you cannot logically substantiate your argument without ultimately appealing to an absolute, personal source of morals, the God of Scripture. 4) All human beings know there is a standard which they fall short of, and they often demonstrate this knowledge in their own hypocrisy. This knowledge of good and evil is the human conscience, given by Almighty God. 5) Subjectivism is logically impossible, for its assertion is self-refuting. Only personal absolutism can rationally explain morals at all, and as we have stated previously, morality can only have its origin in the God of the Bible. Recommended Resources for Further StudyWhy Trust the Bible?Searching for theOriginal Bible Bibliography Batten, Don. “That’s Nice For You But It’s Not For Me.” Creation, 26(1) December 2003-February 2004, 6. Frame, John. Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994. Frame, John. The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002.Gish, Duane. Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. El Cajon, Ca.: Institute for Creation Research, 1993.Ham, Ken, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Weiland. The Answers Book. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1990.Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1952. Morris, Henry. Many Infallible Proofs. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1974.Morris, Thomas. Our Idea of God. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Regent College Publishing, 1991.Nash, Ronald. The Concept of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1983.NIV Men’s Study Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_refute.htm.. "Refuting Relativism", Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5836/"Can We be GoodWithout God?", Creation Ministries International. Footnotes[1] The creationist Duane Gish has sarcastically pointed out that perhaps the cosmic egg was laid by the cosmic chicken, but this would leave us wondering where the cosmic chicken came from![2] John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God.

learn spanish

The foundation supported a multistory mudbrick and timber temple

With an entrance flanked by two large towers. Stager hypothesized that the courtyard of this temple could have been where Joshua “took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the LORD” (Jos 24:26).Stager (2003: 68) places the destruction of the Fortress-Temple around 1100 BC. So does Seger (1997: 22), who correlates the destruction debris found at Level XI as being from the Iron IA period. Campbell (1993: 1347) states that there was a “significant” destruction “around 1100 BCE” and guardedly concludes, “connecting Level XI with the story underlying Judges 9 is plausible” (1993: 1352).Dating Shechem’s destruction to 1100 BC helps confirm the Biblical date of 1406 BC as the beginning of the Conquest in Canaan. To do this, it is necessary to know that immediately after we read in the Bible of Abimelech’s destruction of Shechem, Jephthah, the ninth Judge, appears (Jgs 11, 12). Jephthah was hired by Israelites who lived in Gilead, east of the Jordan River, to confront the Ammonites who had made war on them for 18 years. Jephthah first attempted diplomacy with the Ammonite king. He reminded the Ammonite king that the Israelites had been in the land east of the Jordan River for “300 years” (Jgs 11:21–26). Jephthah, of course, was referring to the time when Moses led the Israelites through that region and defeated numerous kings (Nm 21:21–31).Thus, if Abimelech destroyed Shechem ca. 1125–1100 BC (Jgs 9), and Abimelech was a contemporary of Jephthah, the Conquest would have occurred about 300 years earlier, in ca. 1400 BC (1100 BC + 300 years = 1400 BC).Shechem in the Time of the Divided MonarchyThe Bible sheds little light on Shechem’s role during the reigns of Saul, David or Solomon. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, was next in line for the throne. All the Israelites assembled at Shechem to anoint Rehoboam king. Rehoboam, however, acted foolishly by chiding the northern tribes and telling them he would tax them heavily. In defense, the northern tribes retaliated by separating themselves from Rehoboam and the southern kingdom. The northern tribes made Jeroboam I king of their region. The country, formerly unified under David and Solomon, became divided. The northern region and tribes, led by Jeroboam I, was known as Israel. The southern area and tribes, first led by Rehoboam, is referred to as Judah in the Bible.Levels X and IX at Tell Balata represent the Jeroboam I period and are noted for carefully built houses of selected stones. The discovery of stone foundations for stairs suggests two-story, four-room houses, typical homes of that period (Dever 1994: 80–81). Campbell concludes that Level IX (920–810 BC) has “tangible evidence of Jeroboam I’s rebuilding (1 Kg 12:25) and a return to city status” (1993: 1352–53).The Assyrian invasion of Israel in 724 BC (2 Kgs 17:5–6) brought another destruction to Shechem. The evidence is in Level VII. Toombs noted that in Level VII the city was “reduced to a heap of ruins, completely covered by debris of fallen brickwork, burned beams and tumbled building stones,” typical examples of Assyrian thoroughness (1992: 1185). In addition to the destruction, the Assyrians placed exiled peoples from other nations into the region around Shechem, a common Assyrian practice (2 Kgs 17:23–24).These new peoples added Yahweh to their own beliefs (2 Kgs 17:25–30). The new religion mimicked Judaism in many respects and Mt. Gerizim was made the center of its worship. New Testament practitioners of the cult are called “Samaritans,” which also referred to the people who lived in the vicinity (Mt 10:5; Lk 9:52, 10:53; 17:16; Jn 4:7, 9, 22, 39, 40; 8:48; Acts 8:25). A remnant of the ancient Samaritans still lives on Mt. Gerizim and they practice sacrifices there just as they did 2,700 years ago.7Shechem in the Intertestamental PeriodBetween the Old and New Testaments, Shechem had a modest recovery and there is an abundance of evidence that excellent buildings were constructed in this, the Hellenistic, period (ca. 330–107 BC). It was during this time that the Samaritans built a large temple and sacrificial platform on Mt. Gerizim, the remains of which were still visible in Jesus’ day (Jn 4:20).As fighting between the Ptolemies and Seleucids swirled around the country in the intertestamental period, physical decline again took place at Shechem. This decline culminated when the Jewish leader, John Hyrcanus, took advantage of the temporary absence of outside armies and destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim (ca. 126 BC). He leveled the city in 107 BC. Shechem never recovered from this destruction and lay in ruins until identified by Tierschin 1901.Shechem in the New Testament PeriodSamaritans continued to live in the area during the following years, the Roman period. This is confirmed by the discovery of human burials from the period on the lower slopes of Mt. Ebal (Magen 1993: 1358–59). It is known that Samaritans also made several attempts to renew their cult worship on Mt. Gerizim. The Romans suppressed their efforts and in AD 72 constructed a new city, Flavia-Neapolis, about 1 mi (1.6 km) west of Tell Balata (Magen 2001: 40). This new city is now Nablus, a modern Arab city of about 120,000 people8 whose name is probably a corruption of Roman city, Neapolis.About 500 yd (460 m) southeast of Tell Balata is an ancient well, venerated to be a well that Jacob, the Patriarch, dug when he lived there. Such a well is not mentioned in the Old Testament. There is a small Arab village, Askar, just north of the well. Most scholars associate Askar with Sychar, the village in John 4 near “Jacob’s well” (Jn 4:6). The authenticity of the well is not only based on its physical identification in John 4, but also on “the fact that all traditions-—Jewish, Samaritan, Christian and Muslim-—support it” (Stefanovic 1992: 608). Several churches in Christian history have been built on the site of the well and today it is located under a recently constructed Greek Orthodox church. Access to the well is gained by going down steps from the apse of the new church..Jacob’s well as it appeared in the 1870s. In the right background is Mt. Gerizim with the tomb of the Arab sheikh, where the ruins of the Samaritan temple were located in New Testament times, visible at the peak. Todd Bolen.Jacob’s well, at the base of Mt. Gerizim, is at the junction of the main road leading from Jerusalem in the south. Here, the road splits with the eastern branch going toward the Jordan Valley and the western branch leading to Nablus, and in NT times, Samaria and the Galilee. It is an excellent setting for one of the most important passages in the Bible-—the account of Jesus’ verbal Messianic announcement in the fourth chapter of John. In this passage Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, dialogues with her, and tells her He is the long-awaited Messiah.Mt. Gerizim (left peak) as seen from Jacob’s well. When the Samaritan woman said to Jesus, “Our fathers worshipped on this mountain,” she was no doubt referring to the ruins of the Samaritan temple on top of Mt. Gerizim. The small structure on the peak marks the location of the ruins of the Samaritan temple that easily could have been seen from Jacob’s well in Jesus’ day. Bryant Wood.Significance of Shechem in Understanding John 4This article began by stating that context in reading the Bible was important to full understanding of what the original writers wanted the original hearers/listeners to know. In the case of Shechem, it is clear that the writer of John’s Gospel was appealing to the hearer/reader’s understanding of Shechem’s unique historical and theological context.First, the author established that the event took place at Sychar (Jn 4:6). By making reference to Jacob he reminded his readers/hearers that this is where Jacob first settled when he returned to the Promised Land from Paddan Aram (Gn 33:18). At this spot Abram received God’s promise that To your offspring I will give this land”

learn french