Skip to comments.The Offensive Truth: Relativism and Our Kids
Posted on 06/20/2007 8:58:09 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
click here to read article
A statement about truth is one which is wrong or right in a sense utterly independent of humanity. To say “Buddhism is correct” is a truth statement, even if it is wrong. To say “Buddhism is great” is not a truth statement.
God save your souls.
I had a conversation with someone recently (a 30 year old woman) who had no religious upbringing. But, she was telling me all about how she believes “a little of this” and “a little of that.” Basically, she takes what she wants from different religions and makes up the rest. Then she teaches it to her son. Well, I gently pointed out to her that those religions that she was picking and choosing from were in direct contradiction with each other and that it really was not possible to take what you want from a particular religion and mix it with another since the individual religions don’t allow for that. Then, for an example, I told her that Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me” and she was stunned. “HE SAID THAT???” She didn’t know that and was very surprised. I told her that you can’t be a Christian and believe that other religions are valid. You should have seen the lightbulbs go off in her head.
This is an excellent commentary by Chuck Colson!
Christ was nonjudgemental and His purpose among us was not to judge us- but people sure get confused by that, when they overlook His repeated sermons about the judgementalism that awaits us all by the Father!
“Christ was nonjudgemental and His purpose among us was not to judge us”
You are correct in that He came not to judge, but it is not because of the judgment to come, it is because we have already been judged.
17”For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18”He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19”This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20”For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21”But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
Mission accomplished. Who says schooling doesn't work?
Twenty years ago, college professor Alan Bloom wrote, in The Closing of the American Mind, "the only belief that entering freshman hold in common is that there is no such thing as absolute truth." (Great line, mediocre book)
Universalism, that all ways and roads, gods lead to Heaven and all this moral religious relativism is deception from the pit of hell. It is blasphemy, a false idol, breaking of the commandment that we shall have no other Gods before us.
So called Christian churches teaching universalism are temples of satan and the demons in them hate Jesus Christ and certainly do not believe He is Lord, God, that His blood is the only payment for Sin, believing in Him the only Way of Salvation.
These demons speak with forked tongues perhaps saying with one breath that Christ Jesus is Lord and then with another breath will say that all religions and all gods will lead to salvation.
The wolves in sheep's clothing at these churches, no matter how many good works are performed, no matter how much money they pass out to the world’s needy, no matter how loved they may be - they are doing the work of satan - they are liars who are keeping people from hearing the real truth that hell awaits all who have not put their faith, hope and trust ONLY in the Lord Jesus Christ, His blood, His death on the cross as payment/atonement for Sin.
Paperdoll, you are right, this is a very clear, purposeful
goal and false, blashemous religion being aggressively pushed during these last days by world leaders (who pretend to come in the named of Christ our Lord) that will walk the lost right into believing in the end times beast and one world apostate religion.
Oops - meant to say #61 to you also, I agree with you.
One of the problems with liberalism, particularly social liberalism, is that it must contradict itself to survive. For example, to attempt to bring about the equality liberals so desire, they must place themselves in a position of superiority to everyone else.
Arguments for moral relativism are also contradictory. How can someone be telling us the truth when he says “There are no truths”?
This is why liberal “tolerance” so quickly leads to intolerance. A society that’s tolerant of everything can’t exist as a society. So “tolerance” of homosexuality means that people who wish to only provide dating services to heterosexuals through their matchmaking business can’t be tolerated. Tolerating abortion means that the unborn child can’t be tolerated. And so on.
And then there are the famous double standards. Liberal tolerance means that it’s intolerant to have a male-only school, and that it’s intolerant to object to a female-only school. If you produce a work of art mocking Islam, you’re intolerant. If you produce one mocking Christianity, then it’s the Christians who object who are intolerant.
Then there are the paradoxes. If the Bible is God’s Word, should we not obey it? Liberals then chime in and say, “But not everyone believes the Bible is God’s Word!” Then does that mean they think it’s just the writings and opinions of men? “Yes”. Okay, then how is that different from any secular opinion?
Suppose that two people announce that owning a dog is wrong and such ownership should be banned. One says he thinks dog ownership is wrong because of a religious revelation from a deity. The other says he thinks dog ownership is wrong because, well....because he just came to that conclusion on his own. Would it be okay to ban dog ownership based on the latter opinion but not the former? Either way the practical effects are the same: Dog ownership is banned.
Liberals, of course, try to get around this by claiming that their opinions are somehow arrived at scientifically or objectively, while religiously-driven opinions are irrational and subjective. Thus, it’s okay for them to forcibly ram their opinions down the throats of others, but not for Christians to do so. Of course, this is just nonsense.
Ask a liberal if it’s wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. When he says “yes”, ask him to prove it in a laboratory. When he has time to get the “deer caught in the headlights” expression off his face, point out to him that he just has a different set of subjective, totally illogical and unscientific values than those he alleges to you.
The best test of how true something is is by observing how well it works. Liberals effectively concede this point when they call themselves “progressives”. Liberalism must present itself this way because it can never be traditional, and that’s because it doesn’t work. You can’t build a great civilization on “values” such as egalitarianism, wealth redistribution, pacifism, sexual license, or secularism.
Liberals must present their ideas as being new because they have no track record to run on. They then compound the dishonesty by asserting that conservatives wish to legislate their values while they (liberals) do not, which is simply untrue. But by presenting it that way, dullards and imbeciles are lured in, thinking they’ll be more free and more liberated in a liberal society. But in reality, liberals merely have a different list of things they are intolerant of and wish to ban. And as Harvard President Larry Summers found out, they’re ruthless when it comes to enforcement.
Did you make that line up? That'd make a great tagline or bumper sticker!
I read it somewhere many years ago, but I can’t remember where or when. It is a great line, though, which is why I’ve always remembered it!
This doesn't even rise to the level of sophomoric.
Cannibalism? Molestation? Mass Murder?
Sometimes people’s minds are so open their brains fall out.
Great example. I noticed that too. She's the true ideologue, since her ideology is more important to her than reality. But few viewers possess the intellectual tools necessary for evaluating her statement.
So, your facetious post boils down to your opinion that
there is NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH,
and the only “truth” is how you as an individual feel about a topic or issue.
This is exactly what this article is about. Modern secular progressives teach your opinion, and are seeking the destruction of our society through those teachings.
On the plus side, fewer people will be killed.
Judge not, lest ye be judged
Oh, how leftists LOVE this quotation. The REST of the passage says “and by the same measure”.
We must teach our children to make ACCURATE judgements, not to be “non-judgemental”.
1) it doesn’t take that long to study something until you understand it
2) it proves the divine origin of the bible
3) he uses more math to show that the arrival of Jesus was predicted in a like manner
The Koran among other “holy” books, is not like this.
Next time, ask him/her if our society should tolerate intolerance.
Then walk away.
“Liberals think its okay to seek truth as long as you never find it.”
I’m stealing it!
Yes, to my “liberal” mother in law, those who are most offensive are those that are firm in their beliefs.
It is a wonderful teaching opportunity.
“men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil”
That sounds like Someone is making a “judgement” there, right?
I ALWAYS complete the Biblical quote whenever I hear a lib say “judge not...”
“lest you be judged by the same measure”. I usually get a blank stare.
####I’m stealing it!####
That’s okay! I stole it, too. I just can’t remember from whom! LOL!
Liberals also misrepresent the incident where Jesus saved the sinful woman from being stoned. They think that it shows Jesus to be “tolerant” of sinful lifestyles. In fact, it shows that Jesus was forgiving. Liberals always remember that He said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” to her accusers. But they forget that after He saved her, He instructed her to “sin no more”.
Yeah, they skip that part, don't they?
If an error is found within that webpage's calculations, would you cease to be a Christian? When the US occupied Babylon (and, incidentally, caused irreparable damage to it), did that mean the Bible was wrong in Jeremiah, where it says Babylon wouldn't be occupied after it fell? (As a side note, I'm surprised that we didn't have DUmmies claiming that W invaded Iraq to prevent Saddam's redevelopment plans for the city, which would have contradicted the Bible!)
Other religions dont do this. Not Islam [...]
Hey, how do you know the trees and rocks won't start talking?! ;-)
Leftists always use just parts of biblical quotes -
“Thou shalt not kill” obviously means that any military action by America is wrong if a Democrat is not president.
“Judge not” obviously means we are to tolerate every destructive and deviant behavior in our society. Similarly, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” means that since we are all imperfect, we cannot make judgements about others’ behavior.
Liberals make judgments all the time, they just call them something else.
The idea of never being judgmental is ludicrous on its face, and an impossibility in an actual, functioning society. However, a lot of people don’t wish to hear that. They like to feel “free” and “liberated”, and don’t like thinking they’re expected to conform to someone else’s values.
The fact is, every society on earth has value systems which people are expected, and even required, to follow. The only issue is which value system we’ll ascribe to. If it’s presented to people that way, it puts liberalism at a disadvantage because no positive case can be made for most of the things liberals support. Try to make a merit-based case for permitting homosexual bathhouses, for example. It ain’t gonna work.
So liberals have created the phony storyline that conservatives want to “impose their values on others” while liberals do not. This gets the debate off of the actual merits of any particular liberal idea, and onto an abstraction, namely whether or not we should “legislate morality”. This is why we get Orwellian newspeak terms such as “pro-choice” as an accepted part of our political lexicon.
Just using common sense one can see that liberals legislate their morality all the time. Every liberal economic initiative does this. Such proposals force people to give a portion of their own income to a cause they may not wish to support. That may be good or bad, depending on one’s OPINION, but it can’t be denied that it imposes the morality of some on others via the force of law.
Libertarians sometimes assert that liberals are for imposing their morality on others when it comes to economic matters, but not social matters. Conservatives are seen as the opposite, supporting economic freedom but not “social liberation”. That’s not true, either. Liberals DO NOT favor social liberty.
Take abortion as an example. Abortion isn’t a liberty as it would properly have been understood by, say, our Founding Fathers. It’s an ideological claim made against the life of someone else for reasons of personal gain. Again, one may be able to argue that it’s justified (though I don’t agree that it is), but one can’t deny that that’s what we’re dealing with. In addition, liberals have no problem forcing people who oppose abortion from being required to fund it via their tax dollars. They have no problem censoring photos or films of actual abortions taking place.
Homosexuality is another area where the left legislates its morality all the time. They’re for forcing landlords to rent to homosexuals even if the landlord considers such conduct a sin. They’re for “hate speech” laws to stifle public discourse on homosexual issues. They’re for using raw judicial power to crush public opinion and force an alteration of the multi-thousand year old institution of marriage. They even tried to force the Boy Scouts, a private organization, to send little boys on camping trips with homosexuals.
We live in a society where Politically Correct double standards are so commonplace that we hardly even notice them anymore. Conservatives, particularly Christian ones, are expected to achieve a near universal consensus on an issue before legislation can be enacted, but such rules are not required of liberals or secularists.
Why is it okay to ban theft? Isn’t that imposing morality? After all, the Bible says “thou shalt not steal”. Liberals will “explain” that it’s okay to ban (for example) bank robbery since nearly everyone agrees that it’s wrong. But we can’t ban abortion because not everyone agrees that it’s wrong, so we must respect “pluralism”. But do those same standards apply to secular liberals? Do secular liberals only seek to legislate their beliefs when there is near-universal agreement with them? Not at all. They feel perfectly justified in legislating their morality whether the people want it or not.
Can you imagine a liberal asserting that we can’t give state sanction to same-sex “marriage” unless and until there is near-universal demand for it? We can’t sanction such “marriages” unless, oh, ninety-seven percent or so of the public wants it to be sanctioned? Quite the contrary. The moment they decided that they wanted same-sex “marriage” to be legally sanctioned, they demanded that it be done immediately, public opinion be damned. If the people won’t sanction it, then damn it we’ll get judges to force it on them. And then we’ll haul any landlord who doesn’t want to rent to a homosexual couple into court. Our support for homosexuality trumps the landlord’s freedom of choice, his religious beliefs & liberties, and his property rights. And if the dating service E-HARMONY won’t provide same-sex match-ups, we’ll drag them into court and force them to do it. And if someone says homosexuality is a sin, or is unnatural, we’ll shut him down by threatening his job, or sending him off the rehab where he’ll be instructed in our way of thinking, or we’ll fine or imprison him for “hate speech”.
So much for liberalism being liberal, in the classic sense of the word.
How could caring about people NOT include warning them about the eternal consequences to their sin? Good grief. Don't offend them and watch them end up in hell? I don't think that's really very compassionate. Hell is forever. We are too worried about offending people.
But, if you tell someone that their behavior is wrong, and that they face eternal damnation ... well, that could really ruin their morning. Can’t have that, can we?
BTW, I really like your tagline. Primarily because those same thoughts occur to me fairly frequently.
Postmodernism is creeping into everything.
A book I'm reading that I highly recommend is "Why We Should Judge" by Erwin Lutzer.
He comments in the book that it is better to argue with a modernist than a postmodernist because at least the modernist believes in absolute truth. The postmodernist only trusts feelings and everything is relative to the individual.
Your posts on this thread make a lot of sense. Secular humanism is a religion in and of itself.
But, I would like to add: The problem isn’t really secular vs. Christian. Moral relativism has infected the churches, too, as the article indicates.
I myself was accused of bigotry by a group of “Christians” when I (politely) stated that I opposed so-called “same-sex marriage”. And I’m not the religious one - I don’t belong to a church.
Secular humanism hasn’t just infected one denomination, either. This was an interdenominational Christian group with Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, etc. You’d think they’d all share some common ground. Well, they didn’t. But, they did agree in the end to draw up a “statement”. No, NOT a Statement of Faith but a Statement of DIVERSITY! :-0
Anyway, it dawned on me that I’m being too hard on myself - apparently, I know more about Christianity than a lot of Christians do. (Not here on FR, but in Real Life.) And, from what I’ve noticed, Christians lose their own moral compass when their faith depends on belief alone.
For example, this particular group would pray all the time for “things” to be delivered to them. They’d have collections for the poor. They’d make sweeping statements, such as, “We’re here to honor God.” They were always smiling and mentioning God. That seemed to be the extent of their “Christianity”. For the life of me, in two years with them, I couldn’t figure out what else they stood for. My kids were baffled, too.
There were many members of the group who agreed with me on marriage, but their loyalty was with the group because, after all, at least THEY all go to church and actively pray. Believe in WHAT and pray to WHOM is what I’d like to know.
Yeah. We’ll be checking out another church I found soon.
And that’s EXACTLY the same way that Satan uses Scripture!!
Not if the stabee was engaged in some activity that it was perfectly legal to be on the receiving end of a pointy object!
It means that if you are a resident of Dallas, the speed limits set in Denver do not have anything to do with how fast you drive from home to Fort Worth!
Most people spout Judge not, lest ye be judged because they do not want what they are doing to come under condemnation!