Relativism @ MindSay

    Is truth relative?

    What I’m going to write here is an unpopular belief stance in the United States today.  

    Jesus came to the earth telling people that He was the Truth.  He didn’t say that He was a truth among many.  No, He said that He came to tell us He was and is the Truth, how the universe is for everyone, the way ultimate reality is.

    Most of us here in the States don’t adhere to this.  Much more popular is this: “Whatever truth is, it’s in the personal realm.  Whatever you believe to be true, is true for you, and is fine as long as your truth isn’t binding on anyone else.”

    So when you show up telling people that Jesus is the Truth for everyone, you are labeled as intolerant, bigoted and the reason that all wars have ever been fought.

    Ok, perhaps that’s a bit of an exaggeration.  

    But not much.

    Instead, I’m told that I should embrace the belief that truth is relative.  However, this belief system has its own huge problems.

    I heard recently about a Christian guy who was protesting something.  A group showed up to protest what he was protesting.  They handed out pamphlets that said this guy had no right to put his belief on other people.  At the bottom of the pamphlet in giant letters was this sentence: “Intolerance will not be tolerated.”

    The belief that truth is relative says there’s no truth that governs everyone.  In saying this, they proclaim a truth that must govern everyone.  

    Oops.

      


 

            Is Jesus really the only way to come to the knowledge of God?  Christians say yes.  However, many Americans today would say, “No.  There are many paths to God.  Christianity is just one of them.  If you say that you know the only way to God, you are arrogant and intolerant.”

 

            Here’s an interesting quote from Matt Chandler.

 

“The moment a person claims that ultimate reality is unknowable, he has just claimed the knowledge that he says can't be known.  The second he says that ultimate reality and truth are unknowable, he’s just claimed what he says can't be claimed.  This is intellectually inconsistent.  I'm not speaking religiously.  I'm speaking intellectually, philosophically.  This thing has an unbelievable amount of holes.

 

The belief system that says no one can know God in such a way as to invalidate what someone else believes about God is in itself religious.  It is in itself a religion that has its own affirmations, denials and absolute truths.  Here would be its affirmations: God is ultimately unknowable and no one can know the full truth about God.  But the only way you could possibly know that would be to know how the universe is wired, why it's wired that way, which is the same thing you claim can't be known.

 

Now listen to these statements. ‘All religions are the same. All religions are following a path to God.  It doesn't matter what you believe, it's how you live.’  These are religious statements.  They are dogmas, doctrinal statements about God.  

 

Here's what's happening: I, Matt Chandler, fundamental in doctrine, orthodox in doctrine, conservative in theology, pastor Matt Chandler and the relativist, are claiming the same thing: an understanding of ultimate reality.  Only he's calling me arrogant and himself enlightened.  I'm arrogant and I'm intolerant because I say I know ultimate reality.  And because I don't really know ultimate reality and he does, I'm arrogant for claiming I know ultimate reality because he really knows ultimate reality.”

            “Do any of the following statements sound familiar?

            Each of the religions, though somewhat right, is also somewhat wrong.

For a person to say that his religion is right and others are wrong means that he is arrogant, foolish and causes violence against humanity. 

            These claims listed above are intellectually inconsistent and smoke and mirrors is used to pretend that they are more tolerant than Christian thought.  In reality, it is no more tolerant.

            The moment you claim that ultimate reality and ultimate truth are unknowable, you have just claimed to know the knowledge that you say can’t be known.  Not only that, but the belief system that claims that no one can know God in such a way so as to invalidate what someone else believes about God is in itself a religion that has its own affirmations, denials and absolute truths.

 

            Here are some other affirmations of relativism:

God is ultimately unknowable; no one can know the full truth about God. 
All religions are the same.                                                                                       

All religions are following a path to God.                                                                 

It doesn’t matter what you believe, it’s how you live.  

These are religious statements.  They are dogmas, doctrines.  Those are doctrinal statements about God.  The claim is that no one can know God in all its fullness.  The only way you can possibly know that would be to know how the universe is wired and why it’s wired that way—which is the same thing the relativist claims can’t be known.

 

            The relativist and I claim the same thing with different points of emphasis—an understanding of ultimate reality.  However, the relativist would call me arrogant and unenlightened to make this claim.

And for all the talk of Christians trying to convert the world, the missionary force behind this idea is massive compared to what we send out.  This is the very air that Americans breathe.

            In the end relativism zealously fights to make sure no one believes in any absolutes while using its own absolutes to establish this idea.” 

 

            --From a recent message by Matt Chandler, edited for clarity.

 

 

           

There is an interesting article in the New York Times today about the culture clash that occurs between tourists and the locals.  The article discusses the growing number of international tourists visiting New York City.

The dollar is cheap. The shopping is endless. And about seven million foreign visitors are expected in the city — the highest number since before 9/11 — mainly from Britain, Ireland, France, Italy, Spain, Scandinavia and Germany.

Later in the article we find this tip of the hat to Anthropology (is there anything it can't do?):

Is it time, at least, for retiring the term “ugly American” from the dictionary of foreign phrases?

The answer, according to experts in the rarified field of tourism anthropology, is a possible yes.

“Ugly” behavior in tourists is almost always in the eye of the people being toured; and Americans are no longer the only, or even the dominant group of tourists out in the world. We are now as often toured as tour-ing.

And New Yorkers, it turns out, are just as likely to be exasperated being toured by tourists unfamiliar with their local mores about tipping or standing in check-out lines, say, as the Achuar tribesmen of Ecuador are to be offended by tourists who sit on certain sacred rocks.

I never get tired of watching and learning from other humans.  Despite all of our great advances (not the least of which that you're able to read this collection of keyboard strokes), sometimes I think we aren't much more than a giant ant colony going about our daily tasks completely oblivious to the larger realities around us.

 

But all in all, I think we've done alright as a species.  Given our humble origins, who knew we would come this far?   

So I've been called a "bigot" plenty of times.  My older brother and I have the running joke about my "religious bigotry."  It's okay though, because he's one just as I am if indeed that's the proper term for myself.  Usually, I've been called a bigot because of my total disdain for any notion of the verity of other religious belief-systems.  Keep in mind now that just because I've been called a bigot by some people they may define it differently than you.  So let's dispense with any sort of idea that I'm racist, prejudice, sexist, whatever... I don't typically even judge someone's character strictly by their religious affiliation.  Why am I called a bigot?  Because I believe that Christianity is the only correct religion.  I don't think that there are many paths leading to the same relationship with the divine... I don't think that I worship the same deity as the Muslims... I don't think that regular "good" people are going to go to "heaven" because they've led a "good" life.  I believe, like all Christians should, that the only way to be justified with God is through Christ's mediative atonement.

I've heard it said, that religion is a tool be which all who participate, through whatever religion, can communicate with the "divine."  Well, the instruction manual for my "tool" says that it's the only tool that works, and the rest will cause a fatal accident.  This is a relativist view of religion that's quite popular nowadays in this "postmodern" Western world.  The problem with this new relativism is that it doesn't jive with these absolutist religions.  If I'm being faithful to my religion then how can I believe that other religions are alternate paths to the same destination when the doctrines that make up my faith tell me explicitly otherwise?  I cannot, and therefore I am labelled "bigot."  I am labelled "bigot" because I believe in an absolute truth... I believe in right and wrong, good and evil, and I make the distinction between two wholly different belief-systems and can recognize that they cannot both be correct.

To any thinking person, contradictions are a problem.  Why?  Because humans have an inherent sense of truth.  You needn't teach a child to lie when they're questioned about an infraction of disobedience... they understand that the truth is that they disobeyed and consequences are to ensue.  Therefore, they naturally hide the truth to evade punishment.  Nevertheless, the child knows the truth and chooses to hide it.  We understand the child hides it because he is worried about punishment, but he doesn't think about this philosophically like I'm attempting to now... he just doesn't want a spanking and he knows that because he hit his sister he's going to get one.  That which we're calling "truth" is tied to an action, an actual event: the hitting of the child's sister.  If "truth" is fragmented (as postmodernists often say) then that boy shouldn't be spanked because even though he hit his sister, it never happened also, because "truth" is nothing more than a concept.  The fact that he both hit his sister and he didn't hit his sister (at the same time) is a contradiction... but that's only looking at it through the eyes of one who believes in absolutes.  If postmodern thought is correct, and there are no absolutes, the child neither hit his sister nor abstained from hitting her, because both are absolutes....

Did I lose you?

If we live in a world without absolutes, then anything goes... criminals should all go free because they didn't do anything wrong, morality collapses because all rights and wrongs are relative to each person, language itself is abolished because words cease to have any meaning because there is no such thing as truth, a word can't have any definition and thus shouldn't be used at all.

Of course this is ridiculous, and even self-identified postmodernists would probably say that I'm going overboard with my argument... but am I really?  I don't know about you, but I've heard the statement "there are no absolutes" thrown around so much it makes me laugh and sick at the same time.  Disregarding the fact that the statement is an absolute itself and is thus contradictory (although I've heard it said, "The only absolute is that there are no absolutes."  But then it's still stupid.)  I suppose though that it's okay for a postmodernist because contradiction is no problem since there is no truth to contradict.

So yes, this is why I'm called a bigot.  Because I...

1.) Believe in absolutes, the verity of things, that there is a right and wrong

2.) Believe in Christianity and its doctrines faithfully enough to regard other religions as incorrect

This is enough to make any of you a "bigot" by the definition that I've been called one.  These same people who claim that any religion will get you where you want to go will claim that you're full of bigotted bs because you actually adhere to said religion...

Maybe they'd do good to actually read what the religions teach instead of listening to some sappy postmodernist philosopher who twists the belief-systems of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. to make it fit like a nice little puzzle.