When one is not grounded in truth (and isn't even seeking it anyway), it is easy for them to be persuaded to believe in anything... One does not need to be held accountable for anything, at least in their mind, if they simply deny the divinity of Christ and the authority of God. It's easy to escape by simply throwing out the "organized religion" card.
This disease of relativism is seen often, even in Christian circles. One excuses their sinful behavior, instead of taking ownership of it, by making statements like, "God and I have an understanding... " or "I don't really think that is what the Bible says... " Absurd.
Truth is truth... and if you're not grounded in it, you will be "blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." (Eph 4:14)
Showing posts with label absolute truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label absolute truth. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Whether God exists?
The following is also from Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas.
Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Ex. 3:14)
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
Reply to Objection 2: Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Ex. 3:14)
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
Reply to Objection 2: Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?
The following is from Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. He says what I want to say, only much, much better!
Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Heb. 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.
Objection 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.
Objection 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.
On the contrary, The Apostle says: "The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom. 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.
I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.
Reply to Objection 1: The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.
Reply to Objection 2: When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God".
Reply to Objection 3: From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.
Next up: Whether God exists?
Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Heb. 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.
Objection 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.
Objection 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.
On the contrary, The Apostle says: "The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom. 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.
I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.
Reply to Objection 1: The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.
Reply to Objection 2: When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God".
Reply to Objection 3: From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.
Next up: Whether God exists?
Friday, December 15, 2006
Relativism in the Body of Christ
As Christians, we know that God is truth. We know that there is truth that is universal for all people, for all time, regardless of what anyone thinks. We know there is absolute truth.
So how does relativism fit into Christianity today? One word: denominationalism. There are literally THOUSANDS of Christian denominations in the world. Churches split and form new churches every day due to differences in Biblical interpretation. In the process, many are wounded and some never return to any church at all.
Not long ago, before I even considered Catholicism, I thought, "Why can’t we just agree on the essentials? Let's just agree to disagree and love each other." I even proposed this idea on a forum, which turned out to be horribly anti-Catholic. I was admonished by a moderator who said I was promoting relativism. He did not want this idea to be floating around while he was working so hard to get people out of the Catholic Church. Looking back, I see that while his motives were not exactly great, he was right not to want to promote relativism and it make me realize that I had accepted a bit of relativism myself on a small level. After all, I went to a church that believed what I agreed with... and I never questioned whether or not it was acceptable to believe differently from other Christians...
I asked myself, "Is it enough to just agree on the 'essentials'?" I soon realized that it is not enough. Not even close.
Can you imagine the three persons of the Trinity arguing about doctrinal differences or deciding what should be considered essential for Christians to believe and what shouldn't? Ludicrous!
There is nothing in the Bible that outlines what is and what is not essential. There are no primary and secondary doctrines. Instead, there is a very clear call to be in complete unity with one another and there is one truth:
1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
Romans 15:5
May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus...
(These are only two among MANY that speak of our call to be in unity with one another.)
But look at what has become of Christianity! Protestant denominations have been spreading relativism and diversity for 500 years, causing damage to the body of Christ. Don't like what one teaches? Start a new church and teach what YOU believe! The body of Christ was never meant to be so severed and split into different ways of thinking.
All things established by Christ are "essential" and they are not up for debate. We must accept all of God's word or none of it. We cannot pick and choose as if we are standing in a big cafeteria line of doctrines. This is one of the major things that caused me to seek truth... not relative truth found in denominationalism (by that, I include non-denominationalism, since it's a denomination of its own) that has SOME absolute truth.... but a complete, long-standing, historical, unified absolute truth. God is Truth and He told us that if we seek, we will find. There is only one truth within Christianity. ONE. As Christians, we must be diligent to seek it, find it, and tell others about it.
Christ established a Church to be the authority on all faith matters, not just an invisible church but a visible Church. This Church was established to be the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) so we would know where to find it. So, how do we know which church? We go to the Church established by Christ himself... to the only Church that has been standing for 2000 years... to the Catholic Church!
As Catholics, we need to work to bring unity back to the entire body of Christ. We cannot let this doctrine of relativism continue to break us down. We have to continuously seek truth and put an end to the acceptance of the relativism that has divided Christians for the last 500 years.
There absolutely IS absolute truth and it can be known.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Jeremiah 29:13
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
So how does relativism fit into Christianity today? One word: denominationalism. There are literally THOUSANDS of Christian denominations in the world. Churches split and form new churches every day due to differences in Biblical interpretation. In the process, many are wounded and some never return to any church at all.
Not long ago, before I even considered Catholicism, I thought, "Why can’t we just agree on the essentials? Let's just agree to disagree and love each other." I even proposed this idea on a forum, which turned out to be horribly anti-Catholic. I was admonished by a moderator who said I was promoting relativism. He did not want this idea to be floating around while he was working so hard to get people out of the Catholic Church. Looking back, I see that while his motives were not exactly great, he was right not to want to promote relativism and it make me realize that I had accepted a bit of relativism myself on a small level. After all, I went to a church that believed what I agreed with... and I never questioned whether or not it was acceptable to believe differently from other Christians...
I asked myself, "Is it enough to just agree on the 'essentials'?" I soon realized that it is not enough. Not even close.
Can you imagine the three persons of the Trinity arguing about doctrinal differences or deciding what should be considered essential for Christians to believe and what shouldn't? Ludicrous!
There is nothing in the Bible that outlines what is and what is not essential. There are no primary and secondary doctrines. Instead, there is a very clear call to be in complete unity with one another and there is one truth:
1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
Romans 15:5
May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus...
(These are only two among MANY that speak of our call to be in unity with one another.)
But look at what has become of Christianity! Protestant denominations have been spreading relativism and diversity for 500 years, causing damage to the body of Christ. Don't like what one teaches? Start a new church and teach what YOU believe! The body of Christ was never meant to be so severed and split into different ways of thinking.
All things established by Christ are "essential" and they are not up for debate. We must accept all of God's word or none of it. We cannot pick and choose as if we are standing in a big cafeteria line of doctrines. This is one of the major things that caused me to seek truth... not relative truth found in denominationalism (by that, I include non-denominationalism, since it's a denomination of its own) that has SOME absolute truth.... but a complete, long-standing, historical, unified absolute truth. God is Truth and He told us that if we seek, we will find. There is only one truth within Christianity. ONE. As Christians, we must be diligent to seek it, find it, and tell others about it.
Christ established a Church to be the authority on all faith matters, not just an invisible church but a visible Church. This Church was established to be the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) so we would know where to find it. So, how do we know which church? We go to the Church established by Christ himself... to the only Church that has been standing for 2000 years... to the Catholic Church!
As Catholics, we need to work to bring unity back to the entire body of Christ. We cannot let this doctrine of relativism continue to break us down. We have to continuously seek truth and put an end to the acceptance of the relativism that has divided Christians for the last 500 years.
There absolutely IS absolute truth and it can be known.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Jeremiah 29:13
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Relativism: The New Religion
Relativism is the new religion and its members are growing in number at a rapid pace. There have been countless occasions when I have been labeled as close-minded merely for being a Christian. Of course, whenever this is brought up, I simply turn it back around.
"Why are you more open-minded than I am simply because you reject Christianity?"
It is one thing to be tolerant of the beliefs of others... to allow each person to seek truth and allow them their God-given free will to believe whatever they want to. It is quite another thing to claim that truth exists for each person individually... and to claim that there is no truth that is applicable to all people. I believe the doctrine of relativism is one of Satan's greatest tools. It allows him to darken the minds of believers and non-believers alike.
Absolute truth is something that is universally true regardless if anyone believes it is true. Many make ridiculous claims that absolute truth exists within each individual... that each person has his OWN absolute truth. Of course, these people do not understand the definition of absolute truth. They will say things like, "Absolute truth is relative." Huh?
And 2+2=5 (at least for me)!
Many will also say that if you claim to know the truth (within religion for example), you are imposing YOUR truth on other people and you are being intolerant or close-minded. Ironically, this makes relativists intolerant of religion. Although I'm not sure why it matters, since truth is relative, right?
Let's examine some basic statements here:
"There are no absolutes."
"Every truth is relative."
"No one knows what truth is."
"It is wrong for someone to impose his/her morals or truth on me."
Does anyone notice something about these statements? They are ALL absolute statements! They are all claiming a "truth" that there is NO truth or that truth is relative! Every statement is completely self-contradictory!
I don't know a single person who wouldn't be completely outraged at someone stealing from their home. But if everyone's truth is whatever they make it, then I could say, "For me, it's acceptable to rob my neighbor whether he likes it or not because what is true for me is I want and should have his stereo system." No one is going to respond with, "I think it's great this guy exercised his free will and his understanding of truth. He can come back any time and take whatever he wants!" If truth were relative, we’d all be in a heap of trouble in this world... and this makes relativism MUCH more imposing on others than any religion!
The problem? Many are coming to a wider acceptance of this viewpoint every day, using it to justify wrong actions in order to avoid being held accountable.
So, what if I believe with my whole heart and soul that 2+2=5? People will believe I'm crazy and they'll show me logically that this is not true... but what if I cannot be convinced? Does this statement become true? Not at all! Truth is truth even if I don't believe it... even if NO ONE believes it!
In my next post, I'll write about relativism within Christianity... Yep, it's found there too!
"Why are you more open-minded than I am simply because you reject Christianity?"
It is one thing to be tolerant of the beliefs of others... to allow each person to seek truth and allow them their God-given free will to believe whatever they want to. It is quite another thing to claim that truth exists for each person individually... and to claim that there is no truth that is applicable to all people. I believe the doctrine of relativism is one of Satan's greatest tools. It allows him to darken the minds of believers and non-believers alike.
Absolute truth is something that is universally true regardless if anyone believes it is true. Many make ridiculous claims that absolute truth exists within each individual... that each person has his OWN absolute truth. Of course, these people do not understand the definition of absolute truth. They will say things like, "Absolute truth is relative." Huh?
And 2+2=5 (at least for me)!
Many will also say that if you claim to know the truth (within religion for example), you are imposing YOUR truth on other people and you are being intolerant or close-minded. Ironically, this makes relativists intolerant of religion. Although I'm not sure why it matters, since truth is relative, right?
Let's examine some basic statements here:
"There are no absolutes."
"Every truth is relative."
"No one knows what truth is."
"It is wrong for someone to impose his/her morals or truth on me."
Does anyone notice something about these statements? They are ALL absolute statements! They are all claiming a "truth" that there is NO truth or that truth is relative! Every statement is completely self-contradictory!
I don't know a single person who wouldn't be completely outraged at someone stealing from their home. But if everyone's truth is whatever they make it, then I could say, "For me, it's acceptable to rob my neighbor whether he likes it or not because what is true for me is I want and should have his stereo system." No one is going to respond with, "I think it's great this guy exercised his free will and his understanding of truth. He can come back any time and take whatever he wants!" If truth were relative, we’d all be in a heap of trouble in this world... and this makes relativism MUCH more imposing on others than any religion!
The problem? Many are coming to a wider acceptance of this viewpoint every day, using it to justify wrong actions in order to avoid being held accountable.
So, what if I believe with my whole heart and soul that 2+2=5? People will believe I'm crazy and they'll show me logically that this is not true... but what if I cannot be convinced? Does this statement become true? Not at all! Truth is truth even if I don't believe it... even if NO ONE believes it!
In my next post, I'll write about relativism within Christianity... Yep, it's found there too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)