Friday, October 22, 2010

repost from a few years ago- still just as important

I have been doing some research for funsies. I have found some interesting articles and would like to share on the subject of apologetics. For those of you who have not heard this term before, it is the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity. There are a few things that upset me about today's culture and one of those things is TOLERANCE. Today there are so many people who claim to be open-minded and tolerant of other people views but it can be argued that these "enlightened" people are completely intolerant of Christian views and standards. I would like to share with you a few excerpts from articles that can help explain more succinctly than I, this strange epidemic that is sweeping the Western culture. The following is an excerpt from an article I was linked to from www.answersingenesis.com. Its a data base of articles relating to a whole slew of sujbejcts from aliens to the existance of God.

Liberal tolerance is grounded in relativism, the view that no one point of view on moral and religious knowledge is objectively correct for every person in every time and place. This notion, as understood and embraced in popular culture, feeds on the fact of pluralism, the reality of a plurality of different and contrary opinions on religious and moral matters. Against this backdrop, many in our culture conclude that one cannot say that one's view on religious and moral matters is better than anyone else's view. They assert that it is a mistake to claim that one's religious beliefs are exclusively correct and that believers of other faiths, no matter how sincere or devoted, hold false beliefs. Thus, religious inclusivism is the correct position to hold.

Relativism, pluralism, and religious inclusivism are the planks in a creed that does not tolerate any rivals. Its high-minded commitment to "openness" prohibits the possibility that anything is absolutely good, true, and beautiful. This was the central thesis of Alan Bloom's 1987 best seller, The Closing of the American Mind. Bloom writes: "The relativity of truth [for college students in American culture] is not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or so they see it." The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all. The students, of course, cannot defend their opinion. It is something with which they have been indoctrinated.

According to Bloom, by dogmatically maintaining there is no truth, people who are relativists have become close-minded to the possibility of knowing the truth, if in fact it does exist. Some may say there are many truths but if you get down to it, not all can be true. To understand what Bloom means, consider the following dialogue (based loosely on a real-life exchange) between a high school teacher and her student, Elizabeth.

Teacher: Welcome, students. Since this is the first day of class, I want to lay down some ground rules. First, since no one has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students. Second....Elizabeth, do you have a question?

Elizabeth: Yes, I do. If nobody has the truth, isn't that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions. What would be the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don't you agree?

Teacher: No, I don't. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn't that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?

Elizabeth: Not at all. Rather, I think it's dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that there is not one person on earth who knows the truth. After all, have you met every person in the world and quizzed them exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know the truth and would like to share it with you, why won't you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone's opinion. (Beckwith, Francis. Deconstructing Liberal Tolerance)

In the modern Western world, ethical relativism poses a challenge to the biblical basis for ethics. Relativism affirms that moral right and wrong are only socially and individually determined. Ethics is split off from any objective moral order. Cultural norms of morality are relative to particular societies, individuals, and historical periods. What is "right for you" may not be "right for me." What is wrong today may not be wrong tomorrow. When the idea of moral law is held in disrespect, the notion of sin softens and then dissolves. If all is relative, absolute evil is impossible. If sin is nonsense, then the notion of a Savior from sin is absurd. There is nothing from which to be saved.

Because of its denial of abiding ethical standards and of sin against a holy God, relativism is a roadblock to effective evangelism .. besides undercutting values essential for a healthy society. But the key arguments for relativism are fatally flawed.

1. Relativists often argue that a society that honors free speech and freedom of religion must relinquish any notion of absolute truth or morality because this stifles the free exchange of ideas. Dogmatism and moralism are unwelcome in the pluralistic public square. Relativism is seen as required for a democracy of ideas and norms.

But this is flatly false. One may believe there are moral absolutes and also believe that the best way to reach ethical conclusions is through open discussion, dialogue, and debate. Freedom of religion and speech does not necessitate that there can be no objectively true religion or morality. A free society guarantees your right to be right .. and your right to be wrong! I can try to persuade you of the truth of my convictions without using coercion. In fact, I may take it as a moral absolute that I should not coerce those I believe to be absolutely wrong.

The relativist has abandoned the very concept of objective moral truth. It is all a matter of opinion because everything is relative. There is, therefore, nothing objective to argue about and no good reason to believe one thing over another. This is hardly what the American founders envisioned for a free society. It more resembles anarchism and nihilism (i.e., rejection of all values) than a "marketplace of ideas."

2. The sheer diversity of moral and religious ideas within and between societies is invoked as evidence for relativism. With so many options before us, who is to say what is true or false, right or wrong? We are left with relativism.

Here again, the facts do not deliver the conclusion. A diversity of ethical and religious beliefs hardly insures that they are all somehow true. A tribal culture may be scientifically wrong in thinking that the sun revolves around a flat earth. Why can't the same culture be ethically wrong for practicing head-hunting? If you say that abortion is right and I say it is wrong, how can we both be correct when we contradict each other? Ethical relativism eliminates the notion of a moral mistake. But this is just as fallacious as saying that every answer on a multiple-choice test is correct because there is a diversity of answers.

There may also be less diversity between cultures than is often thought. Every culture has taboos against stealing. Yet a desert culture may penalize the theft of water much more highly than would a tropical culture. The diversity of moral codes does not rule out a basic agreement on deeper ethical principles. In an appendix to his excellent book against relativism, The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis listed common moral principles spanning thousands of years from diverse religions and civilizations. As Paul tells us in Romans 1-2, God has endowed with a conscience all those created in His own image, however much we efface or neglect it.

Relativism also leads to absurd conclusions which undermine its credibility. If there is no true moral law that applies transculturally, then there is no basis for one culture to condemn actions in another. Surely any morally sane person must ethically condemn Nazi atrocities as evil and praise the heroes who resisted the Reich by saving Jews from extermination. But relativism cannot permit such judgments. The morality of everything is relative .. even genocide.

If we can reveal flaws in the case for relativism, we can further argue that the moral law is best understood as flowing from the moral lawgiver of the universe. God, as our Creator, knows what is best for us and calls us to obey Him for our own good and for His glory. Yet, as Paul said, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 6:23). The universal fact of guilt and shame testifies to that, whatever the cultural setting might be.

But the good news is that the Lawgiver is also the Redeemer of those who lament over their lawlessness and trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior. Those who cry out, "God, have mercy on me, a sinner" (Luke 18:13), can find mercy and eternal life. But the unrepentant relativist must face the absolute justice of a holy God who admits no interpretation other than His own. In the end everything is relative, but it is relative to God's absolute standards, not ours. (Groothuis, Douglass. Confronting the Challenge of Ethical Relativism)

I have to admit, that this is a subject that I am very passionate about. I got all fired up just reading these articles. Of course you can look them up and read the whole article if you wish. I feel that as a Christian, my rights are being slowly taken away by this way of thinking. If this is a free country, why is it that I cannot pray in school but Muslim children can take time out of their school day to pray to Allah? My hollidays have been disguised by pagan symbols and consumerism. Christians, I am calling you to stand up for what you believe. Be proud of who you are in Christ! We have to be vocal about our rights. This doesn't mean that we have to force our views on others. We can show them who we are just by living in the light of Christ and share when asked or the time is right. But if we are to remain in our freedom of religion, we must take action. Its faster becoming that everything is tolerated but Christianity. The Bible says that we will be persecuted and that we should be thankful in doing so, but that doesn't mean that we can't stand up for what is ours. I know I want my children and grandchildren to have the same freedoms that I have had. I will get off my soapbox for now but would love to hear feedback from you no matter what your belief.

Love in Christ,
Karin

Read more:http://www.myspace.com/karinrmartin/blog?page=2#ixzz137WoTVqP

No comments: