Apologetics

---

The idea that all faiths are valid and lead to 'God' is utter nonsense and easily refuted...(ironically though, these same people who claim to be 'open minded' are usually the most closed when it comes to accepting absolute truths and the most intolerant when it comes to tolerating those they deem to be intolerant!!.)

Relativism, whether it be factual or moral is a growing popular error in these last days.

For those that are not familiar with the word, it is the mind-set that truth and morals are relative to the individual, so that what is true for you may not be true for me and what is moral for you is not moral for me so 'one should be 'tolerent' and not 'push your values/beliefs unto others'
Such fruits of this notion is political correctness and syncretism (all religions are equally valid).

This sounds very nice and "fuzzy"- after all this way we can just get along with each other..right?
However, the very idea that we should be 'tolerent' as truth/morals aren't absolute is self-defeating and when it comes to morals, quite hypocritical as I shall attempt to summarise:

The fact of the matter that some (deliberately?) don't seem to grasp is that truth/reality- by definition- IS 'narrow' and absolute.

I actually had someone once tell me in all seriousness that the moon only exists when she can see it! Personal perception isn't necessarily truth as reality doesn't change because we don't like or understand or are wrong about what we see:

Truth is true, even if no one knows it.

Truth is true, even if no one admits it.
Truth is true, even if no one believes it.

Truth is true, even if no one follows it.

Truth is true, even if it isn't popular.
Truth is true, even when others attempt to distort it.

Truth is true, even if no one but God understands it fully.


MORAL RELATIVISM

This applies to moral relativism also: If one believes that morals are relative and tells you that you should be more "tolerent" and not to impose your values on anyone- what they fail to realise is that what they have imposed their own moral values on you by trying to stop you from 'imposing your values' which contradicts their whole mind-set.
Furthermore, "tolerence' -by definition- enatils that in order to be 'tolerent' of something, that something you are being tolerent of must be in conflict with a value or belief that you hold which means that they cannot both be correct -whether it be Christianity vs Hinduism or the basic idea that torturing babies is wrong.

Here is an illustration that may help:

"Homosexuality is a sin / we all have sinned and falled short of the glory of God /Jesus said in John 14:6 that He is the only way to salvation (fill in the blank)"
"You shouldn't push your morality on me"
"Are you saying I have no right to an world-view?"
"You have a right, but don't force it on anyone"
"Is that your world-view?"
"Yes"
"Then why are you forcing it on me?"
"Because you are saying that only your view is right"
"Am I wrong?"
"Yes"
"Is that your view?"
"Yes"
"Then you are saying only your moral world-view is right which is the very thing you objected to me saying."


1. If morality is relative to culture, then there is no independant basis for criticizing action.
2. If there is no independant basis for criticizing action, then we must be tolerant.
3. Morality is in fact relative to culture the relativist will say.
4. Therefore, we must be tolerant.
5. To say that we must be tolerant is a moral stipulation.
6. Therefore, #3 cannot be true.

So logically, if truth and morals can only be absolute, then no one canhonestly say that there areany real grey areas in life (except for the lukewarm undecided people who would rather be politically correct and avoid offending anyone by making a factually correct choice. See Revelation 3: 15-22) so there IS only good or bad- right and wrong- truth or lie...

The following is a discussion I had which typifies the fallicious nature of relativism. The statement of relativist is first and my refutation follows:

I walked into my living room yesterday and looked at the thermostat. I had set it to 62 degrees F. to save a bit on my energy bill. Just then there was a knock on the front door. Opening it I was amused to see an Inuit dressed in full arctic gear and a Yanomami warrior from the Amazon wearing...well…you know…not much of anything at all.

Not wishing to see them standing on my porch with nothing to do, I invited them into my living room for refreshments and some conversation. They were both sitting on my sofa and not much time had passed when at the exact same moment the strangest of things happened.

"It's cold in this room," said the Yanomami.
"It's hot in this room," said the Inuit.


People can be wrong even though they sincerely believe they are right, because/and personal preference isn't the same thing as objective truth or conversely, proof of relativism. (eg some people like blue, and some yellow, but that is not to say that both are aren't good since God made them both)

Another example is Michaelangelo's David. I can appreciate the skill and mastery gone into the creation of the statue, but personally wouldn't like to have it in my living room due to personal tastes. But my personal preferences have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether the statue is an example of fine art.
Objective truth (ie reality) is independent of personal feelings. 2+2=4 no matter how I may believe or want it to be 5.

The Yanonmami may have found your livingroom cold, and the Inuit hot but those are their subjective feelings based on comparisons to the climate they are accustomed to. Given a few months both would find your livingroom to be comfortable as their bodies would have climatised to adapt to the objective 62 degree temperature of the livingroom.

They both felt differently, but reality dictates that the temperature was absolutely 62 degrees

I can guarantee that both the Yanomami and the Inuit would find -460 degrees temperatures cold, just as both would find the saharah desert hot.

So what you have done is make a catagory error with your glib illustration.


In Summary:

If one believes that 'truth (and morals) is relative' then to them it is a truth- and in being so, would have to be relative. Therefore, in being relative, it can't always be true that 'truth is relative.'
So, if some truths are not relative then they must be ABSOLUTE.
..Therefore the mind-set "truth is relative" is false because it is self-contradictory. Q.E.D.

To read the full article, go to my site: www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com

If you have any comments, suggestions or queries, please note that I do not have access to the message system on this site, so please email me instead, using the email form from my website.

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE