S
Searching1
Guest
It’s called “Relativism” because it holds all truths to be true only insofar as they relate to the system, culture, society, etc., they appear in. Under such a doctrine, nothing can be said to be objectively true.
We live in a democratic society and our values reflect the belief that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want and do whatever they want, insofar as they do not harm others. It’s unfortunate, though, that many stop there. We have given ourselves the right to believe anything, and therefore we may join any faith tradition or church, or be atheists if we so choose.
But should we?
We have the first amendment to the Constitution in the United States, which itself was born from the historical and political lessons that preceded it’s drafting: that governments, given enough time, tend to choose order and unity in the form of repression when faced with all the turmoil and strife inherent in people living next to each other while insisting their dignity and freedom be observed.
So we may take part in whatever belief system we desire, but it is duplicitous (to oneself and to others), to attend Mass or any Sunday service, or any religious ceremony of any kind, recite the articles of that given faith, and upon leaving, immediately abandon those beliefs in an effort to avoid even the appearance of “meanness.”
So while the Relativist may utter the words “Jesus Christ is King of the Universe,” he only does so to avoid offending his parents; then when he finds himself around Wiccans, he professes the Goddess as good; when around atheists, he simply apologizes. But all his words ring hallow. Each time he confesses a different set of beliefs to a different set of people, it’s all done in an effort to never discredit the mighty “Everyone Is On Their Own Faith Journey” rhetoric. And if one makes the argument that this isn’t relativism but actually a form of pragmatism, I would respond with “same thing.” Both these “isms” prioritize being inoffensive above all else, with the goal being to believe that which is most expedient in any given situation (“Relativism” making the added statement that ALL beliefs are true and equal).
This is simply relishing in the Democratic system we have the privilege of living under while failing to be a true witness.
When does one actually look inward and decide to make a decision about their beliefs? And when do they accept those beliefs as being beliefs in objectively true things? When does one make that Kierkegaardian “leap of faith”?
Believing in something is terrifying because it means afterward, you look out onto the world and see others who are actually lost – which is “condescending” to the relativist, to think anyone is “lost” instead of merely “journeying.”
It is a particularly craven way of living to absolve oneself of all personal wrongs and thank the God of your own creation for his forgiveness – the postmodern, psychoanalyst-in-the-sky that Relativism has transformed our Lord into. From my perspective, our Lord Jesus Christ has been made into a mere human by Moderns; under their schema, He was just a really, really nice guy who had some neat ideas.
We live in a democratic society and our values reflect the belief that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want and do whatever they want, insofar as they do not harm others. It’s unfortunate, though, that many stop there. We have given ourselves the right to believe anything, and therefore we may join any faith tradition or church, or be atheists if we so choose.
But should we?
We have the first amendment to the Constitution in the United States, which itself was born from the historical and political lessons that preceded it’s drafting: that governments, given enough time, tend to choose order and unity in the form of repression when faced with all the turmoil and strife inherent in people living next to each other while insisting their dignity and freedom be observed.
So we may take part in whatever belief system we desire, but it is duplicitous (to oneself and to others), to attend Mass or any Sunday service, or any religious ceremony of any kind, recite the articles of that given faith, and upon leaving, immediately abandon those beliefs in an effort to avoid even the appearance of “meanness.”
So while the Relativist may utter the words “Jesus Christ is King of the Universe,” he only does so to avoid offending his parents; then when he finds himself around Wiccans, he professes the Goddess as good; when around atheists, he simply apologizes. But all his words ring hallow. Each time he confesses a different set of beliefs to a different set of people, it’s all done in an effort to never discredit the mighty “Everyone Is On Their Own Faith Journey” rhetoric. And if one makes the argument that this isn’t relativism but actually a form of pragmatism, I would respond with “same thing.” Both these “isms” prioritize being inoffensive above all else, with the goal being to believe that which is most expedient in any given situation (“Relativism” making the added statement that ALL beliefs are true and equal).
This is simply relishing in the Democratic system we have the privilege of living under while failing to be a true witness.
When does one actually look inward and decide to make a decision about their beliefs? And when do they accept those beliefs as being beliefs in objectively true things? When does one make that Kierkegaardian “leap of faith”?
Believing in something is terrifying because it means afterward, you look out onto the world and see others who are actually lost – which is “condescending” to the relativist, to think anyone is “lost” instead of merely “journeying.”
It is a particularly craven way of living to absolve oneself of all personal wrongs and thank the God of your own creation for his forgiveness – the postmodern, psychoanalyst-in-the-sky that Relativism has transformed our Lord into. From my perspective, our Lord Jesus Christ has been made into a mere human by Moderns; under their schema, He was just a really, really nice guy who had some neat ideas.
Last edited:
