Article from the American Thinker.
Excerpt:
There are many doctrinal differences among the denominations, and good people could debate them ad nauseam and still not settle every one. Yet if anything is central to Christianity, it’s the belief that Truth is spelled with a capital “T” — that it is absolute, universal, and eternal. And also central is a corollary of this belief: that there is an absolute, universal, and eternal answer to every moral question; that right and wrong are not a matter of opinion, and that they don’t change from time to time and place to place (although the perception of them certainly can. Ergo, swords lopping off heads.).
In fact, understand that moral relativism does nothing less than render the foundational act of Christianity, the sacrifice on the cross, incomprehensible. Why? Simply because Jesus died for our sins, and this presupposes that sin exists. However, if what we call morality is simply opinion, then there can be no such thing as sin.
[…]Now we come to why this piece isn’t just for Christians. The concept of Absolute Truth lies at the heart of Judaism, Islam, and, in fact, philosophy itself. Why philosophy? Because, properly defined, philosophy is the search for Truth. Now, some — including many philosophy professors — would dispute this, but they not only are babies in philosophy, but they also have adopted the endeavor of a madman: searching while claiming there is nothing to find.
If there is no Truth and only opinion, then there are no answers to be found. But then why ask questions?
[…]Of course, it’s tempting to embrace religious-equivalency doctrine in a multi-religious society because it’s thought that it enables us to get along. Like two little boys in a schoolyard who each agree to relinquish any claim that his daddy can beat up the other’s, we make the following unwritten pact: “I won’t say my faith is better than yours if you don’t say your faith is better than mine. Deal?” And it does work. Only then there is not only no reason to fight about religion, there is no reason to even discuss it. There is, in fact, no reason to even adopt it. That is, unless it somehow makes you feel good. But adherence to the principle “Do whatever feels good” is a pathway to something. It’s called sin.
Through his embrace of relativism, modern man has made Christianity incomprehensible. He has made philosophy incomprehensible. He has, in fact, made civilization itself incomprehensible. For if there is no right or wrong, then civilization can be no better than barbarism.
Something to think about when you feel pressured to say that morality is relative and truth is relative.
No, it is not compatible with christianity.
LikeLike
Wintery,
Great post. Truth by definition is exclusive, there is no way around that. Francis Schaeffer spent a good bit of time talking about “true truth” because of the reduction, elimination or wasting away of Truth. I also like the point made, and I have been thinking about it a lot in the last few weeks, how compromise (and the general view that compromise is expected and that nothing is excluded from compromise) trivializes the cross and why that ultimate sacrifice was necessary. I think it was Ravi Zacharias in his “Can Man Live Without God” who said that Jesus died not because of the volume of sin, but because of the fact of sin. We will all stand and give an account of what we have done with the Truth of the Word as it has been revealed and entrusted to us. We should look soberly at how we are treating God’s Truth.
Thanks for the post and the reminder.
LikeLike
I believe that the moral relativism and it’s belief, is man’s attempt to make his own rules whether good of bad, to get out under God’s protecting and loving authority and try to stand on his own in this evil world, in which he will not prevail or be able to succeed in, unless with God and His unending grace.
LikeLike