| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Somebody Who Loves You Somebody Who Loves" |
| Date: |
24 Jun 2007 09:03:24 AM |
| Object: |
Absolutes without Absolutism |
Absolutes without Absolutism
True Truth
Have you ever tried to debate moral principles with someone who doesn't
believe they exist? If you have, you know it's an exercise in frustration.
In our anything-goes society, even mentioning that there might be such a
thing as a moral absolute truth is a good way to get branded intolerant,
anachronistic, and a killjoy. And the more frustrated we get with this
state of affairs, the more likely we are to turn the stereotype into a
self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, our frustration can easily turn into
anger, and our anger can begin to look very much like the arrogance that
we're already accused of harboring.
The goal that Christians need to strive for, argues scholar Art Lindsley
of the C. S. Lewis Institute, is "absolutes without absolutism." In his
excellent new book, True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic
World, Lindsley writes, "Just as a need to relate truth to all areas of
life does not make us relativists, so believing that there are some moral
absolutes does not make us absolutists. . . . Absolutism might be defined
as being synonymous with a cluster of characteristics: arrogance,
close-mindedness, intolerance, self-righteousness, bigotry, and the like."
These are characteristics that many people already associate with
Christianity, unfairly. And so these are the very characteristics that
Christians need to work especially hard to avoid. After all, as Lindsley
reminds us, the most fundamental doctrines of our faith -- our fallen
state and our desperate need for a Savior -- are doctrines that make for
humility, not pride.
But at the same time, we still need to be able to talk about absolutes. An
explanation of the Christian worldview makes no sense without them. So how
do we do it? Well, first remember that we can believe that there are
absolutes -- that is, moral truth binding on us -- without being
absolutists -- that is, closing our minds to other propositions.
And Lindsley suggests that one of the best ways is to turn the tables on
relativists. For instance, we can point out the absolutism in their own
thinking. As Lindsley writes, "Relativists consistently stand guilty of
the philosophical sin of making exceptions to their own absolute rules."
They claim that Christianity is a religion of intolerance, that Christians
have committed abuses in the name of their faith, that Christians
shouldn't impose their values on others, but leave them free to choose
their own value systems. But where did they get their ideas of tolerance
and justice -- of right and wrong in general -- if they genuinely don't
believe in moral absolutes? Without such ideas, how can anyone formulate a
meaningful system of values?
This kind of argument was effective with as brilliant a thinker as C. S.
Lewis. Many years after his conversion, he wrote of his days as an
atheist: "How had I got this idea of just and unjust? . . . A man does not
call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line."
If we're patient and persistent, it's not as hard as it might seem to make
a relativist begin to see the truth about the "straight line." But we must
never forget exactly who and what we're defending. Jesus was the
embodiment of absolute truth, but never an absolutist. And so as Art
Lindsley puts it: "The defense of the Gospel is most effective when
combined with the demeanor of Christ."
By Chuck Colson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further reading and information:
Art Lindsley, True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic World
(InterVarsity Press, 2004). To order, call 1-877-322-5527.
Learn more about the C. S. Lewis Institute.
C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (Harcourt Brace,
1975 edition).
T. M. Moore, "Confronting Unbelief," BreakPoint Online, 1 June 2004.
Subscribe today to the Worldview Church eReport.
Greg Koukl, "The Myth of Tolerance," BreakPoint WorldView, December 2003.
Visit Stand to Reason's website for more information on defending truth.
BreakPoint Commentary No. 031223, "Meeting the Need for Truth: Reaching
Out to Teens."
.
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolutes without Absolutism |
24 Jun 2007 10:13:00 PM |
|
|
In article <11ij54.udi.19.1@news.alt.net>, "Somebody Who Loves
You" <Somebody Who Loves You_fan_club@yahoo.com> says...
Absolutes without Absolutism
True Truth
....
The goal that Christians need to strive for, argues scholar Art Lindsley
of the C. S. Lewis Institute, is "absolutes without absolutism."
< chuckle! > Well, why not? It certainly is in keeping with all
other forms of christian hypocrisy.
In his
excellent new book, True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic
World, Lindsley writes, "Just as a need to relate truth to all areas of
life does not make us relativists, so believing that there are some moral
absolutes does not make us absolutists. Absolutism might be defined
as being synonymous with a cluster of characteristics: arrogance,
close-mindedness, intolerance, self-righteousness, bigotry, and the like."
Ah! We are beginning to see Mr. Lindsley's problem. He cannot
differentiate between the baby and the bath water.
....
And Lindsley suggests that one of the best ways is to turn the tables on
relativists. For instance, we can point out the absolutism in their own
thinking.
< chuckle! > The absolutists who deny that they are absolutists
are going to accuse the relativists of being absolutists.
Of course, accusing someone of being an absolutist is an
absolutist claim. Right, Mr. Lindsley?
As Lindsley writes, "Relativists consistently stand guilty of
the philosophical sin of making exceptions to their own absolute rules."
< chuckle! > And Mr. Lindsley stands guilty of making an absolute
claim. You have also overlooked the larger sin of the relativist
having absolute rules, Mr. Lindsley.
They claim that Christianity is a religion of intolerance, that Christians
have committed abuses in the name of their faith, that Christians
shouldn't impose their values on others, but leave them free to choose
their own value systems. But where did they get their ideas of tolerance
and justice -- of right and wrong in general -- if they genuinely don't
believe in moral absolutes?
Simple, Mr. Lindsley. The relativists are not proposing any
absolutes. They are merely asking YOU to be consistent in your
application of your own rules.
Without such ideas, how can anyone formulate a
meaningful system of values?
Meaningful to who, Mr. Lindsley?
This kind of argument was effective with as brilliant a thinker as C. S.
Lewis. Many years after his conversion, he wrote of his days as an
atheist: "How had I got this idea of just and unjust? . . . A man does not
call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line."
< chuckle! > Since the "straight" line can never be realized in
practice then it is quite clear that reality has managed just fine
without it.
If we're patient and persistent, it's not as hard as it might seem to make
a relativist begin to see the truth about the "straight line." But we must
never forget exactly who and what we're defending. Jesus was the
embodiment of absolute truth, but never an absolutist.
< chuckle! >
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no
man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
-- John 14:6
Regards,
Josef
Where knowledge ends, religion begins.
-- Benjamin Disraeli
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolutes without Absolutism |
24 Jun 2007 02:27:09 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<11ij54.udi.19.1@news.alt.net>,
the lovely and talented Somebody Who Loves You
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Absolutes without Absolutism
True Truth
Have you ever tried to debate moral principles with someone who doesn't
believe they exist?
You mean like theocrats who say it isn't a sin to lie or kill or maim or
oppress for jesus?
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 575 days to go.
Owing to googlegroups not screening users to eliminate spammers and other
USENET abusers, I do not see most posts from googlegroups.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN." |
|
| Title: Re: Absolutes without Absolutism |
24 Jun 2007 11:56:01 AM |
|
|
On Jun 24, 3:03 pm, nymshifting troll and deliberately annoying *****
John B Loiodice wrote:
Absolutes without Absolutism
True Truth
Have you ever tried to debate moral principles with someone who doesn't
believe they exist?
I think I'm probably doing so right now. <SLAP>.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolutes without Absolutism |
24 Jun 2007 09:46:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:56:01 -0700, "The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN."
<hugh.jarse@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
On Jun 24, 3:03 pm, nymshifting troll and deliberately annoying *****
John B Loiodice wrote:
Absolutes without Absolutism
True Truth
Have you ever tried to debate moral principles with someone who doesn't
believe they exist?
I think I'm probably doing so right now. <SLAP>.
You can bet on it. Christians are, by definition, amoral.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolutes without Absolutism |
24 Jun 2007 10:31:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 10:03:24 -0400, "Somebody Who Loves You" <Somebody
Who Loves You_fan_club@yahoo.com> wrote:
True Truth
Only superstition bleats about 'truth'.
Not even science, which has given us more that any god has, would
do that.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolutes without Absolutism |
24 Jun 2007 09:04:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 10:03:24 -0400, "Somebody Who Loves You" <Somebody
Who Loves You_fan_club@yahoo.com> wrote:
[waste of bandwidth deleted]
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Jack NopetheDopeofapes" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolutes without Absolutism |
24 Jun 2007 09:06:56 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:ffus735bcc4ebojkhhouim4i9m0i9phcf7@4ax.com...
[waste of bandwidth deleted]
Absolutes without Absolutism
True Truth
Have you ever tried to debate moral principles with someone who doesn't
believe they exist? If you have, you know it's an exercise in frustration.
In our anything-goes society, even mentioning that there might be such a
thing as a moral absolute truth is a good way to get branded intolerant,
anachronistic, and a killjoy. And the more frustrated we get with this
state of affairs, the more likely we are to turn the stereotype into a
self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, our frustration can easily turn into
anger, and our anger can begin to look very much like the arrogance that
we're already accused of harboring.
The goal that Christians need to strive for, argues scholar Art Lindsley
of the C. S. Lewis Institute, is "absolutes without absolutism." In his
excellent new book, True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic
World, Lindsley writes, "Just as a need to relate truth to all areas of
life does not make us relativists, so believing that there are some moral
absolutes does not make us absolutists. . . . Absolutism might be defined
as being synonymous with a cluster of characteristics: arrogance,
close-mindedness, intolerance, self-righteousness, bigotry, and the like."
These are characteristics that many people already associate with
Christianity, unfairly. And so these are the very characteristics that
Christians need to work especially hard to avoid. After all, as Lindsley
reminds us, the most fundamental doctrines of our faith -- our fallen
state and our desperate need for a Savior -- are doctrines that make for
humility, not pride.
But at the same time, we still need to be able to talk about absolutes. An
explanation of the Christian worldview makes no sense without them. So how
do we do it? Well, first remember that we can believe that there are
absolutes -- that is, moral truth binding on us -- without being
absolutists -- that is, closing our minds to other propositions.
And Lindsley suggests that one of the best ways is to turn the tables on
relativists. For instance, we can point out the absolutism in their own
thinking. As Lindsley writes, "Relativists consistently stand guilty of
the philosophical sin of making exceptions to their own absolute rules."
They claim that Christianity is a religion of intolerance, that Christians
have committed abuses in the name of their faith, that Christians
shouldn't impose their values on others, but leave them free to choose
their own value systems. But where did they get their ideas of tolerance
and justice -- of right and wrong in general -- if they genuinely don't
believe in moral absolutes? Without such ideas, how can anyone formulate a
meaningful system of values?
This kind of argument was effective with as brilliant a thinker as C. S.
Lewis. Many years after his conversion, he wrote of his days as an
atheist: "How had I got this idea of just and unjust? . . . A man does not
call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line."
If we're patient and persistent, it's not as hard as it might seem to make
a relativist begin to see the truth about the "straight line." But we must
never forget exactly who and what we're defending. Jesus was the
embodiment of absolute truth, but never an absolutist. And so as Art
Lindsley puts it: "The defense of the Gospel is most effective when
combined with the demeanor of Christ."
By Chuck Colson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further reading and information:
Art Lindsley, True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic World
(InterVarsity Press, 2004). To order, call 1-877-322-5527.
Learn more about the C. S. Lewis Institute.
C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (Harcourt Brace,
1975 edition).
T. M. Moore, "Confronting Unbelief," BreakPoint Online, 1 June 2004.
Subscribe today to the Worldview Church eReport.
Greg Koukl, "The Myth of Tolerance," BreakPoint WorldView, December 2003.
Visit Stand to Reason's website for more information on defending truth.
BreakPoint Commentary No. 031223, "Meeting the Need for Truth: Reaching
Out to Teens."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolutes without Absolutism |
24 Jun 2007 12:24:04 PM |
|
|
Somebody Who Loves You wrote:
Absolutes without Absolutism
True Truth
Have you ever tried to debate moral principles with someone who
doesn't believe they exist? If you have, you know it's an exercise in
frustration. In our anything-goes society, even mentioning that there
might be such a thing as a moral absolute truth is a good way to get
branded intolerant, anachronistic, and a killjoy.
Have you ever tried to debate with someone who can't stay on topic?
Or asked them who they have debated who does not believe moral principals
exist?
Or asked them to define a "moral absolute truth", then give us a few?
Or asked if they knew the difference?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
