Posted on 03/14/2014 5:25:07 PM PDT by markomalley
Marilyn Bradford is a therapist who tries to help people out of addiction, such as alcoholism, without any belief in a higher power. In short, she is a moral relativist preaching the “gospel” of moral relativism.
Having suffered from what was diagnosed as depression and alcoholism, as well as having put her faith in various gurus and belief systems, Marilyn knows first hand how frustrating and difficult it can be to move beyond other’s restrictive and rigid belief systems. Now free to know what she knows to be true for her, she empowers others to do the same. No one needs to be stuck with any addiction or mental health “condition” for the rest of their lives. Everything is changeable!
How might this work in real life? Blossom Benedict believes it would have helped her alcoholic father.
He had a difficult time being on this planet. On one hand he was an absolute genius. On the other hand, he truly did not fit in here.
The first time I heard my dear friend and radically different recovery expert Marilyn Bradford ask the question “what’s the value of this addiction?” in a class, light bulbs went off for me. What an absolutely brilliant illogically logical question. While others around me hemmed and hawed, I could see immediately the value alcohol was to my dad’s life.
It helped him sleep, he could turn off the judgment of his failing life, he had something to blame for his sadness, but mostly, for an hour a day or a month, he didn’t feel wrong.
When I looked at it from that perspective, with no other real methods to cope, alcohol probably kept him on the planet a good deal longer than if he had tried to survive those things on his own. I was actually grateful for that.
What an interesting way of looking at alcoholism, that it is something someone can be ‘grateful’ for. Have you heard this philosophy expressed somewhere else? If you’re paying attention to the political and philosophical arguments for ‘gay marriage,’ you will be familiar with the claim that same-sex attraction is a gift. ‘Gay marriage’ must be seen, they say, for the ‘good things’ that it brings. The main ‘good thing’ that is touted is ‘commitment to another person.’
Moral relativism is the driving philosophy of the ‘gay rights’ movement. Rather than being neutral on religion, it is a philosophy which requires us to believe that religion is bad. In a sense, it has become the religion of the anti-religious. Bradford and others say that they are finding it to be healthier to reject any belief system, and yet their philosophy is a belief system.
One does not have to be Catholic to see the error in this thinking. It defies the definition of ‘wrong’:
“Wrong” can refer to something being immoral:
1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
“Wrong” can refer to a fact being erroneous:
2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
“Wrong” can refer to incorrect judgment of another person:
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
“Wrong” can refer to something that defies conventional practice:
4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.
“Wrong” can refer to disorder.
5. out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.
All five of these things have implications in core Catholic teaching, but at the same time, make sense to everyone who has not be indoctrinated by moral relativists to reject that something can be “wrong.”
Hopefully, you can see that if our country accepts moral relativism, that “wrong” is no longer what we have always known to be wrong, particularly if this philosophy has the force of civil law behind it, we are headed down a path of destruction. If nothing is “wrong” then anything can be legal. Further, as we see in “gay marriage,” not only is “wrong” made “legal” but “wrong” is enshrined as a “good” in state law.
‘Gay rights’ activists are imposing a belief system everywhere that they argue for ‘gay marriage,’ while claiming that they are not. Even as Marilyn Bradford and other moral relativists claim to be freeing people from “rigid” belief systems, one must rigidly hold to the belief that her philosophy is correct (not ‘wrong’) in order to apply it. Moral relativism is delusional thinking, in other words. Moral relativists are deluded in thinking that their belief system is a rejection of belief systems and they are spreading this delusion.
Whenever Christians and others argue, in the political sphere, that ‘gay marriage’ is a slippery slope, they are mocked for “trying to impose a belief system.” In reality, ‘gay marriage’ is an imposition of a belief system that claims to reject belief systems. Further, it is a belief system that demands that we see the ‘good’ in everything that we have always known to be wrong.
Moral relativism has driven any number of left-wing movements. Abortion advocates, for example, want us to see the ‘good’ in abortion. If we do not have legal abortion, they say, women will die from “back-alley” abortions, therefore we must accept abortion. The same philosophy is professed, if we dig deeply enough, in the arguments for “income equality.” Sure, everyone will be more poor if the state mandates income equality, but the goal is that we are all “equal.” That we must all be “equal” is a value, and it is greatly distorted in the hands of moral relativists to the point of accepting equal poverty for all. Well, except for the few elites at the top as we see in communist countries like China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union.
So, what do we do about the fact that moral relativism has taken such a hold in our country? The answer is that those of us who still believe that something can be “wrong,” in accordance with the dictionary definition above, need to put aside our differences and fight for what is right. Otherwise, what is right will be trampled by those who would have us believe that evil can be right.
Gay Marriage is kinda like leasing. It sounds really good to most people but it fails in practice. Most of the gay marriages I have seen had nothing to do with marriage. They were all focused on “acceptance”. “We’re married and you have to accept us now”. The problem is that the novelty wears off and you find you are trapped with someone that was just a “partner”. I don’t know any gay couples that are monogamous. They all run around on each other.
You can’t just walk out of a marriage. There are legal considerations. When one spouse has more money, it turns into a nasty situation because gay men do not practice fiscal responsibility. Money is for pleasure, not the future.
Lesbians have more of a grasp of the concept but they are women on emotional steroids. There is always one rational one and one “crazy one”. Every man knows about crazy women. They are to be avoided. The ONLY polygamous units I have seen have been lesbians.
And they can use Moral Relativism when they are done with their useful idiots to get rid of their useful idiots.....
The useful idiots usually don’t realize this until they are up against the wall and blindfolded...
there is no wrong, that moral relativism cannot make right.
Oh, wait, the gays don't have gonads...at least functioning gonads. Nevertheless they should be kicked to the curb for nonstop bullying.
WRONG - is putting your pee-pee where it don’t belong.
"Gay rights" is definitely being pushed as a moral absolute, even though it isn't really one.
You has struck the nail on its head.
In PC land, your moral values are relative, mine are absolute.
Liberal moralizing is simply a violation of separation of church and state, and nothing else. They get away with it every day while anyone speaking from the convictions of their organized religion is shut out of the public debate.
I am asking Freeper's everywhere to carry the liberal/gay logic beyond the current question and try to destroy their arguments by demanding that Gays recognize yet a further non-complimentary set of rights that is made possible by the Gay Rights argument. Thus, they will forced to defend and find it impossible to say that their rights are the final say, but that their own rights are just something to be trampled in the long march of arguments.
On the other hand, “Who am I to judge?”
God has already judged. “And God gave them over......” (Romans 1)
So, alcoholism is good because it masks failures in life? That’s like saying hitting yourself in the head over and one again with a hammer is good- because it feels so good when you stop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.