Posted on 04/18/2002 7:40:18 AM PDT by detsaoT
:) ttt
So says the "i'm right, you're wrong" relativist.
And the project itself attracted the vanity dollars of wealthy media types who saw in Beliefnet a chance to buy some cheap grace and--if they were lucky--make money doing it. It was doomed from the start.
This is an excellent quote. My regards!
:) ttt
Perhaps.
Or maybe most people still have just enough wisdom to understand that the fundamental questions of existence are supremely important, and that these questions—indeed, any questions concerning reality—cannot have contradictory answers. A website offering many contradictory answers to life's fundamental questions isn't going to be particularly compelling.
It is reasonable to acknowledge and tolerate the fact that different people espouse different answers to life's questions. It is intellectually dishonest to claim to embrace all conflicting answers. And it is monstrous to call that embrace, "tolerance."
I think you hit it better than me. People would prefer to live in their little secure worlds, thinking their religion provides the only answers. Having someone so blatantly show there are other answers probably made people uncomfortable.
All of your religions are equal to me, all claims to Truth equally valid. Admittedly, some are far more entertaining than others.
I see a lot of hate against Islam here, not the actions of individuals but the religion itself. But Islam also has "The Truth" doesn't it? But it differs from yours.
Which version was he going to cut: Protestant, Catholic or Jewish?
Nihilistic relativism didn't kill it, having a lame-brained "new economy" advertising-driven business model did. DrKoop.com glowed red and disappeared, too, but nobody takes that as a sign that people are rejecting medicine and returning to bleeding and leeches.
How very broad minded of you. I guess one could say that you're dogmatically relativistic.
"Admittedly, some are far more entertaining than others.
Oh yes, I agree completely. And nothing is more entertaining than watching someone who claims to find "all religions equal...all claims to Truth equally valid" pretending to be open minded.
All of your religions are equal to me, all claims to Truth equally valid. Admittedly, some are far more entertaining than others.
Problem:We want to build a bridge connecting two cliffs above a high canyon. How should it be built?
Answer 1. Build a bridge out of paper and string. According to my beliefs, that should be fine for any vehicle up to 20 tons.
Answer 2. Build a bridge out of steel-reinforced concrete. According to my beliefs, that should be good enough for cars and light trucks.
Answer 3. Don't bother with a bridge. According to my beliefs, the canyon is just an illusion. Just close your eyes and walk across.
Is anyone actually stupid enough to believe that in a real situation ALL of these "claims to truth" would be "equally valid"??
If so, you can demonstrate it. Since the "bridge" claim and the "illusion" claim are equally valid, next time you come to a bridge, walk or drive beside it, not on it. Perhaps then you will be taken a little more seriously. If you are not willing to do this, then perhaps you lack the courage of your "convictions."
What about the claim that "not all claims to Truth [sic] are equally valid"? Is that claim also "equally valid"?
Relativists typically end up arguing that "All truth is relative, except the 'truth' that all truth is relative, which is absolute". A logical system constructed around such blatant special pleading isn't a very sound system.
I heard Frank Peretti yesterday on Focus on the Family. This is a paraphrase.
Relativists say we all create our own reality. In that case, you created me. So if I bother you, take it up with yourself...
I didn't say that. I only said that to me all of the claims are equally valid. I should have perhaps said it more blatantly, that all of the claims are equally invalid, with nothing really to support them.
The big difference here is that we have religionists telling me, the one who wants to build the bridge, that their way is best with absolutely no proof behind the claims. With your example, you can lump all the mysticists under Answer 1 who would build it out of matchsticks if their holy book told them that was the correct way. You can lump everyone else under Answer 2 because that answer has only sound engineering behind it, no mysticism.
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.