Posted on 04/18/2002 7:40:18 AM PDT by detsaoT
News broke last week that Beliefnet.com, an internet site that promoted every "religion" from Wicca to Islam to Christianity, went belly up in the stormy sea of nihilistic relativism. In words describing why the site dipped into bankruptcy, an autobiographical epitaph if you will, Belief com stated that they were the darling of the secular news media, who quoted them frequently in a world of user-friendly news. I can hardly imagine that beliefnet.com will be missed by anybody other that those adhering to the most marginal of, excuse me, beliefs. As of this morning their death experience was complete, the site was down, hopefully not to be reincarnated as some other higher being in a spiritual caste system.
In today´s dumbed-down world of colors-run-together religion, Beliefnet.com was the king of the heap. Where else would you have a check box for today's devotional with Angel Spirituality, Bible Study, Muslim wisdom, Torah readings, and horoscopes all in the same pop-up? That´s how religion is viewed today, as one big heap of goodness. Come and get your fill of whatever floats your boat.
Pretty lame, I know. But the sad truth is that Christian media outlets regularly linked to news and stories on the page that now lives in the stricken domain shared by so many other dotcoms - Chapter 11. For the life of me I can´t understand why so many mainline Christian groups linked to features on the page, as it so well dabbled in both the Light and the dark. It´s apparent now, that most, even Buddhist, Wicca´s, and Muslims are looking elsewhere to find their spiritual food. In an era of increased political correctness and tolerance, one would have to think that a site like this would do pretty well, figuring the amount of tolerance and hodgepodge views the site incorporated.
It could be said that Christians should have supported the site for the sole purpose of bring the light into a place where there is darkness. Or that the site was a place where people coming to learn about other religions could come and stumble across the Good News. I think not.
Beliefnet.com was sentenced from the get-go because it muddled the darkness and the Light. It is one thing to bring the Light into the darkness, quite frankly that´s something that most of us Christians forget to do. If I remember many of the words in red were spoken, in love to those that needed it the most, the outcasts, the tax collectors, prostitutes, and lepers. The recipe for failure was not the fact the darkness brought the Christian message down, but rather that the Light drove away the darkness, along with the monetary support it held.
We are warned in numerous places in the New Testament that there will be those that come to kill, maim, and destroy. A site like Beliefnet.com brought Christians (if it truly was a Christian message there, and I have my doubts, but can´t actually say, because I rarely visited the site) to a place where the dreaded grey area was lifted upon the altar of pluralism. In recent months, we´ve all seen the growing relativism towards religion, especially in our new terror ridden world. Newsweek and Time have run front cover articles about how Judaism and Islam share the same spiritual father. I have seen several ecumenical prayer meetings with Muslim clerics, Buddhist monks, and Christian ministers praying for peace in the world, on the same pulpit. Beliefnet´s death has shown us that so far, everyone's not willing to get along, but it´s just the end of round one. As of this morning their death experience was complete, the site was down, perhaps, and hopefully not to be reincarnated as some other being higher in a spiritual caste system.
It has been said that before the public purchases a product, the advertisers have to buy it first. It is a good sign that the parties sponsoring the site have taken their dollars elsewhere, but the cat has already been let out of the hat. A soupy system of religious mix and match let forth the spirits that are destined to destroy man with his own knowledge. Or lack of knowledge.
:) 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.