Beliefnet.Com Goes Belly-Up In The Sea Of Religious Relativism

How very broad minded of you. I guess one could say that you're dogmatically relativistic.

There are a lot of people out there who believe Joseph Smith's writings to be legitimate, and would defend that belief, and the belief in everything he wrote. Some of them are probably reading this. If you don't believe that way, why not? He has the truth, doesn't he? Basically, to me none of you have anything that has been able to prove your claims to be any more valid than the others.

It goes to the old saying "I'll tell you why I reject your religion as true when you can tell me how you can reject thousands of other religions as false, claiming yours to be true."

Or to put it another way: What's the difference between an atheist and a Christian? An atheist simply rejects only one more god as false than the Christian does. I mean, rejecting 1,000 or rejecting 1,001, not much of a difference.

So what you're saying, then, is that when it's a real matter of life and death (like building a bridge), relativism is absurd. There are bridges that will stand, and there are bridges that will fall. All beliefs are not equally valid.

You are a little too hung up on "provability" though. In the case of the bridge, it is nice that we can "prove," through mathematics and engineering, that the bridge will stand up to use. However, a flaw in the steel, or a cavity in the concrete, would render this "proof" useless. What we really need in this case is not provability, but a sound bridge.

So when it comes to issues of life and death of the spirit, how can relativism take hold? Perhaps you view all religions as equally INvalid, rather than equally valid. This is your perogative, but at least you might be honest about it. If you believe that there is no spirit and no eternity, that is not relativism, it is as absolute as an fundamentalist christian. If you aren't sure what's true, that isn't relativism either. Relativism is a denial that there is such a thing as truth. From what you said about the bridge, you have already as much as admitted that some claims are more true than others...

As with a bridge, don't confuse truth with provability. The existence of unprovable truth is something that you must learn to live with, not to scoff at, unless you are prepared to throw mathematics out the window as well. And then how would you prove that a steel-reinforced bridge would stand?

Actually, the soundness of a bridge can be tested without any mathematics. Just drive over it. If it is sound, it will support you and you will safely reach the other side. If it is not, then it will collapse and you will perish. All the proofs in the world will be of no use to you then.

And it is the same with the very real issues of the eternal and spiritual. (The issues are real, even if there is no eternity and no spirit.) The ultimate test of a religion or philosophy will come when it is time to "drive over the bridge"—i.e., when you die. At that time, all the proofs in the world will be useless to you. Your bridge will stand or fail, and you will be safe or you will perish, according not to clever "proofs" but according to whether or not your "bridge" was sound.

The ultimate test of a religion or philosophy will come when it is time to "drive over the bridge"—i.e., when you die. At that time, all the proofs in the world will be useless to you. Your bridge will stand or fail, and you will be safe or you will perish, according not to clever "proofs" but according to whether or not your "bridge" was sound.

And there's the crux of the problem. I drive over a bridge every morning, and I know it works, I have evidence, I'm still here, it didn't collapse. But you don't have any evidence that driving over the Christian bridge at time of death will support you any more than the Hindu bridge. No one's called back from the Christian heaven saying it's great, no Hindu from the Christian hell saying he drove over the wrong bridge.

So, to extend the metaphor, we know that the land drops off abruptly, with no bottom in sight. People speak of another side, but mists obscure the view. Perhaps there is no other side, and all simply perish when they go.

But again, where is the possibility of relativism? If there is no "other side" then that is the absolute truth, and all who say otherwise are simply...wrong. If there is another side, then at least all who say that are right, at least on one point, while the others are wrong.

To make plain my point, if after the death of your body you continue to be aware of yourself and other things, then everyone who said that there was no "afterlife" will have been proven conclusively wrong. If not, then those who said there was an "afterlife" for everyone will have been proven conclusively wrong.

As far as I can tell, your "relativism" is nothing more than saying that you have seen no evidence that conclusively favors one metaphysical description over another. This is hardly relativism, since you apparently don't believe that, e.g., christianity and hinduism can both be true on all points simultaneously. You certainly don't seem to believe that a description of reality can somehow be true "for me" but false "for you." What you seem to believe is that all religions are wrong. That is not relativism, that is simply atheism, or perhaps strong agnosticism.

But you don't have any evidence that driving over the Christian bridge at time of death will support you any more than the Hindu bridge.

Correction: I have not offered you any evidence. If by "evidence" you mean scientific evidence, or legal evidence, or historical evidence, which would be admissible and persuasive in, respectively, a peer-reviewed journal, a court of law, or a historical symposium, perhaps you are correct. Although I have heard of a lawyer who decided to disprove Christianity on the basis of the evidence and ended up convinced rather of its truth...

But to say that I have no evidence is, I believe, overreaching your grasp. What type of evidence do you have that would prove that you are truly self-aware? Subjective evidence only. I could be convinced by that, but only because I am willing to believe it to start with. Someone who was unwilling would remain unconvinced.

No one's called back from the Christian heaven saying it's great, no Hindu from the Christian hell saying he drove over the wrong bridge.

Jesus actually taught briefly on that issue. Some call it a "parable" but it is never identified as such; it is told as a true story. If you are interested you can find it in Luke 16:19-31. We see one man in hell and another in heaven. The one in hell desires that his still-living brothers would be warned from his fate. He is unable to return or in any other way "call back" and warn them. The one in heaven could perhaps return (this is not clear), but he is aware of the futility of it: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.

You appear to have already discounted what God has said. If someone did return from the dead, you could undoubtedly find "alternative hypotheses" to explain it away, in the best of scientific terms. And even if your mind was convinced, it is not likely that it would bring about a change in your "inner man" as the Bible would say.

So why would we expect anyone to leave the joy of heaven for a useless and dreary trip back to this dull country, just to waste their time on someone who has already rejected the message? Certainly the lack of this phenomenon proves nothing.

As far as I can tell, your "relativism" is nothing more than saying that you have seen no evidence that conclusively favors one metaphysical description over another. This is hardly relativism, since you apparently don't believe that, e.g., christianity and hinduism can both be true on all points simultaneously. You certainly don't seem to believe that a description of reality can somehow be true "for me" but false "for you." What you seem to believe is that all religions are wrong. That is not relativism, that is simply atheism, or perhaps strong agnosticism.

Almost perfect. It's possible that one religion is right, while the others are all wrong, but I do find that highly unlikely. If there is one truth, it's more likely that all religions have captured a portion of it, each being right to some degree. However, this possibility would outrage the "we're right, you're wrong" fundies of all religions.

Then there is the interesting possibility of what you mentioned (well-portrayed in Robert Heinlein's book "Job: A Comedy of Justice") where everybody's factually right and everybody goes to their own heaven/hell/valhalla, etc.

Or maybe there's nothing. Who knows? If believing something makes you happy, more power to you, I hope you use your religion for good. I simply find my comfort, purpose and morality in not believing

. Jesus actually taught briefly on that issue. Some call it a "parable" but it is never identified as such; it is told as a true story.

They wrapped things up quite nicely in some places, didn't they? Well-written religions usually have these simple bases covered, I don't know why I haven't seen that one before.

If someone did return from the dead, you could undoubtedly find "alternative hypotheses" to explain it away, in the best of scientific terms.

I used to be believe, but then I "woke up." If a true miracle like this happened that could possibly turn me back (and not the "we prayed and his cancer went into remission" miracles)

If there is one truth, it's more likely that all religions have captured a portion of it, each being right to some degree.

A case of "seven blind men and the elephant"? Or perhaps "even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn." That doesn't exactly make any of them "valid."

Then there is the interesting possibility of what you mentioned (well-portrayed in Robert Heinlein's book "Job: A Comedy of Justice") where everybody's factually right and everybody goes to their own heaven/hell/valhalla, etc.

...in which case it would be more precise to say that everybody was factually wrong, since each believed that his/her afterlife would be experienced universally. Plainly, if any person ended up in a place that was neither heaven nor hell, the Christian teachings would be in error, and similarly for the other religions. If things happened as Robert Heinlein portrayed them, then his "religion" would be absolutely true, and all others would be false. How else?

I used to be believe, but then I "woke up." If a true miracle like this happened that could possibly turn me back...

Back to what? "Belief" is not conversion: "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." Not all faith is saving faith. You can "wake up" from a belief, but saving faith will change you radically. I pray that such a faith would be quickened in you.

God is still doing astounding signs and wonders in the world. Only by His grace, however, are a person's eyes opened to take notice. And, "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Therefore the skeptic somehow never sees the signs, and never wonders at the wonders. And the skeptic generally insists that if God were real, He would perform His miracles in scientifically controlled studies. But God resists the proud.

"...neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead."

The large crowd of the Jews then learned that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He raised from the dead. But the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death also; because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and were believing in Jesus. (John 12:9-11 NAS95)

There it is. After a miracle, the humble were "believing in Jesus" while the proud were planning to "put to death" the living evidence of the miracle. How much plainer can it get?

That doesn't exactly make any of them "valid."

No it doesn't, including Christianity. But I like to think more nicely than that.

...in which case it would be more precise to say that everybody was factually wrong, since each believed that his/her afterlife would be experienced universally

Or maybe just wrong on that one little bit of dogma, then the rest of the possibilities open up.

You can "wake up" from a belief, but saving faith will change you radically. I pray that such a faith would be quickened in you.

Thanks, but no thanks. I've read the Bible and I'd hate to think I were commanded by all of it, told to follow the examples of the "moral" people within ("Here you go guys, take my daughter" You'd have to kill me first). Same for the Koran. However, I can't rule out the chance of possible conversion to believing in a deity in general, or the Christian deity, but only as loosley interpreted in the Bible -- you never know what will happen in the future

Therefore the skeptic somehow never sees the signs, and never wonders at the wonders.

Or the religious see signs where there are none. We don't know. There was another thread mentioning the signs seen by schizophrenics. Are they any less valid?

There it is. After a miracle, the humble were "believing in Jesus" while the proud were planning to "put to death" the living evidence of the miracle. How much plainer can it get?

Not much plainer, but it could be from a more authoritative and objective source. Now if Josephus had mentioned it too, that might be convincing.

GOP Golden Oldie:

"Our government makes no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith. And I don't care what it is."

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

And I don't care what it is."

You know ... I meant to get back to you and your post about your friend and his pet theories.

The use of Christ on GUM is just as crass and patently pathetic as Bush's chirping about his "favorite Philosopher", engaging in a bid for "faith-based partnerships" and using Scripture to support his decision re: the "Excess" human lives (already-been-killed) which he decided we should fund as part of the Government's Hopeful Human Mulch R&D.

It's like Cheney's "KEEEEEEP SPENDING" mantra as part of the win:win Holy War we're waging against "radicalized militant Islam.

It's a rank corruption of the tenacious and resilient faith that survived 80 years of militant atheism only to be used like some Madison Avenue imprimatur on the State's pushing folks into liberation of their passions and their pocketbooks.

Face it ... decided contrast between the cheesy Protestant TV preachers one finds clogging the airwaves in Ukraine and Russia -- with their big hair and made-up faces babbling about the Blessings of Prosperity -- and the kicking out of Catholic Monsignors.

As you know, I also was not so impressed with the "private" corporate sponsors who made the State's mandated rebuild of Christ our Savior a reality. Granted, Beauty's a real thing with which to contend. It's possible even the truly cunning among them don't realize what they've done in some respects but the State put the last brick in and can take the last brick out.

Perhaps it's one of those "you had to be there" moments.

Just remember that my theories (save those which come to me in dreams, perhaps, and about which I say little if anything) are based always in facts.

Tom DeLay's address to the Strategic Institute on the "saving graces of Western Materialism" where China is concerned lodged in my brain, that's all. Soulless materialist who view us as free-spending longpigs who are best ruled by their passions are surely not above using Christ as a trademark.

Both Professor and Mrs. Molnar agreed with me that it's the West's materialism and abject amorality masquerading as "liberty" (such as the Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding the "free speech" that is cyber-child sex) which will prove successful where militant atheist communism failed.

The rebuilding of the Churches and tourism and such may be big business but a phalanx of grannies in the churches is hardly any match for the cell phones and see-through blouses and swarms of prostitutes and throbbing club muzak which are carrying the day on the sidewalks.

The high priests at the Fed and their acolytes at every level of government ensure that the longpig faithful put their trust in the transcendental (and transforming) nature of Debt by excess of distraction, not suffering by privation.

No one's called back from the Christian heaven saying it's great, no Hindu from the Christian hell saying he drove over the wrong bridge.

Aside from the rich man and Lazarus account you claim to have never seen, there is another - Jesus Christ Himself. Many, many people saw him after the resurrection. He did tell of the wonderful place from which He came.

He was either a fraud, a lunatic, or the Son of God. He either knew He was lying, believed His lie, or was telling the truth. The absolute truth, by the way. The men following him were willing to DIE rather than renounce Him. They knew He was the real deal. They had seen Him die - and they saw Him after He rose. AND HE SAID HE WAS THE ONLY WAY.

If you are brave enough, I have a book I will send you. If you are open minded enough, send me by private reply your mailing address and I will send it immediately. It makes the case much better than I can. Do you dare?

All of your religions are equal to me, all claims to Truth equally valid

So the Truth of reincarnation, Nirvanah, Valhalla, Taoism, Allah, Yahwe are all valid and non-contradictory...hmm...

If that's true, you should have no objection to widow burning, female circumcision, child sacrifices, or prayer in schools, because hey, they're all equally valid...

Bush's chirping about his "favorite Philosopher", engaging in a bid for "faith-based partnerships" and using Scripture to support his decision re: the "Excess" human lives (already-been-killed) which he decided we should fund as part of the Government's Hopeful Human Mulch R&D.

OK. OK. OK. All granted. But what I asked is whether the GUM icon speaks to a cultural memory or not. It's always interesting to know what's rattling round your head, but it'd also be interesting to know what a Russian woman sees when she steps into GUM. Can you speak to that?

It's a rank corruption of the tenacious and resilient faith that survived 80 years of militant atheism only to be used like some Madison Avenue imprimatur…

Possibly; see above. (speaking of rank corruption and the startling juxtaposition of incompatible images in general, see Mr. Yeats, below) But how does a disgust for misappropriation of religious images square with the Sierra Trading Post catalog you flipped through in my kitchen - the one, remember, with the gospel verse (John 10:10 if I recall), on the order page, which at the time you pronounced "cool"? Was that somehow different, or was your formidable radar not functioning that night? And how, for that matter, does it square with "white" voodoo and Mardi Gras river "baptisms"?

As you know, I also was not so impressed with the "private" corporate sponsors who made the State's mandated rebuild of Christ our Savior a reality.

Did the local worthies in 13th century Chartres have to twist arms to persuade the wheelwrights to cough up for a handsome window? And if they did, does this invalidate the structure in the eyes of God's mother, whose relic it houses? You tell me.

You have every right to be not so impressed about the practice of corporate sponsorship - then, as now. True, at least in the case of Chartres, we know an authentic faith was present. Does your charity permit you to believe the same in the case of Christ Our Savior, or do you condemn the entire exercise as a cynical sham?

Perhaps it's one of those "you had to be there" moments.

Have I ever told you how much I respect your intuition and gift for synthesis? But nobody bats 1.000. And anyway, I ain't saying you're wrong - only "how do you know?" And not to challenge you - but because I want to know too.

Tom DeLay's address to the Strategic Institute on the "saving graces of Western Materialism" where China is concerned lodged in my brain, that's all. Soulless materialist who view us as free-spending longpigs who are best ruled by their passions are surely not above using Christ as a trademark.

Fine. It never hurts to be reminded that materialism seeks to hijack true religion. Thank you. And I understand how ideas and images ferment and cross-pollinate in the brain and produce original insights. I'm asking how you know your GUM criticism is a fair cop, when the Rock 'n' Bowl (not to mention ten million Mexican restaurants ) displays an image of the BVM, and every other Haitian taxicab bears the legend "Merci Jesus."

the West's materialism and abject amorality masquerading as "liberty" (such as the Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding the "free speech" that is cyber-child sex) which will prove successful where militant atheist communism failed.

Here too Pius XII was right: false religion is more durable than atheism.

CRAZY JANE TALKS WITH THE BISHOP

I met the Bishop on the road
And much said he and I.
'Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
Those veins must soon be dry;
Live in a heavenly mansion,
Not in some foul sty.'

'Fair and foul are near of kin,
And fair needs foul,' I cried.
'My friends are gone, but that's a truth
Nor grave nor bed denied,
Learned in bodily lowliness
And in the heart's pride.

'A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.'

Aside from the rich man and Lazarus account you claim to have never seen, there is another - Jesus Christ Himself. Many, many people saw him after the resurrection. He did tell of the wonderful place from which He came.

I'd heard of the Lazarus tale, just not the parable. The problem is that to me these are untrustworthy accounts. Even the accounts of the resurrection differ. In any case, other religions can offer the same "miracles," so Christianity is not special in this case.

Send the book, but it must make a logical case within itself without appeal to the absolute authority of the Bible (I believe it to be highly embellished history).

If that's true, you should have no objection to widow burning, female circumcision, child sacrifices, or prayer in schools, because hey, they're all equally valid

Most of what you specify is cultural, not religious. I don't have a problem with student prayer in schools either, but then neither does the Supreme Court. Some teacher forcing my kid to recite your prayers, either by orders or social pressure, that's another matter.

Also, I do think they should be teaching religion in schools (not indoctrination, teaching). What, it's not an important subject?

Send me your mailing address. The book is as good as on its way.

And, to answer your question, the author does not rely on the Bible for its own "proof".