CHRISTIANITY IS PARASITIC ON MORAL RELATIVISTS
Christianity claims that morality is real and is not just opinions. Moral
relativists see it as a social construct or mere opinion.
A religion may be against moral relativism in principle
but still guilty of practicing it and thriving on it. A la carte Catholicism
being one obvious example. One example is how the Church says it is to hate sin
no matter who commits it. The Church makes a distinction between objective sin
and personal sin. A homosexual who has sex with a clear conscience is guilty of
an objective sin but not of a personal sin. His outward actions are sinful but
there is no sin in his heart. So the Church says it judges the act not the
person. The Church says it is to hate objective sin and personal sin. Why bother
hating a sinful heart if you can love or not care about what they do in terms of
objective sin?
Christians often do not act aggressively against sin. They do nothing. If you
have to save somebody from a burning house it is acceptable to be aggressive to
them to get them to hurry up and go.
Christians believe that God founded the Jewish religion and Christianity is not
a new religion but updated Judaism. Thus then Christians should say, "In Old
Testament times, we encouraged the stoning to death of idolaters, condemned
images of angels and God used in worship as idols, we ordered that priest's
daughters who committed sexual sin to be burned to death. God now takes
vengeance himself - the laws are still valid but he keeps them for us." That
belief is pure moral relativism.
Religion and many other entities in society, claim to be rational and encourage
people to take their rationality for granted. Actually that is very wrong and
manipulative and anti-rational. Reason necessarily means you do not tell others
you are rational - you show it to them. You lay out all the evidence by pen and
paper if you have to. Reason belongs to everybody not just those who claim to be
rational. Reason is about transparency in matters pertaining to evidence or
proof and about avoiding contradiction and mistaking what is not proof as proof.
Reason desires correction which is why it hides nothing from anybody.
If you have to have others taking your rationality for granted, that is only
right if there is no time or no opportunity to let them judge you for
themselves. But this will be seen as a necessary evil and hopefully provisional.
Religion by encouraging the world to trust that it is rational is encouraging
relativism in practice even if not in theory.
Only the individual knows if he or she is a relativist. It is possible to
promote an objective absolute morality and still not believe in it. You could be
a moral relativist pretending to be a servant of objective morality. If
relativism is correct, there is nothing wrong with this pretence!
Believers say that if there is no God then we decide what is moral and just not
him. They add that this is saying that there is no absolute right or wrong just
opinions.
That is nonsense. If we make mistakes in working out what is right, it does not
follow that right is just a matter of opinion. Their argument proves that they
are trying to control others and manipulate them through offering them faith in
God.
Christians say their moral doctrines come from God. People who want you to obey
their rules about God have to say God gave them. That is the only way to
discourage you from rejecting them. They are acting in case you think, "Why
should she tell me what to do? Am I not as good as her? Can I not decide for
myself?" With all the disagreements about God's moral code, it is clear that
there is a lot of humble men who are secretly arrogant and thinking they can
judge what God has said. Their egos delight when their word is taken for God's.
Those who say they heed only God are lying. They reason and judge for themselves
if God has spoken. They believe because they have decided God has spoken - that
is not the same thing as deciding because God has spoken.
The fact that Christians judge for themselves what is good shows they are
practicing the essentials of moral relativism. The person who is a relativist in
the name of God is a bigger relativist then the atheist relativist.
The teaching of some is: "We have free will. We are not obligated to do anything
be it good or bad. There is nothing you have to do. But there will be
consequences for the choices we make. If you are pleasant to nobody, you will be
very lonely and bitter." That is actually a form of moral relativism. It does
not care what you choose. It just concerns itself not with the morality of acts
but their consequences. It is actually a very selfish doctrine. It would have
you loving people not for their sake but because you want to avoid loneliness.
It is yourself you love not the people you pretend to love.
Beliefs that impact on our behaviour are the most important. Their claim that
you need God to validate morality then is the most important one they make in
favour of belief in God.
But it is wrong and fundamentally wrong. It is a root error. It means they
practice what looks like goodness but as far as motivation and honesty goes it
is anything but. It means the good atheist is actually worse than ten Christian
Hitlers.
Opponents of relativism say that nobody needs to learn that people have the
right to try to be happy, to think for themselves, to live and be free. They say
it does not take formation to establish those ideals in people. But it takes
"formation" to remove those ideals from people. Relativism results from a
de-formation of people and leads to further de-formation. Religion itself has
already done the ground-work. If religion turns people into relativists, it
should know that in time they will drift into a form of relativism that may even
hate and be hostile to the religion.
If our morals are just based on opinions they are based on opinions about what
is best. It is not our fault that we have to just have opinions. That we want to
know what the best is means there really is a best even if we don't know how to
go about it.
The Catholic God gives out an absolute morality for others but not himself. A
relativist often does the same thing. God excludes those who do not pray from
eternal salvation so not praying is always immoral. Another example is that he
says we have to believe in him no matter what even if it gets us killed by
enemies of God. Jesus said that prayers made without faith are no good so the
teaching on prayer implies you have to believe in God. We are to try to love God
more even though it will attract terrible temptations from Satan. Even if this
is good for it means you will go to Heaven when you die you are still undergoing
a lot of suffering over religious principles and doctrines that cannot be
adequately proven. God and Jesus do not keep an absolute morality themselves
when they allow bad things to happen for this supposedly justifiable purpose
they ramble on about. Therefore it is undeniable that the God the Bible and
Jesus claimed to show existed cannot exist for no excuse for him allowing evil
is possible. If we could excuse God then the God we excuse is not their God. It
is very wrong to teach that a kindly atheist has less hope of Heaven than a
selfish Christian who repents on the deathbed. This relativist God is evil and
those who worship him want to see others having to live with this horrendous
God.
The Christian even if not acting like a relativist, does worship a relativist
God. They justify the terrible things God makes and allows to happen and does.
They even endorse the terrible commands. They do not shy away from saying they
are God's laws.
If you feel good about agreeing with or doing something awful, you can excuse
this by saying that morality is relative. You can learn that persons or
religions are relativist when you learn of what they believe and see how they
act. But there is no test which shows that a religion or a person is NOT a
relativist. Somebody can deny they are relativist and still be. If
morality is opinion then what if they have the opinion that they must just play
along with principles associated with objective morality.
Relativism is so rife it is wise to assume everybody is a relativist even if
they say otherwise. Religion is a form of relativism despite its denials.
Read
American Journal of Jurisprudence, Volume 15 | Issue 1 Article 5, 1-1-1970, A
Critical Evaluation of Fletcher's Situation Ethics, Francis J. Kovach