Saturday, January 29, 2005

A says,"What is 2+2?" B says,"What do you want it to be?"

2 mid-sem tests, 3 papers, one carrying 40%. No wonder I'm talking in numbers even in my blog's title.

Have you heard someone say, "There is no absolutes. It's wrong for you, but it's right for me"? Hedonese posted in his blogspot recently.

Well, I have not only heard of it, I was pretty much a relativist as far as relativism can get, haha.

So, I may be writing too early a response to "Is Truth Insulin or Ice- cream?", a theological tsunami paving its way to CDPC tomorrow... syiok sendiri, perhaps?

Relativism itself is a mega-tsunami- it just wipes out every sphere of understanding of our rationality on absolute truth- hence, the reason behind the title to this posting. Probably the easiest way to answer a question nowadays is either to answer it with another question ie. "What do you think?" or worse still, "What do you exactly mean by this?" :) and worst of all, "What do you want it to be?"

The world embraces relativism with open arms, simply because it propogates choice. Probably most relativists sing "It's my life" before they go to work every morning.

I find what John Piper said about this is interestingly true, that relativism "has sophisticated advocates in virtually every sphere of learning and life".
Even in the legislative system, we find that the Constitution is no longer controlled entirely by what the founders intended to be, but according to the intepretation of law by its contemporary judges and also by society at large.

Child molestation is now simply known as "intergenerational intimacy". And Man falls for such lame euphemism.

So, is truth meant to be indulged only when we feel like it? Or like insulin to diabetics, it is to be injected unto us, consistently;no matter if it pinches? Maybe our conscience will answer that for us.

Reading a comment by J. Budziszewski on Conscience and the rapid decay of it, it is interesting to note that "Conscience is not a passive barrier (seperti yang banyak orang fikirkan, kerana mereka tidak dapat melihat elemen kebendaannya) but an active force; though it can hold us back, it can also drive us on. Moreover, conscience comes not from without but from within: though culture can trim the fringes, the core cannot be changed. The reason things get worse so fast must somehow lie not in the weakness of conscience but in its strength, not in its shapelessness but in its shape".

It is also saying that we have the natural law- right for all and also known for all. And Relativism rejects the part where it is "right for all".

He argued(rightly, of course) that it is not our conscience that is weakened, but rather, is suppressed; to the point where the barrier of us in believing only in the absolute truth is lifted, and life has become an endless and vicious circle of 'choice'.

So, it is no longer about not knowing the truth; since the existence of the natural law ie "You shall keep to the promise that you made", "You shall honour your father and mother", "You shall not steal, murder" is very much known to us; whether or not we believe in the Bible, but more of escaping the truth and demeaning it by telling ourselves a different story instead.

Simply put it this way, suppressing our conscience does not weaken it, but rather, redirects its force to the opposite direction to justify our guilt. For instance, our conscience tells us that it is wrong to have premarital sex before marriage, but having done so, we justify our guilt by recreating reality- that we don't have to be married to have premarital sex as long as we love each other. Then we plunge deeper, thinking that since consummation is justified through love, therefore any relationships involving love- man with man, woman with woman (who cares?), have equal rights to be married to each other...but since they lack the ability to procreate, thie perversion is further justified by artificial insemination and adoption of children. "It's still a happy family- regardless of whether "Dad is Adam and Mom is Steve".

Relativism is not only about accepting various truths according to our liking, rather; it is encouraging us to live in a state of denial.
Ignorance is bliss? Hardly.

Lastly, J.Budziszewski said that, "To survive what is bearing down on us, we must learn four hard lessons: to acknowledge the natural law as a true and universal morality; to be on guard against our own attempts to overwrite it with new laws that are really rationalizations for wrong; to fear the natural consequences of its violation, recognizing their inexorability; and to forbear from all further attempts to compensate for immorality, returning on the path that brought us to this place."

Powerful, powerful statement.

So, is truth chocolate ice cream or vanilla sundae on a super hot day? More. It is glucose.

Taktik pengiklanan Tehtarik yang sebenar
Agora meeting- Is Truth Insulin or Ice-Cream?
Time: 2 pm
Date: 30 Jan 2005 (Sunday)
Venue: City Discipleship Presbyterian Church (Map:

Tehtarik would not be able to turn up for the meeting, though.
...6 hours of company law lecture, 360 minutes of tortorous interrogation, 21600 seconds of legalistic confusion...on a Sunday...sigh.


Blogger The Hedonese said...

If morality is relative there would be no room for sin, righteousness or the gospel... J. Budziszewski is a great defender of natural law in a time when it is laughed at and ridiculed in the academia. One friend dismissed Aquinas the way we would dismiss outdated silent Charlie Chaplin movies after watching the special effects of LOTR 3. But I think we have the courage to be unpopular, and the diligence to engage relativism, the tide can be stemmed... Soli Deo Gloria!

10:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home