Monday, February 28, 2011

"What is Truth?"

INRI – "Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum"
"Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews"
Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?"

Jesus answered, "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?"

Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?"

Jesus answered, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world."

Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?"

Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."

Pilate said to him, "What is truth?"

After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again, and told them, "I find no crime in him."
[...]
Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

John 18:33-38, 19:19
Pope Benedict XVI gave us a new mode of thinking about the struggles facing the Church of Christ in the 21st millennium when he coined the phrase "dictatorship of relativism" in a homily on the day before he became the Pope.
"Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be 'tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine', seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."
This is not a new trivial slogan, but instead embodies a profound truth. He clearly states that there is a threat by the use of the word "dictatorship". And he defines the source of that threat which is "relativism".

In fact he exposes a truth which normally remains hidden just underneath of the surface of the cultural changes sweeping the globe. And he not only uncovers it, but he also simultaneously strips away its pleasant mask and reveals its grotesquely horrible face.

Relativism is not so much a new philosophy or religion that competes with the teachings of Christianity as it is a tactic or a strategy used in attacking Christianity. It does not directly deny Christian teachings, it simply smothers them by denying the absolute truth of those teaching. It is a subtle strategy of undermining Christianity which does not directly force individuals to abandon their faith, but instead gently guides them along a path which ultimately leads to either agnosticism or atheism.

Relativism simply states that there are no absolute truths when it comes to matters of religion which is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Relativism deflects this criticism by saying that it is unopposed to the individual clinging to his or her own personal beliefs, but that no group should be allowed to impose its beliefs on others.

While relativism hides behind a mask of tolerance, the purpose of this strategy is to weaken and undermine the religious beliefs of people. Tolerance is normally a virtue, but in this case tolerance is used to mask intolerance.

If relativism is not a philosophy but rather a strategy, then there must be a philosophy that is directing this strategy. Once one becomes aware of the way in which this strategy is employed to attack religion – and in particular Christianity – then it is not too hard to discern the group that most benefits from this strategy.

That group refers to itself as Humanists. They are sometimes referred to as "secular humanists". Of course "humanist" is a deceptive term which is designed to create in the mind a benevolent image. But like communism, humanism in practice is very different from humanism in theory.

Humanism is nothing other than a modern day invocation of the "cult of reason" that attempted to destroy Christianity during the French Revolution.
The Cult of Reason was explicitly humanocentric. Its goal was the perfection of mankind through the attainment of truth and liberty, made possible only by the exercise of the human faculty of reason. Though atheism was at the core of the cult, it defined itself as more than a mere rejection of gods: in the manner of conventional religion, it encouraged acts of congregational worship, with frequent and rigorous displays of devotion to Reason as an ideal.
This "cult of reason" which pretended to base itself on "truth and liberty" did not itself rely on reason to convince the people of France in the 1790s of its political correctness – instead it resorted to violence.
By the end of the decade, approximately thirty thousand priests had been forced to leave France, and others who did not leave were executed. Most French parishes were left without the services of a priest and deprived of the sacraments. Any non-juring priest faced the guillotine or deportation to French Guiana. By Easter 1794, few of France's forty thousand churches remained open; many had been closed, sold, destroyed, or converted to other uses.
Today's "cult of reason" replaces "congregational worship" with the political rally. Instead of a direct "devotion of Reason", humanism worships reason through the intercession of "human rights".

In fact you could say that people receive a sort of "daily communion" within the modern cult of reason through political talk shows and the "liturgy of the hours" of this cult is the hourly newscast, while the Sunday talk shows are a sort of "weekly mass".

What we are beginning to see now is a new phase in the strategy of the humanists. Having accomplished their goal of deceiving Christians into relinquishing power through their strategy of relativism, the humanist forces no longer feel the need to be "tolerant". Instead they have begun to impose their humanist monofaith on society and have openly declared their disdain for Christianity.

Their "holy trinity" is something like Science, Evolution and Human Rights – where Science is "the father", Evolution is "the son", and Human Rights is "the holy spirit".

Back in the Old Testament days of the French Revolution, they only had "the father" – Science aka Reason. Then in the mid 1800's "the prophet" Charles Darwin gave birth to "the son" – Evolution. And finally their version of "the holy spirit" descended in the late 1900's in the form of the "human rights" movement.

Anyone who "blasphemes" this unholy humanist trinity is subject to being ritually "stoned to death" in the public media.

And while it would seem that conservative Republicans are not part of this cult, I am not convinced that most of them are doing anything more than giving lip service to their opposition to the humanist movement. In contrast the Vatican fully identified this enemy long ago and has been uncompromisingly waging war against it.

In the meantime we have a President who while he claims to be a Christian, is openly championing every one of the dogmas of the humanist agenda. He is what I would call a "closet humanist". There is nothing to suggest that Obama is a Christian other than his public statements. And even though he keeps repeating this assertion, the majority of the US population is not convinced.


One thing that is known for certain is that Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a humanist. We know this from Obama's own book "Dreams from My Father" where he says, "she was a lonely witness for secular humanism [in Muslim Indonesia]". She has been described by her own daughter as an agnostic, and by her best friend in high school as an atheist.

Obama's own religious tendencies seem to be determined more by political expediency than by any deeply held belief. Even a fundamental Christian belief like the sanctity of marriage is given a humanist interpretation by the "Christian" Obama.

The genius of the Obama presidential campaign was not in what he said, but what he did not say. He left a lot of blank spaces in his statements and let the listener fill in those spaces with what he or she wanted to hear. So Christians could hear Obama speaking on marriage and come out believing that what he said was in agreement with their beliefs, while a humanist who was more in tune with the Obama message would understand the full meaning of his statements.

Here for example is Obama's reply when asked during the presidential campaign to define marriage.


WARREN: Define marriage.

OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But –

WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

OBAMA: No, I would not.

WARREN: Why not?

OBAMA: Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.
Anyone, who believes the issue of "gay marriage" is going to end at "civil unions" has not been paying attention to the news lately. That is just the bait.

Notice how Obama introduces "civil rights" into the argument. It is through the ever widening definition of "human rights" (aka "civil rights") that the humanists advance their agenda. Obama uses the tactic of portraying the non-Christian minority as victims that are unjustly persecuted by Christians for their beliefs.

What Obama does not say is that "civil unions" is just a step in a larger gay agenda which demands that Christians abandon their beliefs that homosexual sex (and any other sex outside of marriage) is immoral.

And not coincidentally the name of the leading group that is fighting to impose "gay marriage" on America is the HRC – the Human Rights Campaign – which describes itself as the nations largest "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization". Confused? You probably thought that "human rights" was about justice for poor people in developing nations.

Finally, here is a sample of President Obama's enthusiastic speech at a "Human Rights Campaign" dinner in 2009. I haven't listened to the whole speech but somehow, I don't think that during this speech he threw in the line, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix."



-----

[UPDATE]

Just after I finished writing this article, I did a search in the news for "humanist" and found this interesting (and somewhat funny, but vulgar) video in which Bill Maher says that President Obama is only pretending to be a Christian but is really a secular humanist. And Bill Maher should know because he is a certifiable secular humanist himself. It's strange how uncomfortable people seem to be with that label. At one point the conversation strays to the belief by some that Obama is a Muslim. This draws the reaction, "do they know what a Muslim is?" (laughter follows) Oh, but these panelist do not seem to have any idea what a secular humanist is. "You mean like agnostic?" Well, sort of. Along with Maher, it's likely that everyone in that panel would find that they are more in tune with humanist philosophy than the teachings of the Catholic Church.

1 comment:

  1. UPDATE: I added a link to the source of the quote "dictatorship of relativism" by Pope Benedict XVI. I also included the the surrounding text of that quote:

    "Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."

    It's interesting to note that this quote comes from a homily which Cardinal Ratzinger gave on the day before his election to become Pope Benedict XVI.

    ReplyDelete