Christianity: The Religion of Moral Relativism

Sorry for my absense lately: I have succumbed to something not unlike seasonal affective disorder--if it's real. I don't know. But it's been so dark and gloomy around here, and I've been craving some photosynthesis in my life. If I can't get into some woods, or at least a flower and garden show, I'll go crazy. That's what you get for moving from the Pacific Northwest to the frozen tundra.

So here is a recording of The Way of the Master Radio, with guest Reggie Finley, The Infidelguy. Listen at your own risk.

First of all, let me sayTodd Friel is an absolute, raving lunatic. I don't even have to tell you if you listen. But something struck me almost at the beginning of the show. At the heart of this brand of christianity, and I dare say, all christianity, is Moral Fucking Relativism.

If you don't already know, I'll say it briefly. Moral relativism is retarded.

If there are any mentally disabled people reading this, I apologize for comparing you to this concept. It's not you.

Take a number of individuals that for some reason define themselves or others (through no fault of their own, sometimes) as a "group." Maybe they live within certain imaginary boundaries. Maybe they like the same amateur pop singer on tv. Makes no difference to me. There is a general consensus to most people that a majority of members of this "group" feel that little girls should be mutilated at 9 years old and/or killed in the event of a family feud (there again, some of the individuals are placed in a group through no fault of their own. But I digress). Therefore, some retards think, mutilating and murdering little girls is "their culture," so you can't judge it; it's moral "to them." So you say. There are also several individuals, imagined to be the minority, that rightly declare this to be evil and disgusting and so on. We don't include the little girls because they have no choice in the matter and don't count. They can't even make the decision that what's happening to them is bad or good because they are completely enslaved. Moving along, the imagined minority is therefore immoral, and "counter-culture."

Remember that term? Moral relativists can't call themselves counter-culture anymore, unless they want to be immoral. I suppose that's possible. You better go along with it, just to be safe. I suppose you can "enter a group" of people called "counter-culture," but then you're not counter-culture anymore, because you're not counter to that culture. Unless you make a concerted effort to dissent from the counter-culture group. But then you're not counter to the culture you countered in the first place. Perhaps it makes more sense to remember you're an individual, and stop basing your morality on majority consensus of a socially constructed imaginary entity called "group."

So how does christianity fall into this nonsense? (How doesn't it?)
The simple answer is that if you believe in this religion, all morality is subject to the will (or whim) of God. here can be no morality that is objective, or based on reality.

The longer, and more entertaining argument is one made by many fundamentalists (and moderates) to justfy torture (I mean, Hell):

Todd: You see, if I squash a bug...just, just stomp on a cockroach, it's no big deal. The police aren't gonna come and arrest me. Now, if I kill a bum on the street, I'm gonna get into a lot of trouble.But if I assassinate a head of state, I am in serious trouble. Why is that? Same crime, but it's against whom it is committed; the offense becomes more serious. You can think that lusting is no big deal; telling a lie years ago is no big deal, but because it is against a holy, righteous, infinite creator-god, your offense is infinitely sinful, and deserving of the highest punishment.

Reggie: Oo, it sounds like God has some sensitivity issues.

Todd: Yes, He does. It's called Holiness, righteousness.

I added that last part because it was funny.

It is true that governments apply this sort of thinking to the law. Punishment is applied based upon the power of the victim. Juries punish based upon the perceived morality of the victim. Make the punishment fit the crime, right? Is this right? We should judge crimes based upon the popularity of the victim? If someone sues, his reward is based upon his likeability factor? A rapist should be punished based upon the sexual habits of the victim? What if she does everything right, but smokes? If we are really going to apply this law, let's do it right. Lets put the victims on trial. If you agree with this, then christianity should be all the more comfortable concept for you.

If we want to present a coherent argument to anyone; if we want to be correct, we must remember: if it is moral, it must apply to everyone in the same way, regardless of their power, their popularity, or their morality (sense the paradox). Otherwise, you're just hitting your head against a brick wall.