Showing posts with label relativism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relativism. Show all posts
Monday, May 29, 2023
Monday, March 13, 2023
Saturday, March 7, 2020
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Deus Vult Illud? On Selective Obedience
More: Roper, the answer’s ‘no’. (Firmly.) And will be ‘no’ so long as you’re a heretic.
Roper: (firing) That’s a word I don’t like, Sir Thomas!
More: It’s not a likeable word. (Coming to life.) It’s not a likeable thing!
Bolt, Robert (2013-12-04). A Man For All Seasons (Modern Classics) (Kindle Locations 568-570). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Introduction
I had a strange encounter on Twitter with racists who argued that their racism was in keeping with being Christian, and even Catholic. Their arguments involved a superficial understanding of Scripture and history. It misuses the meaning of the Hebrew חָרַם (hārām) to treat God’s sentence carried out on certain cities because of their abominable practices as if they justified racial separation and keeping undesirable races (like Middle Eastern refugees) out of their lands. These people seemed ignorant of the actions of the Church to reach out to people of all races and nations to bring them into the faith. Of course this behavior is disgusting. I really get angered when people misrepresent the Catholic faith to justify their odious views, ignoring what the Church says when it goes against them, and citing things out of context to make it seem like they are being faithful when actually they are seeking to sanctify their own preferences.
But then I thought about something. While racism is the obvious example of misusing Church teaching to justify evil, it is by no means the only example. Whenever we try to portray our own sinful activity as justified—either by misrepresenting Scripture or Church teaching, or by trying to set God against Church teaching—we are still doing the same thing. It’s just that we find our own behavior less odious than theirs. The problem is, they also think of their actions as if nothing was wrong with them. Here’s where we behave just as wrongly as the racists, even though our own sins are not as obviously repugnant as that of the White Separatists.
Defining the Issue
At this point, I should make clear this is the other side of what I normally talk about. In some past articles, I have warned against accusing people of sins they have no intention of committing, on the basis of assuming that a disagreement on how to be faithful to the Church meant being unfaithful to the Church. In this case, I am talking about those who disagree with a Church teaching and try to portray their disobedience as being faithful to a higher authority. For example, anti-Francis Catholics try to appeal to earlier writings to argue they are being faithful to the Church and the Pope is not. Other Catholics who don’t like Church teaching on issues like contraception, abortion, homosexuality, or divorce/remarriage try to appeal to selective verses in the Bible, arguing that they must dissent from the Church to be faithful to Him.
Obedience and Authority
For a Catholic to take those positions shows ignorance of what we believe the Church is and what her relationship to God is, or refusal to accept that belief. Because we believe Jesus is God, we cannot try to divide Jesus from God in the Old Testament. God is God eternally, and God does not change, which means God is Trinity eternally. So God does not change His mind on what is good and what is evil. We need to recognize that God designed His laws for a purpose. We need to understand the differences between the moral law, dietary law, and cultic law. We also need to understand the concept of Divine Accommodation: God choosing one group of people (the Israelites) gradually moving them away from the barbarism of their neighbors towards holiness in preparation of the salvation of the world through God the Son, Jesus Christ.
We also need to realize that what we know of Hell was taught by Jesus. Yes, God does desire all men to be saved. But He also created man with free will, and with that free will, man could choose to reject God and choose evil. Jesus constantly warned His disciples that it was not just agreeing with God, but doing His will, that was required of us. Jesus’ death and resurrection was what made our salvation possible. However, Catholics also believe Jesus established His Church under Peter and his successors. We believe Jesus gave that Church the authority to bind and loose. We believe that rejecting His Church is rejecting Him (Luke 10:16). We believe that Jesus is with His Church always (Matthew 28:20).
This means we can’t set Jesus against His Church, or the earlier magisterium against the magisterium today. We believe that God protects His Church from teaching error. When she teaches X is wrong, it is because X is wrong. However, some confuse the teaching of the Church with the behavior of the individual members in the Church, or confuse teachings and disciplines of the Church with the governance of the Papal States. It does no good to point to a tenth century Pope behaving badly when the issue is what the Pope teaches as binding on the faithful. We don’t believe that whatever the Pope happens to do is sanctified simply because the Pope did it. However, when the Pope condemns something as being contrary to the faith, we do need to give assent.
Disobedience and Dissent
Once we grasp that (and if we don’t grasp that, we will make all sorts of errors), we need to realize that when we reject what God teaches, or what the Church teaches with God’s authority, we are rejecting God. That is sin. The Church can decide in different times what is needed to defend the faith. She can speak strictly or gently as needed. When she decides on one way for approaching sinners in a certain era, she is not blocked from taking the opposite tack later if it is needed. We can’t decide for ourselves what the Church should do. We can’t decide for ourselves how important or unimportant a sin is.
So, if we choose to selectively cite Scripture or Church teaching to justify our disobedience, we are still rejecting the Church, and as Our Lord said, that means we are rejecting Him. While some humans may be deceived by this dishonest application, God is not deceived. The worse behavior of some does not mean our own dissent is ok in God’s eyes. We will still have to answer for our own actions, regardless of how much worse others act.
This is true regardless of whether one is a racist, an abortionist, a radical traditionalist, or a “Spirit of Vatican II” Catholic.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Friday, February 20, 2015
Friday, December 5, 2014
Friday, August 22, 2014
Fallacious Thinking on Religious Indifferentism
I came across a claim on a gaming forum this morning. Basically the context is the poster was making a statement that there are no absolute values, and that all religious values are equally valid or invalid. This claim said there were no more or less value to the "myths" of traditional religion than there were to his/her own. Ordinarily, I would write it off as a fallacy not worth bothering with, but the truth is, many people do think this way.
The basic view of indifferentism that is expressed today is given in two views:
- So long as you're trying to do good, what you believe doesn't matter.
- There's no more proof for the belief in God than for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Both of these views start with the same fallacy: Begging the Question, which assumes to be proved true that which actually needs to be proven. So if a person wants to claim that Christianity is no more or no less valid than Pastafarianism or other belief, that's not something that is already proved. That's something that needs to be proven before they can move on to making their conclusion.
See, a person who thinks that all religions are manmade constructs or a person who thinks that all religions that make you feel good are good enough doesn't answer the question of how they know their belief. How does the person who thinks all religions are a construct of human beings know that none of them have any supernatural basis? They don't. They are making an assumption that no religion can have a supernatural basis.
Likewise, the person who thinks it doesn't matter what religion a person holds as long as the religion makes a person happy. If God exists, then if He establishes a way to follow Him, then it matters very much whether or not one follows that way.
Unfortunately many people make a decision on the universal validity or invalidity of religion based on their perception of what suits their worldview. The atheist presupposes that no religion can be true. The religiously indifferent presupposes that religion is nothing more than "being nice to each other." What is not asked is: What if my presupposition isn't true?
A few months ago I wrote on Pascal's Wager. I think it makes sense that people of good will consider the consequences of backing the wrong horse when it comes to seeking to follow the truth. If atheism is irrelevant if true and dangerous if false, then it makes a lot more sense to investigate the claims of religion to see if they are true then it does to investigate the claims of atheism.
The person of good will can't just stop in thinking "this is close enough." The search for truth is ongoing . . . eliminating false ideas, going deeper into true ones and trying to live by the truth. The person who holds to a worldview should consider why he or she holds that worldview . . . even the Christian. If God exists, and is not some indifferent architect, then what one does in relation to Him does matter.
That's why we can't presume that God does not exist or is indifferent and we can stop searching for the truth.
Fallacious Thinking on Religious Indifferentism
I came across a claim on a gaming forum this morning. Basically the context is the poster was making a statement that there are no absolute values, and that all religious values are equally valid or invalid. This claim said there were no more or less value to the "myths" of traditional religion than there were to his/her own. Ordinarily, I would write it off as a fallacy not worth bothering with, but the truth is, many people do think this way.
The basic view of indifferentism that is expressed today is given in two views:
- So long as you're trying to do good, what you believe doesn't matter.
- There's no more proof for the belief in God than for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Both of these views start with the same fallacy: Begging the Question, which assumes to be proved true that which actually needs to be proven. So if a person wants to claim that Christianity is no more or no less valid than Pastafarianism or other belief, that's not something that is already proved. That's something that needs to be proven before they can move on to making their conclusion.
See, a person who thinks that all religions are manmade constructs or a person who thinks that all religions that make you feel good are good enough doesn't answer the question of how they know their belief. How does the person who thinks all religions are a construct of human beings know that none of them have any supernatural basis? They don't. They are making an assumption that no religion can have a supernatural basis.
Likewise, the person who thinks it doesn't matter what religion a person holds as long as the religion makes a person happy. If God exists, then if He establishes a way to follow Him, then it matters very much whether or not one follows that way.
Unfortunately many people make a decision on the universal validity or invalidity of religion based on their perception of what suits their worldview. The atheist presupposes that no religion can be true. The religiously indifferent presupposes that religion is nothing more than "being nice to each other." What is not asked is: What if my presupposition isn't true?
A few months ago I wrote on Pascal's Wager. I think it makes sense that people of good will consider the consequences of backing the wrong horse when it comes to seeking to follow the truth. If atheism is irrelevant if true and dangerous if false, then it makes a lot more sense to investigate the claims of religion to see if they are true then it does to investigate the claims of atheism.
The person of good will can't just stop in thinking "this is close enough." The search for truth is ongoing . . . eliminating false ideas, going deeper into true ones and trying to live by the truth. The person who holds to a worldview should consider why he or she holds that worldview . . . even the Christian. If God exists, and is not some indifferent architect, then what one does in relation to Him does matter.
That's why we can't presume that God does not exist or is indifferent and we can stop searching for the truth.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Sunday, December 29, 2013
True For You But Not Me?
A relative shared a link on Facebook. The article itself wasn't too important, but it had a quote in it that got me thinking. The quote was:
All of us have a terrible tendency toward unwarranted certainty -- certain we are right, certain others are wrong, certain that if our ideas were only adopted all would be sweetness and light to the end of time.
When we find the truth, we often decide that what really matters is that everybody else honor the truth that we have discovered. And when we discover that others don't honor our truths -- that they have truths of their own -- we turn against them in confusion and even horror.
Now, in fairness to the author, he was trying to emphasize the Pope's speaking on the need for love in truth -- very true. But the problem with this quote is it shows a fundamental misunderstanding on what truth is.
Aristotle once defined truth as "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.”
This is too often forgotten. To say "that's true for you," is oxymoronic (and as philosopher Peter Kreeft once mischievously put it, "it's also moronic"). Speaking the truth is to speak in a way that accurately corresponds with reality.
Now truth can be objective (always true regardless of whoever perceives it) or subjective (true for someone who experiences certain conditions but not for someone who not for those who don't experience those conditions).
An example of objective truth is the definition of a triangle. A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles totalling 180°. If you don't have that, you don't have a triangle. If it has 4 sides or if the angles total 190° it is not true to call it a triangle. This is the case regardless of perception or experience.
An example of subjective truth is for a person to say, "my foot hurts." It's true because that person dropped a cinder block on it. It wouldn't be true for a person who did not drop a heavy object on it or a person with neuropathy.
Once you recognize this, the quote from the article becomes problematic. People may believe different things about how reality works, but if a person believes something contrary to reality, his or her belief is not true.
For example, either some form of divinity exists or does not. If there is no form of divinity, then atheists are right and others are wrong. However, if some form of divinity exists, atheists are wrong and the question becomes, in what way does divinity exist.
There are many legitimate either-or questions that must exclude other concepts. Pantheism vs. Monotheism for example. But the point is, the reality is objective truth regardless of what people think. If the reality is that God exists, is triune and the second part of the Trinity established His Church on Peter and his successors (Catholicism) then those who believe otherwise believe falsely -- whether sincerely or insincerely.
Thus the article only partially undetstands Pope Francis. In context, the Pope said:
Here we begin to see how love requires truth. Only to the extent that love is grounded in truth can it endure over time, can it transcend the passing moment and be sufficiently solid to sustain a shared journey. If love is not tied to truth, it falls prey to fickle emotions and cannot stand the test of time. True love, on the other hand, unifies all the elements of our person and becomes a new light pointing the way to a great and fulfilled life. Without truth, love is incapable of establishing a firm bond; it cannot liberate our isolated ego or redeem it from the fleeting moment in order to create life and bear fruit.
If love needs truth, truth also needs love. Love and truth are inseparable. Without love, truth becomes cold, impersonal and oppressive for people’s day-to-day lives. The truth we seek, the truth that gives meaning to our journey through life, enlightens us whenever we are touched by love. One who loves realizes that love is an experience of truth, that it opens our eyes to see reality in a new way, in union with the beloved. In this sense, Saint Gregory the Great could write that "amor ipse notitia est", love is itself a kind of knowledge possessed of its own logic.[20] It is a relational way of viewing the world, which then becomes a form of shared knowledge, vision through the eyes of another and a shared vision of all that exists. William of Saint-Thierry, in the Middle Ages, follows this tradition when he comments on the verse of the Song of Songs where the lover says to the beloved, "Your eyes are doves" (Song 1:15).[21] The two eyes, says William, are faith-filled reason and love, which then become one in rising to the contemplation of God, when our understanding becomes "an understanding of enlightened love". (Lumen Fidei #27)
It's because people fail to grasp that both are needed that we run into error... either a merciless truth or a love that lacks the strength to say "this is wrong. "
True For You But Not Me?
A relative shared a link on Facebook. The article itself wasn't too important, but it had a quote in it that got me thinking. The quote was:
All of us have a terrible tendency toward unwarranted certainty -- certain we are right, certain others are wrong, certain that if our ideas were only adopted all would be sweetness and light to the end of time.
When we find the truth, we often decide that what really matters is that everybody else honor the truth that we have discovered. And when we discover that others don't honor our truths -- that they have truths of their own -- we turn against them in confusion and even horror.
Now, in fairness to the author, he was trying to emphasize the Pope's speaking on the need for love in truth -- very true. But the problem with this quote is it shows a fundamental misunderstanding on what truth is.
Aristotle once defined truth as "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.”
This is too often forgotten. To say "that's true for you," is oxymoronic (and as philosopher Peter Kreeft once mischievously put it, "it's also moronic"). Speaking the truth is to speak in a way that accurately corresponds with reality.
Now truth can be objective (always true regardless of whoever perceives it) or subjective (true for someone who experiences certain conditions but not for someone who not for those who don't experience those conditions).
An example of objective truth is the definition of a triangle. A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles totalling 180°. If you don't have that, you don't have a triangle. If it has 4 sides or if the angles total 190° it is not true to call it a triangle. This is the case regardless of perception or experience.
An example of subjective truth is for a person to say, "my foot hurts." It's true because that person dropped a cinder block on it. It wouldn't be true for a person who did not drop a heavy object on it or a person with neuropathy.
Once you recognize this, the quote from the article becomes problematic. People may believe different things about how reality works, but if a person believes something contrary to reality, his or her belief is not true.
For example, either some form of divinity exists or does not. If there is no form of divinity, then atheists are right and others are wrong. However, if some form of divinity exists, atheists are wrong and the question becomes, in what way does divinity exist.
There are many legitimate either-or questions that must exclude other concepts. Pantheism vs. Monotheism for example. But the point is, the reality is objective truth regardless of what people think. If the reality is that God exists, is triune and the second part of the Trinity established His Church on Peter and his successors (Catholicism) then those who believe otherwise believe falsely -- whether sincerely or insincerely.
Thus the article only partially undetstands Pope Francis. In context, the Pope said:
Here we begin to see how love requires truth. Only to the extent that love is grounded in truth can it endure over time, can it transcend the passing moment and be sufficiently solid to sustain a shared journey. If love is not tied to truth, it falls prey to fickle emotions and cannot stand the test of time. True love, on the other hand, unifies all the elements of our person and becomes a new light pointing the way to a great and fulfilled life. Without truth, love is incapable of establishing a firm bond; it cannot liberate our isolated ego or redeem it from the fleeting moment in order to create life and bear fruit.
If love needs truth, truth also needs love. Love and truth are inseparable. Without love, truth becomes cold, impersonal and oppressive for people’s day-to-day lives. The truth we seek, the truth that gives meaning to our journey through life, enlightens us whenever we are touched by love. One who loves realizes that love is an experience of truth, that it opens our eyes to see reality in a new way, in union with the beloved. In this sense, Saint Gregory the Great could write that "amor ipse notitia est", love is itself a kind of knowledge possessed of its own logic.[20] It is a relational way of viewing the world, which then becomes a form of shared knowledge, vision through the eyes of another and a shared vision of all that exists. William of Saint-Thierry, in the Middle Ages, follows this tradition when he comments on the verse of the Song of Songs where the lover says to the beloved, "Your eyes are doves" (Song 1:15).[21] The two eyes, says William, are faith-filled reason and love, which then become one in rising to the contemplation of God, when our understanding becomes "an understanding of enlightened love". (Lumen Fidei #27)
It's because people fail to grasp that both are needed that we run into error... either a merciless truth or a love that lacks the strength to say "this is wrong. "
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Thought for the Day: Inconsistent and Illogical Denial of Absolutes
Ever notice how some people claim there are no moral absolutes, but reject a claim that some things (like racism, genocide, rape or murder) can ever be justified? The problem is these two positions are absolutely contradictory. To say that there are no moral absolutes is to say that nothing is wrong all the time. But to say that some things are always wrong means there is something about an action itself which makes it wrong regardless of the circumstances.
If we can know it is always wrong, it means we can look at understanding what it is about the act that makes it wrong and apply it to understand moral standards on our obligations to other persons.
That means those activists who stand up for a cause against injustice, yet deny morality when it comes to their own behavior are behaving inconsistently. After all, they are insisting others follow absolutes while they will not follow absolutes in their own lives.
To put it in a syllogism:
- If [no Moral absolutes exist], then [everything is permissible]. (if A then B)
- Not [everything is permissible] (Not B)
- Therefore not [no moral absolutes exist]. (Therefore Not A)
Since "not [no moral absolutes exist]" is another way of saying that moral values DO exist (the negative is required to keep the syllogism consistent) we have a syllogism where the premises are true and the argument is valid. It means the statement "moral absolutes exist" is proven to be true.
Christianity, in particular Catholicism, offers explanations on why the moral obligations must be drawn where they are. If a person should happen to reject these explanations, they are obligated to offer their own explanation as to why the line should be drawn differently.
But because they can neither create the justification for a different dividing line, nor refute the Christian arguments of morality, the usual result is to just go ahead with the illogical claim that there are no moral absolutes.
Thought for the Day: Inconsistent and Illogical Denial of Absolutes
Ever notice how some people claim there are no moral absolutes, but reject a claim that some things (like racism, genocide, rape or murder) can ever be justified? The problem is these two positions are absolutely contradictory. To say that there are no moral absolutes is to say that nothing is wrong all the time. But to say that some things are always wrong means there is something about an action itself which makes it wrong regardless of the circumstances.
If we can know it is always wrong, it means we can look at understanding what it is about the act that makes it wrong and apply it to understand moral standards on our obligations to other persons.
That means those activists who stand up for a cause against injustice, yet deny morality when it comes to their own behavior are behaving inconsistently. After all, they are insisting others follow absolutes while they will not follow absolutes in their own lives.
To put it in a syllogism:
- If [no Moral absolutes exist], then [everything is permissible]. (if A then B)
- Not [everything is permissible] (Not B)
- Therefore not [no moral absolutes exist]. (Therefore Not A)
Since "not [no moral absolutes exist]" is another way of saying that moral values DO exist (the negative is required to keep the syllogism consistent) we have a syllogism where the premises are true and the argument is valid. It means the statement "moral absolutes exist" is proven to be true.
Christianity, in particular Catholicism, offers explanations on why the moral obligations must be drawn where they are. If a person should happen to reject these explanations, they are obligated to offer their own explanation as to why the line should be drawn differently.
But because they can neither create the justification for a different dividing line, nor refute the Christian arguments of morality, the usual result is to just go ahead with the illogical claim that there are no moral absolutes.
Monday, December 31, 2012
The Hypocrisy of Modern Moral Relativism
There's an old saying. What's mine is mine. What's yours is up for grabs. The person who coined it was obviously a cynic, but the saying does capture the hypocrisy of the modern moral relativism. Put basically, champions so-called "tolerance" demand that their views be accepted that even if a person disapproves of a view, he or she should respect the right of the individual to live in accordance with that view without being judged for it.
BUT, this champion of "tolerance" will not practice what he or she preaches. This person will not accept the right of the individual who believes in Christian morality to live in accordance with that view. On the contrary, he or she will quite harshly judge and condemn these views, trying to suppress them.
In other words, this so-called champion of "tolerance" is not tolerant at all. Rather, he or she is trying to force through changes in morality while arguing that those following traditional Christian morality are forcing their views on others.
Since the modern moral relativist is arguing tolerance as a virtue. He or she is obligated to live according to that virtue if this person is to avoid the charge of hypocrisy. If, as they argue, people with unpopular stances should be permitted to hold these views and that we should all treat these views as equally acceptable; then it follows that they should practice what they preach, by tolerating the holders of traditional Christian morality when they are now unpopular with the political and media elites in this country.
Moreover, if they have a right to speak openly about what they disagree with on other views and expect to be treated civilly in doing so, then it is quite reasonable for those who hold conflicting views should also be treated with respect when they are open with what they disagree with.
But this is what they do not do. Instead of tolerating the traditional Christians who speak out to defend their views, instead of treating them with respect when it comes to disputes on what is right, what we see is savage attacks and insults. We see demonization of opponents.
Thus we see the proponents of modern moral relativism do not practice the tolerance they demand their opponents follow.
What becomes apparent from this fact is that the issue is not an issue of fairness at all. It is an issue of trying to forcibly changing morality through intimidation and coercion, refusing to tolerate their opponents seeking to defend their views, and then blaming their opponents for the tactics they themselves are using (such as "forcing beliefs on others").
Since the definition of hypocrisy is, "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more laudable beliefs than is the case," and the practitioner of modern relativism claims the standards of "tolerance" while refusing to grant any to views they oppose, it stands to reason that such a person is a hypocrite.
To avoid the charge of hypocrisy, such persons must immediately cease their slanderous attacks on the traditional Christian values and start… tolerating them. They must recognize that they must give the same free and open practice of Christianity in the public square that they insist be given to their own beloved causes.
The Hypocrisy of Modern Moral Relativism
There's an old saying. What's mine is mine. What's yours is up for grabs. The person who coined it was obviously a cynic, but the saying does capture the hypocrisy of the modern moral relativism. Put basically, champions so-called "tolerance" demand that their views be accepted that even if a person disapproves of a view, he or she should respect the right of the individual to live in accordance with that view without being judged for it.
BUT, this champion of "tolerance" will not practice what he or she preaches. This person will not accept the right of the individual who believes in Christian morality to live in accordance with that view. On the contrary, he or she will quite harshly judge and condemn these views, trying to suppress them.
In other words, this so-called champion of "tolerance" is not tolerant at all. Rather, he or she is trying to force through changes in morality while arguing that those following traditional Christian morality are forcing their views on others.
Since the modern moral relativist is arguing tolerance as a virtue. He or she is obligated to live according to that virtue if this person is to avoid the charge of hypocrisy. If, as they argue, people with unpopular stances should be permitted to hold these views and that we should all treat these views as equally acceptable; then it follows that they should practice what they preach, by tolerating the holders of traditional Christian morality when they are now unpopular with the political and media elites in this country.
Moreover, if they have a right to speak openly about what they disagree with on other views and expect to be treated civilly in doing so, then it is quite reasonable for those who hold conflicting views should also be treated with respect when they are open with what they disagree with.
But this is what they do not do. Instead of tolerating the traditional Christians who speak out to defend their views, instead of treating them with respect when it comes to disputes on what is right, what we see is savage attacks and insults. We see demonization of opponents.
Thus we see the proponents of modern moral relativism do not practice the tolerance they demand their opponents follow.
What becomes apparent from this fact is that the issue is not an issue of fairness at all. It is an issue of trying to forcibly changing morality through intimidation and coercion, refusing to tolerate their opponents seeking to defend their views, and then blaming their opponents for the tactics they themselves are using (such as "forcing beliefs on others").
Since the definition of hypocrisy is, "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more laudable beliefs than is the case," and the practitioner of modern relativism claims the standards of "tolerance" while refusing to grant any to views they oppose, it stands to reason that such a person is a hypocrite.
To avoid the charge of hypocrisy, such persons must immediately cease their slanderous attacks on the traditional Christian values and start… tolerating them. They must recognize that they must give the same free and open practice of Christianity in the public square that they insist be given to their own beloved causes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)