All Truth Is Relative?


All Truth Is Relative

It sounds like a thoroughly contemporary quote by a postmodern philosopher with his feet planted firmly in mid-air. Though this idea of relativism is currently in vogue, it is not a particularly novel way of thinking. In fact, it is a very old, crude, and predictable way for humans to live.

The idea of all truth being relative is at least as old as Protagoras, the man first credited with making the claim. The claim itself is self-defeating. If all truth is relative (and thus subject to being accepted or rejected by any individual at any given time), then even the claim that all truth is relative must be a relative claim. In other words, not even the proposition “All truth is relative” endures over time because that truth would have to be a relative truth.

Protagoras lived between 490-420 BC. He taught an early form of phenomenalism, in which “man is the measure of all things.” Basically, Protagoras believed that each person had to seek to answer his own questions about truth and, although some would arrive at better conclusions than others, still, at the end of it all no one’s decision would prove to be ultimately true or false. Decisions could only prove to be true for that individual at that time. Each person does what he thinks best in the moment of action.

As a result of Protagoras’s philosophy, the Sophists (who followed his thinking) came to a way of living that was little different from that of an animal. Indeed, after the Sophists, the Cynics came along and literally were referred to as dogs. Atisthenes was the “Downright Dog” leader and Diogenes was his “Royal Dog” associate.  Relativism led human beings to become animals of instinct and impulse. Each individual sniffing his way along life’s trail with no ultimate hope for anything true or anything eternal was the end result of ancient relativism. Basically, the ideal life was one in which each person followed his own lusts until he died.

Whether old or new, it seems to me that relativism offers little more than a bleak outlook on life. It is more akin to animal life than it is to human flourishing. The ancients over time learned a better way and moved toward a virtuous life which at least had meaning to it. May the Lord bless us with clear and sober minds to learn better the truth, the life, and the way.

If You Don’t Judge Others, You Are Dumb

No Scripture is quoted more often than the proverbial, “judge not” passage of Matthew 7:1. Whatever its iteration, this statement appears welcome in every college classroom and any political conversation. It’s probably the only Bible verse with universal appeal. The sayings, “We mustn’t judge” or “I try not to judge others,” are threatening to overtake the frequency of expressions like “How are you?” on the list popular parlance.

At the risk of being a fish out of water, I baldly proclaim, “Refusing to judge others is the height of stupidity and a Judge Not But Judgevacuous absence of love.” There, I said it. The rest of my time will be an attempt to persuade my good readers to avoid this stupidity and, of course, be more encouraged to love.

It is a stupid thought to say that you mustn’t judge others.  If you fail to judge rightly between those who tell the truth and those who tell lies, you will end up believing lies and living an illusion. You will be a Yo-Yo for every fool who cries “Wolf!”  You will also be very poor, as you will believe every TV ad which commands you to act now on an offer you cannot refuse.  Failing to judge the veracity of others’ speech is simply stupid. You must judge others.

Typically, the judgment in question relates only to moral judgments. So, when people say “Don’t judge,” they mean don’t judge the morality of others—particularly their sexual morals. More often than not, quoting the verse “Judge not” refers to not telling others that their sexual preferences are wrong.  This refusal to judge is—in my humble opinion—vacuously unloving.  Here is what I mean.

Knowing what is known now about Jerry Sandusky (the former football coach at Penn State who has been convicted of serial child molestation) and Kevin Clash (the creator and voice of Elmo on Sesame Street), a parent would be criminally negligent to allow his son to be alone with either of these men. While Kevin Clash has not yet been convicted of any crime, he has been credibly accused by at least two men of having sex with boys under the age of 18.  Clash has not yet denied the charges. He only says that he is working to resolve his “personal matters privately.”

Sexual sins (as we learned in the case of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky) are supposed to be private matters and should not be any of the public’s business.  So, Clash is hoping to resolve his “private” sexual matters privately.  Any parent who buys that claptrap is foolishly unloving toward his child. Would you send your son off for a visit with someone about whom there is credible evidence of sexual exploitation? Sex is no longer a private matter when it threatens your son or daughter.

Lady Justice Judge othersWhile it is true that we must not judge Kevin Clash guilty of all the crimes he is being charged with until after a trial has brought forth all the evidence, it is also true that some measure of judgment is required already when it comes to protecting children. Clash himself understands this and, so, has resigned for now from Sesame Street.  Unfortunately, Sesame Street’s on statement is (again in my opinion) culpably weak, stating only that this is “a sad day for them.”  A sad day for them?  What about concern for the safety of children who may be targeted for sexual exploitation?

If you have any intelligence whatsoever, you will in fact judge the statements and actions of others. If you have any love in your heart for your children, you absolutely must make judgments about the sexual practices of your neighbors and about whether or not you want your children to spend time with them.  Matthew 7:1—like the rest of Scripture—speaks about how to judge rightly (from God’s perspective) rather than persisting in judging wrongly (from a self-righteous perspective). Maybe we would be helped by quoting John 7:24 more often: “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

What Are Savior Siblings? 3 Concerns We Must Address

(The following blog first appeared under the title Savior Siblings and Septic Sons.) 

“Unto Us, a Savior Is Born in France,” such is the triumphant tone of the science headlinesfrom across the pond in Savior Siblings WrongFrance, where the latest “savior sibling” has arrived.  He is a healthy baby boy, weighing in at just over 8 lbs.

The first “savior sibling” was born in the U.S. back in 2000.  His name is Adam Nash.  Blood from his umbilical cord was used to save his sister’s life and caused no physical harm to him. Success!

Nevertheless, the concept of a “savior sibling” should trouble us in at least 3 significant ways:

(1) It devalues all human life by making one human being the instrument by which another human being prospers. Just as slavery devalued all human life by acting as though some people were not “really persons,” so, too, savior siblings have the same effect of saying that one person’s life is valued only insofar as it serves someone else, someone prior, someone superior.

(2) It leads to a kind of enslavement.  Consider, for example, the movie My Sister’s Keeper.  In that film, the savior sibling was expected to donate a kidney for her dying sister because this is what a savior sibling does.  Such scenarios are not potentialities; they are necessities of this way of thinking about human beings. The concept of kidney donation is lost to the concept of coercion.  Coercion is not donation.

(3) It makes gods out of scientists—and that is never a good thing.  Through IVF, scientists screen and discard many embryos, getting down to the genetically perfect match for the ailing sibling.  Already, human entities have been discarded, and this new savior child has been designed for the purpose of serving as a farm-like feeding trough of anatomical parts for parents to use in saving their favored child.


Anytime any form of human life becomes “less than human” or “not worthy of life” (as the Nazis would say), then door is opened to killing for a “higher” cause, thus fulfilling Romans 3: “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery.”  The concept of savior siblings is built upon the notion that someone has a right to design and utilize the birth of a human being for the purpose of enhancing the life of another human being.  This is wrong because it devalues one human being in the face of another, defying the reality that each one of us (male and female) is created in the image of God.

We have become a people who are comfortable with such concepts as savior siblings because we, already, believe that mothers (even teen mothers) have the right to decide whether their children should live or die.  If a mother has the right to determine whether her baby lives or dies, then why would she not have the right to determine whether the baby donates cord blood or even a kidney?  The logic is inescapable.

Savior Siblings Related to AbortionBecause of abortion, we have become quite dull in discerning the value of a human life.  Consequently, we find that some women are comfortable with having abortions, while others are ok with flushing their babies down the toilet (or at least trying to).  How do we get to a place in which a woman thinks it is all right to flush her son into a cesspool to die?  By devaluing human life in the womb.  If she could have killed the baby while it was in the womb, then why should she not be able to kill the baby once it comes out?  Again, the logic is sadly unavoidable.

I don’t think we should be bit surprised that parents with the help of doctors and scientists are designing babies to serve the needs of their unhealthy offspring. Parents want healthy children.  And science wants something new–anything new.  Upholding the value of human life has actually never been the strength of a godless science.

The 19th Century seeded the scientific psyche with the eugenics that was quickly employed in Nazi Germany (more slowly in the U.S. through Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood).  The 20th Century saw the Tuskegee

Kevorkian Dr. Death Savior Siblings

Dr. Death

experiments, the perverted Kinsey “science” of sexuality, and the celebration of “Dr. Death.” These examples make clear that Science alone cannot uphold the value of human life because science is, primarily, nothing more than a method of inquiry designed to increase knowledge.

Science is a quest for knowledge; it needs to have philosophy to determine the boundaries of where its inquiries might take place.  With a Judeo-Christian philosophy as its guide, science is able to progress in a positive direction which heals.  Without such a philosophy, science doesn’t care if it kills.

We cannot trust science alone to advance humanity.  The task is too great.  Humanity is a subject to be defined by philosophy and theology.  We must be awakened from our darkened stupor concerning science and its limits or we will see further horrors in the days to come.  It really is bad enough that we have savior siblings and cesspool sons. These are not oddities. These are explainable phenomenon based on our devaluing of human life in the womb.  As long as we are comfortable embracing abortion, we will see more sickening displays of our disregard for humanity.

That, at least, is my opinion. You are free to share yours. What are your thoughts on Savior Siblings? Were you aware of them? Do you agree that they represent a further devaluing of human life?

Dasani Immorality

You won’t believe this, but it is true.  You can read this article for yourself from the London Telegraph.  Drinking bottled water is immoral.  Bottled water is immoral because it has the same destructive impact on the environment as driving a car for a mile or so.

More astonishing than this lunacy is the audacity of the government official who argues that we must band together to stygmatize Dasani, Aquafina, and Perrier.  He has in mind a moral rally similar to the one the government enacted against smoking.

The real scare here is that morality is defined by the government and popular opinion.  No doubt, these government do-gooders are glad to have left behind the archaic Christian puritanism of days gone by, but they are all too happy to impose a much more restrictive and arbitrary morality of their own making.  Instead of stygmatizing homosexuality and adultery (those now being fashionable) these gov-do-gooders are ready to stygmatize–if not criminalize–Dasani.  I think I’d rather have an infinite God of wisdom and love and justice define morality than a moronic mass of government gurus.